All Content

Convalescent plasma may not prevent progression to severe disease or reduce mortality risk in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19, based on a phase 2 trial involving more than 400 patients in India.

The PLACID trial offers real-world data with “high generalizability,” according to lead author Anup Agarwal, MD, of the Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“Evidence suggests that convalescent plasma collected from survivors of COVID-19 contains receptor binding domain specific antibodies with potent antiviral activity,” the investigators wrote in the BMJ. “However, effective titers of antiviral neutralizing antibodies, optimal timing for convalescent plasma treatment, optimal timing for plasma donation, and the severity class of patients who are likely to benefit from convalescent plasma remain unclear.”

According to Dr. Agarwal and colleagues, case series and observational studies have suggested that convalescent plasma may reduce viral load, hospital stay, and mortality, but randomized controlled trials to date have ended prematurely because of issues with enrollment and design, making PLACID the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to reach completion.

The open-label, multicenter study involved 464 hospitalized adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Enrollment also required a respiratory rate of more than 24 breaths/min with an oxygen saturation (SpO₂) of 93% or less on room air, or a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂ /FiO₂ ) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either best standard of care (control), or best standard of care plus convalescent plasma, which was given in two doses of 200 mL, 24 hours apart. Patients were assessed via clinical examination, chest imaging, and serial laboratory testing, the latter of which included neutralizing antibody titers on days 0, 3, and 7.

The primary outcome was a 28-day composite of progression to severe disease (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio < 100 mm Hg) and all-cause mortality. An array of secondary outcomes were also reported, including symptom resolution, total duration of respiratory support, change in oxygen requirement, and others.

In the convalescent plasma group, 19% of patients progressed to severe disease or died within 28 days, compared with 18% of those in the control group (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.54), suggesting no statistically significant benefit from the intervention. This lack of benefit was also found in a subgroup analysis of patients with detectable titers of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, and when progression to severe disease and all-cause mortality were analyzed independently across all patients.

Still, at day 7, patients treated with convalescent plasma were significantly more likely to have resolution of fatigue (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42) and shortness of breath (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32). And at the same time point, patients treated with convalescent plasma were 20% more likely to test negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.04-1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth B. Pathak, PhD, of the Women’s Institute for Independent Social Enquiry, Olney, Md., suggested that the reported symptom improvements need to be viewed with skepticism.

“These results should be interpreted with caution, because the trial was not blinded, so knowledge of treatment status could have influenced the reporting of subjective symptoms by patients who survived to day 7,” Dr. Pathak wrote.

Dr. Pathak noted that convalescent plasma did appear to have an antiviral effect, based on the higher rate of negative RNA test results at day 7. She hypothesized that the lack of major corresponding clinical benefit could be explained by detrimental thrombotic processes.

“The net effect of plasma is prothrombotic,” Dr. Pathak wrote, which should raise safety concerns, since “COVID-19 is a life-threatening thrombotic disorder.”

According to Dr. Pathak, large-scale datasets may be giving a false sense of security. She cited a recent safety analysis of 20,000 U.S. patients who received convalescent plasma, in which the investigators excluded 88.2% of cardiac events and 66.3% of thrombotic events, as these were deemed unrelated to transfusion; but this decision was made by the treating physician, without independent review or a defined protocol.

Michael J. Joyner, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., was the lead author of the above safety study, and is leading the Food and Drug Administration expanded access program for convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19. He suggested that the study by Dr. Agarwal and colleagues was admirable, but flaws in the treatment protocol cast doubt upon the efficacy findings.

“It is very impressive that these investigators performed a large trial of convalescent plasma in the midst of a pandemic,” Dr. Joyner said. “Unfortunately it is unclear how generalizable the findings are because many of the units of plasma had either very low or no antibody titers and because the plasma was given late in the course of the disease. It has been known since at least the 1930s that antibody therapy works best when enough product is given either prophylactically or early in the course of disease.”

Dr. Joyner had a more positive interpretation of the reported symptom improvements.

“It is also interesting to note that while there was no mortality benefit, that – even with the limitations of the study – there was some evidence of improved patient physiology at 7 days,” he said. “So, at one level, [this is] a negative study, but at least [there are] some hints of efficacy given the suboptimal use case in the patients studied.”

The study was funded by the Indian Council of Medical Research, which employs several of the authors and PLACID Trial Collaborators. Dr. Pathak and Dr. Joyner reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Agarwal A et al. BMJ. 2020 Oct 23. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3939 .

Convalescent plasma may not prevent progression to severe disease or reduce mortality risk in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19, based on a phase 2 trial involving more than 400 patients in India.

The PLACID trial offers real-world data with “high generalizability,” according to lead author Anup Agarwal, MD, of the Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“Evidence suggests that convalescent plasma collected from survivors of COVID-19 contains receptor binding domain specific antibodies with potent antiviral activity,” the investigators wrote in the BMJ. “However, effective titers of antiviral neutralizing antibodies, optimal timing for convalescent plasma treatment, optimal timing for plasma donation, and the severity class of patients who are likely to benefit from convalescent plasma remain unclear.”

According to Dr. Agarwal and colleagues, case series and observational studies have suggested that convalescent plasma may reduce viral load, hospital stay, and mortality, but randomized controlled trials to date have ended prematurely because of issues with enrollment and design, making PLACID the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to reach completion.

The open-label, multicenter study involved 464 hospitalized adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Enrollment also required a respiratory rate of more than 24 breaths/min with an oxygen saturation (SpO₂) of 93% or less on room air, or a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂ /FiO₂ ) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either best standard of care (control), or best standard of care plus convalescent plasma, which was given in two doses of 200 mL, 24 hours apart. Patients were assessed via clinical examination, chest imaging, and serial laboratory testing, the latter of which included neutralizing antibody titers on days 0, 3, and 7.

The primary outcome was a 28-day composite of progression to severe disease (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio < 100 mm Hg) and all-cause mortality. An array of secondary outcomes were also reported, including symptom resolution, total duration of respiratory support, change in oxygen requirement, and others.

In the convalescent plasma group, 19% of patients progressed to severe disease or died within 28 days, compared with 18% of those in the control group (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.54), suggesting no statistically significant benefit from the intervention. This lack of benefit was also found in a subgroup analysis of patients with detectable titers of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, and when progression to severe disease and all-cause mortality were analyzed independently across all patients.

Still, at day 7, patients treated with convalescent plasma were significantly more likely to have resolution of fatigue (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42) and shortness of breath (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32). And at the same time point, patients treated with convalescent plasma were 20% more likely to test negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.04-1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth B. Pathak, PhD, of the Women’s Institute for Independent Social Enquiry, Olney, Md., suggested that the reported symptom improvements need to be viewed with skepticism.

“These results should be interpreted with caution, because the trial was not blinded, so knowledge of treatment status could have influenced the reporting of subjective symptoms by patients who survived to day 7,” Dr. Pathak wrote.

Dr. Pathak noted that convalescent plasma did appear to have an antiviral effect, based on the higher rate of negative RNA test results at day 7. She hypothesized that the lack of major corresponding clinical benefit could be explained by detrimental thrombotic processes.

“The net effect of plasma is prothrombotic,” Dr. Pathak wrote, which should raise safety concerns, since “COVID-19 is a life-threatening thrombotic disorder.”

According to Dr. Pathak, large-scale datasets may be giving a false sense of security. She cited a recent safety analysis of 20,000 U.S. patients who received convalescent plasma, in which the investigators excluded 88.2% of cardiac events and 66.3% of thrombotic events, as these were deemed unrelated to transfusion; but this decision was made by the treating physician, without independent review or a defined protocol.

Michael J. Joyner, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., was the lead author of the above safety study, and is leading the Food and Drug Administration expanded access program for convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19. He suggested that the study by Dr. Agarwal and colleagues was admirable, but flaws in the treatment protocol cast doubt upon the efficacy findings.

“It is very impressive that these investigators performed a large trial of convalescent plasma in the midst of a pandemic,” Dr. Joyner said. “Unfortunately it is unclear how generalizable the findings are because many of the units of plasma had either very low or no antibody titers and because the plasma was given late in the course of the disease. It has been known since at least the 1930s that antibody therapy works best when enough product is given either prophylactically or early in the course of disease.”

Dr. Joyner had a more positive interpretation of the reported symptom improvements.

“It is also interesting to note that while there was no mortality benefit, that – even with the limitations of the study – there was some evidence of improved patient physiology at 7 days,” he said. “So, at one level, [this is] a negative study, but at least [there are] some hints of efficacy given the suboptimal use case in the patients studied.”

The study was funded by the Indian Council of Medical Research, which employs several of the authors and PLACID Trial Collaborators. Dr. Pathak and Dr. Joyner reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Agarwal A et al. BMJ. 2020 Oct 23. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3939 .

Convalescent plasma may not prevent progression to severe disease or reduce mortality risk in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19, based on a phase 2 trial involving more than 400 patients in India.

The PLACID trial offers real-world data with “high generalizability,” according to lead author Anup Agarwal, MD, of the Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“Evidence suggests that convalescent plasma collected from survivors of COVID-19 contains receptor binding domain specific antibodies with potent antiviral activity,” the investigators wrote in the BMJ. “However, effective titers of antiviral neutralizing antibodies, optimal timing for convalescent plasma treatment, optimal timing for plasma donation, and the severity class of patients who are likely to benefit from convalescent plasma remain unclear.”

According to Dr. Agarwal and colleagues, case series and observational studies have suggested that convalescent plasma may reduce viral load, hospital stay, and mortality, but randomized controlled trials to date have ended prematurely because of issues with enrollment and design, making PLACID the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to reach completion.

The open-label, multicenter study involved 464 hospitalized adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Enrollment also required a respiratory rate of more than 24 breaths/min with an oxygen saturation (SpO₂) of 93% or less on room air, or a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂ /FiO₂ ) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either best standard of care (control), or best standard of care plus convalescent plasma, which was given in two doses of 200 mL, 24 hours apart. Patients were assessed via clinical examination, chest imaging, and serial laboratory testing, the latter of which included neutralizing antibody titers on days 0, 3, and 7.

The primary outcome was a 28-day composite of progression to severe disease (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio < 100 mm Hg) and all-cause mortality. An array of secondary outcomes were also reported, including symptom resolution, total duration of respiratory support, change in oxygen requirement, and others.

In the convalescent plasma group, 19% of patients progressed to severe disease or died within 28 days, compared with 18% of those in the control group (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.54), suggesting no statistically significant benefit from the intervention. This lack of benefit was also found in a subgroup analysis of patients with detectable titers of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, and when progression to severe disease and all-cause mortality were analyzed independently across all patients.

Still, at day 7, patients treated with convalescent plasma were significantly more likely to have resolution of fatigue (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42) and shortness of breath (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32). And at the same time point, patients treated with convalescent plasma were 20% more likely to test negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.04-1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth B. Pathak, PhD, of the Women’s Institute for Independent Social Enquiry, Olney, Md., suggested that the reported symptom improvements need to be viewed with skepticism.

“These results should be interpreted with caution, because the trial was not blinded, so knowledge of treatment status could have influenced the reporting of subjective symptoms by patients who survived to day 7,” Dr. Pathak wrote.

Dr. Pathak noted that convalescent plasma did appear to have an antiviral effect, based on the higher rate of negative RNA test results at day 7. She hypothesized that the lack of major corresponding clinical benefit could be explained by detrimental thrombotic processes.

“The net effect of plasma is prothrombotic,” Dr. Pathak wrote, which should raise safety concerns, since “COVID-19 is a life-threatening thrombotic disorder.”

According to Dr. Pathak, large-scale datasets may be giving a false sense of security. She cited a recent safety analysis of 20,000 U.S. patients who received convalescent plasma, in which the investigators excluded 88.2% of cardiac events and 66.3% of thrombotic events, as these were deemed unrelated to transfusion; but this decision was made by the treating physician, without independent review or a defined protocol.

Michael J. Joyner, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., was the lead author of the above safety study, and is leading the Food and Drug Administration expanded access program for convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19. He suggested that the study by Dr. Agarwal and colleagues was admirable, but flaws in the treatment protocol cast doubt upon the efficacy findings.

“It is very impressive that these investigators performed a large trial of convalescent plasma in the midst of a pandemic,” Dr. Joyner said. “Unfortunately it is unclear how generalizable the findings are because many of the units of plasma had either very low or no antibody titers and because the plasma was given late in the course of the disease. It has been known since at least the 1930s that antibody therapy works best when enough product is given either prophylactically or early in the course of disease.”

Dr. Joyner had a more positive interpretation of the reported symptom improvements.

“It is also interesting to note that while there was no mortality benefit, that – even with the limitations of the study – there was some evidence of improved patient physiology at 7 days,” he said. “So, at one level, [this is] a negative study, but at least [there are] some hints of efficacy given the suboptimal use case in the patients studied.”

The study was funded by the Indian Council of Medical Research, which employs several of the authors and PLACID Trial Collaborators. Dr. Pathak and Dr. Joyner reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Agarwal A et al. BMJ. 2020 Oct 23. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3939 .

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir (Veklury) Oct. 22 as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients aged 12 and up, making it the first and only approved treatment for COVID-19, according to a release from drug manufacturer Gilead Sciences.

The FDA’s initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the antiviral, issued in May, allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who needed oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

An August EUA expanded treatment to include all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease. The FDA also issued a new EUA for remdesivir Oct. 22 allowing treatment of hospitalized pediatric patients younger than 12 weighing at least 3.5 kg.

Today’s approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, according to Gilead.

Final trial results from one of them, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease–funded ACTT-1 trial, published earlier in October, showed that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir had a shorter median recovery time than those who received a placebo – 10 days versus 15 days.

This difference and some related secondary endpoints were statistically significant in the randomized trial, but there was not a statistically significant difference in mortality between the treatment and placebo groups.

The other two trials used for the approval, the SIMPLE trials, were open-label phase 3 trials conducted in countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 infections, according to Gilead.

The SIMPLE-Severe trial was a randomized, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing plus standard of care in 397 hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 14 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale, according to Gilead.

The trial found that a 5-day or a 10-day treatment course of Veklury achieved similar clinical outcomes to the ACTT-1 trial (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.12).

The SIMPLE-Moderate trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing durations of Veklury plus standard of care, compared with standard of care alone in 600 hospitalized adult patients with moderate COVID-19, Gilead stated in its release.

The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.

The results showed statistically improved clinical outcomes with a 5-day treatment course of Veklury, compared with standard of care (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.0-2.48; P = .017), according to Gilead.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir (Veklury) Oct. 22 as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients aged 12 and up, making it the first and only approved treatment for COVID-19, according to a release from drug manufacturer Gilead Sciences.

The FDA’s initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the antiviral, issued in May, allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who needed oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

An August EUA expanded treatment to include all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease. The FDA also issued a new EUA for remdesivir Oct. 22 allowing treatment of hospitalized pediatric patients younger than 12 weighing at least 3.5 kg.

Today’s approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, according to Gilead.

Final trial results from one of them, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease–funded ACTT-1 trial, published earlier in October, showed that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir had a shorter median recovery time than those who received a placebo – 10 days versus 15 days.

This difference and some related secondary endpoints were statistically significant in the randomized trial, but there was not a statistically significant difference in mortality between the treatment and placebo groups.

The other two trials used for the approval, the SIMPLE trials, were open-label phase 3 trials conducted in countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 infections, according to Gilead.

The SIMPLE-Severe trial was a randomized, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing plus standard of care in 397 hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 14 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale, according to Gilead.

The trial found that a 5-day or a 10-day treatment course of Veklury achieved similar clinical outcomes to the ACTT-1 trial (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.12).

The SIMPLE-Moderate trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing durations of Veklury plus standard of care, compared with standard of care alone in 600 hospitalized adult patients with moderate COVID-19, Gilead stated in its release.

The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.

The results showed statistically improved clinical outcomes with a 5-day treatment course of Veklury, compared with standard of care (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.0-2.48; P = .017), according to Gilead.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir (Veklury) Oct. 22 as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients aged 12 and up, making it the first and only approved treatment for COVID-19, according to a release from drug manufacturer Gilead Sciences.

The FDA’s initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the antiviral, issued in May, allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who needed oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

An August EUA expanded treatment to include all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease. The FDA also issued a new EUA for remdesivir Oct. 22 allowing treatment of hospitalized pediatric patients younger than 12 weighing at least 3.5 kg.

Today’s approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, according to Gilead.

Final trial results from one of them, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease–funded ACTT-1 trial, published earlier in October, showed that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir had a shorter median recovery time than those who received a placebo – 10 days versus 15 days.

This difference and some related secondary endpoints were statistically significant in the randomized trial, but there was not a statistically significant difference in mortality between the treatment and placebo groups.

The other two trials used for the approval, the SIMPLE trials, were open-label phase 3 trials conducted in countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 infections, according to Gilead.

The SIMPLE-Severe trial was a randomized, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing plus standard of care in 397 hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 14 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale, according to Gilead.

The trial found that a 5-day or a 10-day treatment course of Veklury achieved similar clinical outcomes to the ACTT-1 trial (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.12).

The SIMPLE-Moderate trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing durations of Veklury plus standard of care, compared with standard of care alone in 600 hospitalized adult patients with moderate COVID-19, Gilead stated in its release.

The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.

The results showed statistically improved clinical outcomes with a 5-day treatment course of Veklury, compared with standard of care (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.0-2.48; P = .017), according to Gilead.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I. Finding a mentor

Case

You are a 27-year-old first-year resident who is seeking mentorship. You are halfway through the year and are thinking about your goals and future. You have a general interest in hematology/oncology but have limited experience and would like to gain more experience with clinically relevant scholarship. However, you do not know anyone in the field and are not sure who to ask for guidance.

Stage 1: Seeking the right mentor

Start first with your area of interest and then look broadly. In this case the resident is interested in heme/onc. The first place to look is on the heme/onc department website or in the faculty directory. It can be helpful to look at what the potential mentor has published recently and/or look at a version of their CV on the faculty directory or website. This can help determine how productive they are and help assess whether you share similar interests, and whether they have worked with many learners in the past.

It is also important to do some background work and ask around about potential mentors. Often resident colleagues and fellows have a good sense of current projects and which faculty work well with learners. Lastly, it is important to also look at non–heme/onc physicians as there may be internal medicine physicians or surgeons who are doing hematology or oncology research that more align with your interests.

After you have assessed whether you think this person would be a strong mentor for you, it is time to reach out. People are flattered to be asked and part of their promotion criteria is their ability to mentor. Do not assume that a potential mentor is too busy! Let him or her make that decision. Remember the worst a mentor can say is “no.” Even if they do not have time or the need for a mentee at the present time, they generally will offer some assistance or direction on who to ask.

Start with a straightforward, but pleasant email. Waiting up to 2 weeks for a response is reasonable. If after 2 weeks you have not received word, feel free to reach out again asking politely if he or she would be willing to work with you. Do not be afraid to ask bluntly for their guidance and mentorship and have a specific project or area of research that you would like their assistance with.
 

II. Optimizing the mentor/mentee relationship

Case continued

Success! Your email was received with interest by a hematologist who has done several projects, comes highly recommended by other residents, and worked with students and residents in the past. The project involves anticoagulation on the inpatient service. You are set to meet with her next month.

Stage 2: Establishing expectations and goals

Now comes the hard work in establishing an excellent mentor/mentee relationship. Before you meet with your mentor, brainstorm first. What do you want out of the relationship? A publication? Career advice? Attaining a fellowship position? You should feel empowered in knowing that you as the mentee are in the driver seat, but this relationship should be mutually beneficial. Consider basing the relationship and initial discussions on these key questions:

1. My goals

• What are my goals? It is okay not to know but be ready to communicate some information to your mentor.
• Remember to also ask your mentor what their goals are for you as well.

2. Outcome

• What type of outcome are both you and your mentor looking for from the relationship?

3. Expectations

• What mentorship expectations do you have?
• What are your mentor’s expectations of you?

Once you feel you have a sense of what you are looking for out of the relationship, it is important to communicate this with the mentor to establish congruent expectations of one another. For example, think about asking your mentor if the two of you can establish a mentor/mentee contract. This is a written document that can be found online and establishes a mutual agreement of roles, responsibilities, and expectations of one another for the relationship. It can further help to open a line for honest and consistent feedback. This can also give you a formalized endpoint and agreed upon scope for the mentoring relationship. Having a check-in preestablished in a contract reduces any potentially awkward conversations about redefining the relationship down the road. (For example, what if our case resident decides to pursue GI? It could happen.)
 

Stage 3: Establishing a common goal

After you have determined the goals and expectations of the relationship together (remember, this is a relationship), it is time to start exploring possible projects and establishing goals for those projects. Having a quality improvement or research project will determine a common goal to work towards and help establish and define the relationship.

Once you have delineated broadly what the project(s) should be, develop smaller SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound) goals to move the project forward. These goals determine stopping points for evaluation and feedback, which further establish the relationship and keep the project(s) progressing. For example, one goal could be to write the first draft of the proposal for your quality improvement project within 3 weeks.
 

Stage 4: Continued communication

With any project it is important to stay on the same page as your mentor and be clear to establish “who is doing what by when.” Do not expect accountability to be the mentor’s job. Remember that you are in the driver’s seat and that you should propose how often you need to meet and what those meetings look like by developing an agenda. You can have an open discussion and allow your mentor to help determine a reasonable timeline. Remember, the more you communicate your goals, the better your mentor will be able to address them.

One pro tip is to always exceed your mentor’s expectations – if you think you need 2 weeks to complete a task, ask for 3-4 weeks. This gives you extra padding in case of unforeseen circumstances and makes you look like a “rockstar” if you hit a deadline 1-2 weeks earlier than planned.
 

III. Ending and/or redefining the relationship

Case continued

You are now a senior resident who’s published multiple articles in the past year, and have completed an anticoagulation project for inpatients with pulmonary emboli. You look back on your experience and what stands out is the extent of your gratitude and appreciation for your incredible mentor. Not only do you feel that your mentor has guided you in your career and with your scholarship, but you feel that he or she has shaped your character and talent set. At this point your mentor is both a teacher and guide, but now also a friend. While you feel there is always more that you can learn from her, you are ready to explore new interests. How do you effectively end or redefine this relationship?

Stage 5: Redefining your mentoring relationship

First, go back to the expectations or contract established early in the relationship. The check-in is a key time in the relationship to reevaluate goals and priorities. At this point you may decide to amicably end the relationship or project, or move on to a new project with a change in your role. For example, the quality improvement project may change to research, or you as the mentee have a change in focus (e.g., change in specialty or scholarly focus).

In summary, the interaction between you and your mentor should be a relationship. And the keys to a great relationship are:

1. Establish clear expectations from the beginning. This clarifies the relationship and helps the mentee and mentor to become more successful.

2. Maintain clear and open communication throughout the relationship.3. Define your goals and discuss them with your mentor early. (Have we mentioned the importance of goals enough?) After all, your goal is the reason you started pursuing this relationship in the first place.

In clinical training having guidance can greatly enhance your experience and direct your future career in unexpected ways. We hope that using these tools will guide you towards forging a strong mentor/mentee relationship.

Dr. Zimmerberg-Helms is a resident physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Dr. Rendon is an attending hospitalist at the University of New Mexico.

I. Finding a mentor

Case

You are a 27-year-old first-year resident who is seeking mentorship. You are halfway through the year and are thinking about your goals and future. You have a general interest in hematology/oncology but have limited experience and would like to gain more experience with clinically relevant scholarship. However, you do not know anyone in the field and are not sure who to ask for guidance.

Stage 1: Seeking the right mentor

Start first with your area of interest and then look broadly. In this case the resident is interested in heme/onc. The first place to look is on the heme/onc department website or in the faculty directory. It can be helpful to look at what the potential mentor has published recently and/or look at a version of their CV on the faculty directory or website. This can help determine how productive they are and help assess whether you share similar interests, and whether they have worked with many learners in the past.

It is also important to do some background work and ask around about potential mentors. Often resident colleagues and fellows have a good sense of current projects and which faculty work well with learners. Lastly, it is important to also look at non–heme/onc physicians as there may be internal medicine physicians or surgeons who are doing hematology or oncology research that more align with your interests.

After you have assessed whether you think this person would be a strong mentor for you, it is time to reach out. People are flattered to be asked and part of their promotion criteria is their ability to mentor. Do not assume that a potential mentor is too busy! Let him or her make that decision. Remember the worst a mentor can say is “no.” Even if they do not have time or the need for a mentee at the present time, they generally will offer some assistance or direction on who to ask.

Start with a straightforward, but pleasant email. Waiting up to 2 weeks for a response is reasonable. If after 2 weeks you have not received word, feel free to reach out again asking politely if he or she would be willing to work with you. Do not be afraid to ask bluntly for their guidance and mentorship and have a specific project or area of research that you would like their assistance with.
 

II. Optimizing the mentor/mentee relationship

Case continued

Success! Your email was received with interest by a hematologist who has done several projects, comes highly recommended by other residents, and worked with students and residents in the past. The project involves anticoagulation on the inpatient service. You are set to meet with her next month.

Stage 2: Establishing expectations and goals

Now comes the hard work in establishing an excellent mentor/mentee relationship. Before you meet with your mentor, brainstorm first. What do you want out of the relationship? A publication? Career advice? Attaining a fellowship position? You should feel empowered in knowing that you as the mentee are in the driver seat, but this relationship should be mutually beneficial. Consider basing the relationship and initial discussions on these key questions:

1. My goals

• What are my goals? It is okay not to know but be ready to communicate some information to your mentor.
• Remember to also ask your mentor what their goals are for you as well.

2. Outcome

• What type of outcome are both you and your mentor looking for from the relationship?

3. Expectations

• What mentorship expectations do you have?
• What are your mentor’s expectations of you?

Once you feel you have a sense of what you are looking for out of the relationship, it is important to communicate this with the mentor to establish congruent expectations of one another. For example, think about asking your mentor if the two of you can establish a mentor/mentee contract. This is a written document that can be found online and establishes a mutual agreement of roles, responsibilities, and expectations of one another for the relationship. It can further help to open a line for honest and consistent feedback. This can also give you a formalized endpoint and agreed upon scope for the mentoring relationship. Having a check-in preestablished in a contract reduces any potentially awkward conversations about redefining the relationship down the road. (For example, what if our case resident decides to pursue GI? It could happen.)
 

Stage 3: Establishing a common goal

After you have determined the goals and expectations of the relationship together (remember, this is a relationship), it is time to start exploring possible projects and establishing goals for those projects. Having a quality improvement or research project will determine a common goal to work towards and help establish and define the relationship.

Once you have delineated broadly what the project(s) should be, develop smaller SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound) goals to move the project forward. These goals determine stopping points for evaluation and feedback, which further establish the relationship and keep the project(s) progressing. For example, one goal could be to write the first draft of the proposal for your quality improvement project within 3 weeks.
 

Stage 4: Continued communication

With any project it is important to stay on the same page as your mentor and be clear to establish “who is doing what by when.” Do not expect accountability to be the mentor’s job. Remember that you are in the driver’s seat and that you should propose how often you need to meet and what those meetings look like by developing an agenda. You can have an open discussion and allow your mentor to help determine a reasonable timeline. Remember, the more you communicate your goals, the better your mentor will be able to address them.

One pro tip is to always exceed your mentor’s expectations – if you think you need 2 weeks to complete a task, ask for 3-4 weeks. This gives you extra padding in case of unforeseen circumstances and makes you look like a “rockstar” if you hit a deadline 1-2 weeks earlier than planned.
 

III. Ending and/or redefining the relationship

Case continued

You are now a senior resident who’s published multiple articles in the past year, and have completed an anticoagulation project for inpatients with pulmonary emboli. You look back on your experience and what stands out is the extent of your gratitude and appreciation for your incredible mentor. Not only do you feel that your mentor has guided you in your career and with your scholarship, but you feel that he or she has shaped your character and talent set. At this point your mentor is both a teacher and guide, but now also a friend. While you feel there is always more that you can learn from her, you are ready to explore new interests. How do you effectively end or redefine this relationship?

Stage 5: Redefining your mentoring relationship

First, go back to the expectations or contract established early in the relationship. The check-in is a key time in the relationship to reevaluate goals and priorities. At this point you may decide to amicably end the relationship or project, or move on to a new project with a change in your role. For example, the quality improvement project may change to research, or you as the mentee have a change in focus (e.g., change in specialty or scholarly focus).

In summary, the interaction between you and your mentor should be a relationship. And the keys to a great relationship are:

1. Establish clear expectations from the beginning. This clarifies the relationship and helps the mentee and mentor to become more successful.

2. Maintain clear and open communication throughout the relationship.3. Define your goals and discuss them with your mentor early. (Have we mentioned the importance of goals enough?) After all, your goal is the reason you started pursuing this relationship in the first place.

In clinical training having guidance can greatly enhance your experience and direct your future career in unexpected ways. We hope that using these tools will guide you towards forging a strong mentor/mentee relationship.

Dr. Zimmerberg-Helms is a resident physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Dr. Rendon is an attending hospitalist at the University of New Mexico.

I. Finding a mentor

Case

You are a 27-year-old first-year resident who is seeking mentorship. You are halfway through the year and are thinking about your goals and future. You have a general interest in hematology/oncology but have limited experience and would like to gain more experience with clinically relevant scholarship. However, you do not know anyone in the field and are not sure who to ask for guidance.

Stage 1: Seeking the right mentor

Start first with your area of interest and then look broadly. In this case the resident is interested in heme/onc. The first place to look is on the heme/onc department website or in the faculty directory. It can be helpful to look at what the potential mentor has published recently and/or look at a version of their CV on the faculty directory or website. This can help determine how productive they are and help assess whether you share similar interests, and whether they have worked with many learners in the past.

It is also important to do some background work and ask around about potential mentors. Often resident colleagues and fellows have a good sense of current projects and which faculty work well with learners. Lastly, it is important to also look at non–heme/onc physicians as there may be internal medicine physicians or surgeons who are doing hematology or oncology research that more align with your interests.

After you have assessed whether you think this person would be a strong mentor for you, it is time to reach out. People are flattered to be asked and part of their promotion criteria is their ability to mentor. Do not assume that a potential mentor is too busy! Let him or her make that decision. Remember the worst a mentor can say is “no.” Even if they do not have time or the need for a mentee at the present time, they generally will offer some assistance or direction on who to ask.

Start with a straightforward, but pleasant email. Waiting up to 2 weeks for a response is reasonable. If after 2 weeks you have not received word, feel free to reach out again asking politely if he or she would be willing to work with you. Do not be afraid to ask bluntly for their guidance and mentorship and have a specific project or area of research that you would like their assistance with.
 

II. Optimizing the mentor/mentee relationship

Case continued

Success! Your email was received with interest by a hematologist who has done several projects, comes highly recommended by other residents, and worked with students and residents in the past. The project involves anticoagulation on the inpatient service. You are set to meet with her next month.

Stage 2: Establishing expectations and goals

Now comes the hard work in establishing an excellent mentor/mentee relationship. Before you meet with your mentor, brainstorm first. What do you want out of the relationship? A publication? Career advice? Attaining a fellowship position? You should feel empowered in knowing that you as the mentee are in the driver seat, but this relationship should be mutually beneficial. Consider basing the relationship and initial discussions on these key questions:

1. My goals

• What are my goals? It is okay not to know but be ready to communicate some information to your mentor.
• Remember to also ask your mentor what their goals are for you as well.

2. Outcome

• What type of outcome are both you and your mentor looking for from the relationship?

3. Expectations

• What mentorship expectations do you have?
• What are your mentor’s expectations of you?

Once you feel you have a sense of what you are looking for out of the relationship, it is important to communicate this with the mentor to establish congruent expectations of one another. For example, think about asking your mentor if the two of you can establish a mentor/mentee contract. This is a written document that can be found online and establishes a mutual agreement of roles, responsibilities, and expectations of one another for the relationship. It can further help to open a line for honest and consistent feedback. This can also give you a formalized endpoint and agreed upon scope for the mentoring relationship. Having a check-in preestablished in a contract reduces any potentially awkward conversations about redefining the relationship down the road. (For example, what if our case resident decides to pursue GI? It could happen.)
 

Stage 3: Establishing a common goal

After you have determined the goals and expectations of the relationship together (remember, this is a relationship), it is time to start exploring possible projects and establishing goals for those projects. Having a quality improvement or research project will determine a common goal to work towards and help establish and define the relationship.

Once you have delineated broadly what the project(s) should be, develop smaller SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound) goals to move the project forward. These goals determine stopping points for evaluation and feedback, which further establish the relationship and keep the project(s) progressing. For example, one goal could be to write the first draft of the proposal for your quality improvement project within 3 weeks.
 

Stage 4: Continued communication

With any project it is important to stay on the same page as your mentor and be clear to establish “who is doing what by when.” Do not expect accountability to be the mentor’s job. Remember that you are in the driver’s seat and that you should propose how often you need to meet and what those meetings look like by developing an agenda. You can have an open discussion and allow your mentor to help determine a reasonable timeline. Remember, the more you communicate your goals, the better your mentor will be able to address them.

One pro tip is to always exceed your mentor’s expectations – if you think you need 2 weeks to complete a task, ask for 3-4 weeks. This gives you extra padding in case of unforeseen circumstances and makes you look like a “rockstar” if you hit a deadline 1-2 weeks earlier than planned.
 

III. Ending and/or redefining the relationship

Case continued

You are now a senior resident who’s published multiple articles in the past year, and have completed an anticoagulation project for inpatients with pulmonary emboli. You look back on your experience and what stands out is the extent of your gratitude and appreciation for your incredible mentor. Not only do you feel that your mentor has guided you in your career and with your scholarship, but you feel that he or she has shaped your character and talent set. At this point your mentor is both a teacher and guide, but now also a friend. While you feel there is always more that you can learn from her, you are ready to explore new interests. How do you effectively end or redefine this relationship?

Stage 5: Redefining your mentoring relationship

First, go back to the expectations or contract established early in the relationship. The check-in is a key time in the relationship to reevaluate goals and priorities. At this point you may decide to amicably end the relationship or project, or move on to a new project with a change in your role. For example, the quality improvement project may change to research, or you as the mentee have a change in focus (e.g., change in specialty or scholarly focus).

In summary, the interaction between you and your mentor should be a relationship. And the keys to a great relationship are:

1. Establish clear expectations from the beginning. This clarifies the relationship and helps the mentee and mentor to become more successful.

2. Maintain clear and open communication throughout the relationship.3. Define your goals and discuss them with your mentor early. (Have we mentioned the importance of goals enough?) After all, your goal is the reason you started pursuing this relationship in the first place.

In clinical training having guidance can greatly enhance your experience and direct your future career in unexpected ways. We hope that using these tools will guide you towards forging a strong mentor/mentee relationship.

Dr. Zimmerberg-Helms is a resident physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Dr. Rendon is an attending hospitalist at the University of New Mexico.

Among individuals admitted to hospitals with sepsis, statin users had a lower mortality, compared with nonstatin users, according to a recent analysis focused on a large and diverse cohort of patients in California.

Mortality hazard ratios at 30 and 90 days were lower by about 20% for statin users admitted for sepsis, compared with nonstatin users, according to results of the retrospective cohort study.

Hydrophilic and synthetic statins had more favorable mortality outcomes, compared with lipophilic and fungal-derived statins, respectively, added investigator Brannen Liang, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center.

These findings suggest a potential benefit of statins in patients with sepsis, with certain types of statins having a greater protective effect than others, according to Dr. Liang, who presented the original research in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

“I think there’s potential for extending the use of statins to other indications, such as sepsis,” Dr. Liang said in an interview, though he also cautioned that the present study is hypothesis generating and more research is necessary.

Using a certain statin type over another (i.e., a hydrophilic, synthetic statin) might be a consideration for populations who are at greater risk for sepsis, such as the immunocompromised, patients with diabetes, or elderly and who also require a statin for an indication such as hyperlipidemia, he added.

While the link between statin use and sepsis mortality outcomes is not new, this study is unique in that it replicates results of earlier studies in a large and diverse real-world population, Dr. Liang said.

“Numerous studies seem to suggest that statins may play a role in attenuating the mortality of patients admitted to the hospital with sepsis, for whatever reason – whether this is due to their anti-inflammatory effects, their lipid-lowering effects, or if they truly have an antimicrobial effect, which has been studied in vitro and in animal studies,” he said in an interview.

It’s impossible to definitively conclude from retrospective studies such as this whether statins reduce sepsis-related mortality risk, but the present study at least makes the case for using certain types of statins when they are indicated in high-risk patients, said Steven Q. Simpson, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City.

“If you have patients at high risk for sepsis and they need a statin, you could give consideration to using a hydrophilic and synthetic statin, rather than either of the other choices,” said Dr. Simpson, CHEST president-elect and senior advisor to the Solving Sepsis initiative of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health & Human Services.

The retrospective cohort study by Dr. Liang and colleagues included a total of 137,019 individuals admitted for sepsis within the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system between 2008 and 2018. Of that group, 36,908 were taking a statin.

Overall, the mean age of patients admitted for sepsis was 66.9 years, and 50.4% were female. Nearly 50% were White, about 12% were Black, 28% were Hispanic, and 8% were Asian. A diagnosis of ischemic heart disease was reported for 43% of statin users and 23% of nonusers, while diabetes mellitus was reported for 60% of statin users and 37% of nonusers (P < .0001 for both comparisons).

Differences in mortality favored statin users, compared with nonusers, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.82) at 30 days and similarly, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77-0.81) at 90 days, Dr. Liang reported, noting that the models were adjusted for age, race, sex, and comorbidities.

Further analysis suggested a mortality advantage of lipophilic, compared with hydrophilic statins, and an advantage of fungal-derived statins over synthetic-derived statins, the investigator added.

In the comparison of lipophilic statin users and hydrophilic statin users, the 30- and 90-day mortality HRs were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.02-1.26) and 1.17 (95% CI, 1.07-1.28), respectively, the data show. For fungal-derived statin users, compared with synthetic derived statin users, 30- and 90-day mortality HRs were 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19) and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.09-1.20), respectively.

Dr. Liang and coauthors disclosed no relevant relationships with respect to the work presented at the CHEST meeting.

SOURCE: Liang B et al. CHEST 2020, Abstract A589.

Among individuals admitted to hospitals with sepsis, statin users had a lower mortality, compared with nonstatin users, according to a recent analysis focused on a large and diverse cohort of patients in California.

Mortality hazard ratios at 30 and 90 days were lower by about 20% for statin users admitted for sepsis, compared with nonstatin users, according to results of the retrospective cohort study.

Hydrophilic and synthetic statins had more favorable mortality outcomes, compared with lipophilic and fungal-derived statins, respectively, added investigator Brannen Liang, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center.

These findings suggest a potential benefit of statins in patients with sepsis, with certain types of statins having a greater protective effect than others, according to Dr. Liang, who presented the original research in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

“I think there’s potential for extending the use of statins to other indications, such as sepsis,” Dr. Liang said in an interview, though he also cautioned that the present study is hypothesis generating and more research is necessary.

Using a certain statin type over another (i.e., a hydrophilic, synthetic statin) might be a consideration for populations who are at greater risk for sepsis, such as the immunocompromised, patients with diabetes, or elderly and who also require a statin for an indication such as hyperlipidemia, he added.

While the link between statin use and sepsis mortality outcomes is not new, this study is unique in that it replicates results of earlier studies in a large and diverse real-world population, Dr. Liang said.

“Numerous studies seem to suggest that statins may play a role in attenuating the mortality of patients admitted to the hospital with sepsis, for whatever reason – whether this is due to their anti-inflammatory effects, their lipid-lowering effects, or if they truly have an antimicrobial effect, which has been studied in vitro and in animal studies,” he said in an interview.

It’s impossible to definitively conclude from retrospective studies such as this whether statins reduce sepsis-related mortality risk, but the present study at least makes the case for using certain types of statins when they are indicated in high-risk patients, said Steven Q. Simpson, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City.

“If you have patients at high risk for sepsis and they need a statin, you could give consideration to using a hydrophilic and synthetic statin, rather than either of the other choices,” said Dr. Simpson, CHEST president-elect and senior advisor to the Solving Sepsis initiative of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health & Human Services.

The retrospective cohort study by Dr. Liang and colleagues included a total of 137,019 individuals admitted for sepsis within the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system between 2008 and 2018. Of that group, 36,908 were taking a statin.

Overall, the mean age of patients admitted for sepsis was 66.9 years, and 50.4% were female. Nearly 50% were White, about 12% were Black, 28% were Hispanic, and 8% were Asian. A diagnosis of ischemic heart disease was reported for 43% of statin users and 23% of nonusers, while diabetes mellitus was reported for 60% of statin users and 37% of nonusers (P < .0001 for both comparisons).

Differences in mortality favored statin users, compared with nonusers, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.82) at 30 days and similarly, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77-0.81) at 90 days, Dr. Liang reported, noting that the models were adjusted for age, race, sex, and comorbidities.

Further analysis suggested a mortality advantage of lipophilic, compared with hydrophilic statins, and an advantage of fungal-derived statins over synthetic-derived statins, the investigator added.

In the comparison of lipophilic statin users and hydrophilic statin users, the 30- and 90-day mortality HRs were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.02-1.26) and 1.17 (95% CI, 1.07-1.28), respectively, the data show. For fungal-derived statin users, compared with synthetic derived statin users, 30- and 90-day mortality HRs were 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19) and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.09-1.20), respectively.

Dr. Liang and coauthors disclosed no relevant relationships with respect to the work presented at the CHEST meeting.

SOURCE: Liang B et al. CHEST 2020, Abstract A589.

Among individuals admitted to hospitals with sepsis, statin users had a lower mortality, compared with nonstatin users, according to a recent analysis focused on a large and diverse cohort of patients in California.

Mortality hazard ratios at 30 and 90 days were lower by about 20% for statin users admitted for sepsis, compared with nonstatin users, according to results of the retrospective cohort study.

Hydrophilic and synthetic statins had more favorable mortality outcomes, compared with lipophilic and fungal-derived statins, respectively, added investigator Brannen Liang, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center.

These findings suggest a potential benefit of statins in patients with sepsis, with certain types of statins having a greater protective effect than others, according to Dr. Liang, who presented the original research in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

“I think there’s potential for extending the use of statins to other indications, such as sepsis,” Dr. Liang said in an interview, though he also cautioned that the present study is hypothesis generating and more research is necessary.

Using a certain statin type over another (i.e., a hydrophilic, synthetic statin) might be a consideration for populations who are at greater risk for sepsis, such as the immunocompromised, patients with diabetes, or elderly and who also require a statin for an indication such as hyperlipidemia, he added.

While the link between statin use and sepsis mortality outcomes is not new, this study is unique in that it replicates results of earlier studies in a large and diverse real-world population, Dr. Liang said.

“Numerous studies seem to suggest that statins may play a role in attenuating the mortality of patients admitted to the hospital with sepsis, for whatever reason – whether this is due to their anti-inflammatory effects, their lipid-lowering effects, or if they truly have an antimicrobial effect, which has been studied in vitro and in animal studies,” he said in an interview.

It’s impossible to definitively conclude from retrospective studies such as this whether statins reduce sepsis-related mortality risk, but the present study at least makes the case for using certain types of statins when they are indicated in high-risk patients, said Steven Q. Simpson, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City.

“If you have patients at high risk for sepsis and they need a statin, you could give consideration to using a hydrophilic and synthetic statin, rather than either of the other choices,” said Dr. Simpson, CHEST president-elect and senior advisor to the Solving Sepsis initiative of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health & Human Services.

The retrospective cohort study by Dr. Liang and colleagues included a total of 137,019 individuals admitted for sepsis within the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system between 2008 and 2018. Of that group, 36,908 were taking a statin.

Overall, the mean age of patients admitted for sepsis was 66.9 years, and 50.4% were female. Nearly 50% were White, about 12% were Black, 28% were Hispanic, and 8% were Asian. A diagnosis of ischemic heart disease was reported for 43% of statin users and 23% of nonusers, while diabetes mellitus was reported for 60% of statin users and 37% of nonusers (P < .0001 for both comparisons).

Differences in mortality favored statin users, compared with nonusers, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.82) at 30 days and similarly, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77-0.81) at 90 days, Dr. Liang reported, noting that the models were adjusted for age, race, sex, and comorbidities.

Further analysis suggested a mortality advantage of lipophilic, compared with hydrophilic statins, and an advantage of fungal-derived statins over synthetic-derived statins, the investigator added.

In the comparison of lipophilic statin users and hydrophilic statin users, the 30- and 90-day mortality HRs were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.02-1.26) and 1.17 (95% CI, 1.07-1.28), respectively, the data show. For fungal-derived statin users, compared with synthetic derived statin users, 30- and 90-day mortality HRs were 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19) and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.09-1.20), respectively.

Dr. Liang and coauthors disclosed no relevant relationships with respect to the work presented at the CHEST meeting.

SOURCE: Liang B et al. CHEST 2020, Abstract A589.

Multiple mouthwash and oral rinse products wiped out a human coronavirus closely related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a laboratory comparison study.

Listerine Antiseptic led the list of most effective mouthwashes for inactivating the coronavirus. Interestingly, a 1% nasal rinse solution of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo also worked, eliminating up to 99.9% of the viral load in the in vitro experiments.

In contrast, use of a neti pot nasal solution yielded no decrease in virus levels.

The study was published in the Journal of Medical Virology.

Because the mouthwash and hydrogen peroxide oral rinses in the study are widely available and easy to use, “I would recommend the use of the rinses on top of wearing mask and social distancing. This could add a layer of protection for yourself and others,” lead study author Craig Meyers, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and obstetrics and gynecology, Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, told Medscape Medical News.

Meyers and colleagues found that efficacy aligned with duration of time the cell cultures were exposed to each mouthwash or rinse product. Although it varied, the products required at least 30 seconds to kill most of the virus. Waiting 1 or 2 minutes tended to fortify results.

“This study adds to and further confirms the recently published evidence from virologists in Germany that mouthwashes can inactivate the virus that causes COVID-19 in a test tube,” Valerie O’Donnell, PhD, co-director of the Systems Immunity Research Institute of Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, said when asked to comment on the study.

“While this is great to see, what is still lacking is in vivo evidence, since we know the virus will be continually shed in the mouth,” O’Donnell said. “So, the question now becomes, by how much could mouthwashes reduce viral load in the oropharynx of infected people, and if so, then for how long?”

Meyers noted that studies of people positive for COVID-19 using each product would be informative. It remains unknown, for example, if swishing, gargling, and/or spitting out mouthwash would add or decrease the efficacy demonstrated in the lab.

The investigators used the human coronavirus HCoV‐229e as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2. They noted HCoV-229e is analogous, and SARS-CoV-2 would have been more expensive, less available, and would have required biosafety level 3 laboratory conditions.
 

Listerine Antiseptic leads the way

“Surprisingly, we found that several of these common products had strong virucidal properties, inactivating from 2 log10 [or 99%] to greater than 4 log10 [or 99.99%] of infectious human coronavirus,” the researchers note.

Timing of the essence?

Meyers and colleagues also tested a nasal rinse solution of 1% baby shampoo because it is sometimes used to treat people with chronic rhinosinusitis. They found 30 seconds led to < 90% to < 99.99% effectiveness, but that, by 2 minutes, efficacy climbed to > 99.9% to > 99.99%.

“Thirty seconds for some products just was not enough time for the efficacy to be observed,” Meyers said. “Whereas, after a minute or two the active ingredient had enough time to work. Thirty seconds may be at the border to see full efficacy.” More research is needed to confirm the timing and determine which active ingredients are driving the findings.

A future trial could test the efficacy of mouthwash products to reduce the viral load in people with COVID-19. “If we are able to get funding to continue, I would like to see a small clinical trial as the next step,” Meyers said.

Meyers and O’Donnell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple mouthwash and oral rinse products wiped out a human coronavirus closely related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a laboratory comparison study.

Listerine Antiseptic led the list of most effective mouthwashes for inactivating the coronavirus. Interestingly, a 1% nasal rinse solution of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo also worked, eliminating up to 99.9% of the viral load in the in vitro experiments.

In contrast, use of a neti pot nasal solution yielded no decrease in virus levels.

The study was published in the Journal of Medical Virology.

Because the mouthwash and hydrogen peroxide oral rinses in the study are widely available and easy to use, “I would recommend the use of the rinses on top of wearing mask and social distancing. This could add a layer of protection for yourself and others,” lead study author Craig Meyers, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and obstetrics and gynecology, Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, told Medscape Medical News.

Meyers and colleagues found that efficacy aligned with duration of time the cell cultures were exposed to each mouthwash or rinse product. Although it varied, the products required at least 30 seconds to kill most of the virus. Waiting 1 or 2 minutes tended to fortify results.

“This study adds to and further confirms the recently published evidence from virologists in Germany that mouthwashes can inactivate the virus that causes COVID-19 in a test tube,” Valerie O’Donnell, PhD, co-director of the Systems Immunity Research Institute of Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, said when asked to comment on the study.

“While this is great to see, what is still lacking is in vivo evidence, since we know the virus will be continually shed in the mouth,” O’Donnell said. “So, the question now becomes, by how much could mouthwashes reduce viral load in the oropharynx of infected people, and if so, then for how long?”

Meyers noted that studies of people positive for COVID-19 using each product would be informative. It remains unknown, for example, if swishing, gargling, and/or spitting out mouthwash would add or decrease the efficacy demonstrated in the lab.

The investigators used the human coronavirus HCoV‐229e as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2. They noted HCoV-229e is analogous, and SARS-CoV-2 would have been more expensive, less available, and would have required biosafety level 3 laboratory conditions.
 

Listerine Antiseptic leads the way

“Surprisingly, we found that several of these common products had strong virucidal properties, inactivating from 2 log10 [or 99%] to greater than 4 log10 [or 99.99%] of infectious human coronavirus,” the researchers note.

Timing of the essence?

Meyers and colleagues also tested a nasal rinse solution of 1% baby shampoo because it is sometimes used to treat people with chronic rhinosinusitis. They found 30 seconds led to < 90% to < 99.99% effectiveness, but that, by 2 minutes, efficacy climbed to > 99.9% to > 99.99%.

“Thirty seconds for some products just was not enough time for the efficacy to be observed,” Meyers said. “Whereas, after a minute or two the active ingredient had enough time to work. Thirty seconds may be at the border to see full efficacy.” More research is needed to confirm the timing and determine which active ingredients are driving the findings.

A future trial could test the efficacy of mouthwash products to reduce the viral load in people with COVID-19. “If we are able to get funding to continue, I would like to see a small clinical trial as the next step,” Meyers said.

Meyers and O’Donnell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple mouthwash and oral rinse products wiped out a human coronavirus closely related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a laboratory comparison study.

Listerine Antiseptic led the list of most effective mouthwashes for inactivating the coronavirus. Interestingly, a 1% nasal rinse solution of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo also worked, eliminating up to 99.9% of the viral load in the in vitro experiments.

In contrast, use of a neti pot nasal solution yielded no decrease in virus levels.

The study was published in the Journal of Medical Virology.

Because the mouthwash and hydrogen peroxide oral rinses in the study are widely available and easy to use, “I would recommend the use of the rinses on top of wearing mask and social distancing. This could add a layer of protection for yourself and others,” lead study author Craig Meyers, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and obstetrics and gynecology, Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, told Medscape Medical News.

Meyers and colleagues found that efficacy aligned with duration of time the cell cultures were exposed to each mouthwash or rinse product. Although it varied, the products required at least 30 seconds to kill most of the virus. Waiting 1 or 2 minutes tended to fortify results.

“This study adds to and further confirms the recently published evidence from virologists in Germany that mouthwashes can inactivate the virus that causes COVID-19 in a test tube,” Valerie O’Donnell, PhD, co-director of the Systems Immunity Research Institute of Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, said when asked to comment on the study.

“While this is great to see, what is still lacking is in vivo evidence, since we know the virus will be continually shed in the mouth,” O’Donnell said. “So, the question now becomes, by how much could mouthwashes reduce viral load in the oropharynx of infected people, and if so, then for how long?”

Meyers noted that studies of people positive for COVID-19 using each product would be informative. It remains unknown, for example, if swishing, gargling, and/or spitting out mouthwash would add or decrease the efficacy demonstrated in the lab.

The investigators used the human coronavirus HCoV‐229e as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2. They noted HCoV-229e is analogous, and SARS-CoV-2 would have been more expensive, less available, and would have required biosafety level 3 laboratory conditions.
 

Listerine Antiseptic leads the way

“Surprisingly, we found that several of these common products had strong virucidal properties, inactivating from 2 log10 [or 99%] to greater than 4 log10 [or 99.99%] of infectious human coronavirus,” the researchers note.

Timing of the essence?

Meyers and colleagues also tested a nasal rinse solution of 1% baby shampoo because it is sometimes used to treat people with chronic rhinosinusitis. They found 30 seconds led to < 90% to < 99.99% effectiveness, but that, by 2 minutes, efficacy climbed to > 99.9% to > 99.99%.

“Thirty seconds for some products just was not enough time for the efficacy to be observed,” Meyers said. “Whereas, after a minute or two the active ingredient had enough time to work. Thirty seconds may be at the border to see full efficacy.” More research is needed to confirm the timing and determine which active ingredients are driving the findings.

A future trial could test the efficacy of mouthwash products to reduce the viral load in people with COVID-19. “If we are able to get funding to continue, I would like to see a small clinical trial as the next step,” Meyers said.

Meyers and O’Donnell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting Nov. 2, all patients in the United States will have immediate access to clinical notes and thus will be able to read their doctors’ writings, as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

FG Trade/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates that patients have fast, electronic access to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, history, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes.

But this federal mandate, called “open notes” by many, is potentially confusing and frightening for patients, say some physicians. Others worry that the change will increase workload as clinicians tailor notes for patients and answer related questions.

The law means that inpatient and outpatient notes will be released immediately and that patients will have immediate access to testing and imaging results, including results from sexually transmitted disease tests, Pap tests, cancer biopsies, CT and PET scans, fetal ultrasounds, pneumonia cultures, and mammograms.

Such notes could contain sensitive information, and there is concern that patients could be shocked, confused, or annoyed by what they read, even with more run-of-the-mill notes.

Champions of open notes say that the benefits, including better provider-patient communication, greatly outweigh such risks.

“This is about convenience – a bit like online banking,” commented Charlotte Blease, PhD, resident scholar at OpenNotes, an advocacy nonprofit organization headquartered at the Beth Israel–Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “But it’s a culture shift for doctors,” she said in an interview.

“It turns physician paternalism on its head,” said C. T. Lin, MD, chief medical information officer, UCHealth, Denver. The change requires “some letting go of old traditions” in medicine, he wrote in an August blog post, referring to the fact that a computer screen – and not a physician – may tell patients about a new health problem.

Dr. Lin summarized the experience at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, which has allowed patients to have access to oncology notes for the past 5 years: “No issues and highly appreciated by patients. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
 

A new audience

Other institutions have also been voluntarily implementing open notes.

UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., has run an optional program for the past year. However, only about two dozen of approximately 1,000 staff physicians opted in to the program.

“This illustrates the point that it’s a new thing that physicians aren’t used to doing. They’ve traditionally written notes for the benefit of their colleagues, for billing, for their own reference,” Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at UC Davis Health, told this news organization.

“They’ve never –until recently – had the patient as one of the audiences for a note,” he said.

Liam Keating, MD, an otolaryngologist in Martinez, Calif., recalls that he once wrote “globus hystericus,” and the patient wanted to sue him for saying that the patient was hysterical. “I now just code ‘Globus’ (if I don’t jump straight to LPD [lateral pharyngeal diverticulum]),” he commented in response to a commentary on open notes.

Sensitive information occurs more often in certain specialties, for example, psychiatry, genetics, adolescent medicine, and oncology, experts say.

“Cancer is an area that is highly charged for patients and doctors alike,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out. When reading pathology or imaging notes, patients may learn that they have been diagnosed with cancer or that they have a recurrence “without the physician being able to contextualize it and explain things – that’s just new and scary,” he said.

California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first, said Dr. MacDonald, but not all states have such laws.
 

Adjustments needed – or not – with open notes

At UCHealth in Aurora, Colo., Robert Breeze, MD, vice-chair of neurosurgery, said he has adjusted his practice to accommodate open notes and to anticipate trouble spots.*

“When I order imaging or send pathology specimens, I have already discussed with the patient the possibilities, including cancer, and what we will do next. Patients deeply appreciate these discussions, before they see the results,” he commented in an institutional white paper issued in anticipation of the changes on Nov. 2.

This is called precounseling, said Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., which has been a pioneer in information sharing with patients. Their system does delay the release of information in the case of “complicated” results, such as from cancer biopsies, he said in an interview.

However, Christiaan Hoff, MD, PhD, a surgeon at the Medical Center Leeuwarden (the Netherlands), wonders how important it is for the physician to be present when the patient receives bad news, including news about cancer. “We may overestimate our added value in these situations,” he suggested.

“Our empathy may not outweigh” the disadvantages of the situation, and the “finer points of our explanation will often go unnoticed” by the stressed patient, he commented. Dr. Hoff was also responding to the commentary about open notes.

In that commentary, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., was concerned about misunderstandings. Oncology is complex, and patients can struggle to understand their prognosis and planned treatment efficacy, especially in cases of metastatic disease, he wrote.

This concern is somewhat refuted by a study published Oct. 5 in Cancer Cell. Responses to two surveys involving 96 oncology clinicians at three U.S. centers found that almost half (44%) believed that their patients “would be confused” by open notes.

However, only 4% of the 3,418 cancer patients from the same surveys reported being confused by open notes. (A majority of participants had more than a high school education, and English was their primary language.)

“Patient and clinician views about open notes in oncology are not aligned, with patients expressing considerably more enthusiasm,” wrote the authors, led by Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who has been treated for brain cancer.

“All clinicians are anxious at first,” Ms. Salmi told this news organization. “Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions … are more likely to read their notes.”

The survey results echo the early experience reported from Sweden, where open notes was launched in 2012. “Patients have loved it from the beginning,” said Maria Haggland, PhD, of Uppsala MedTech Science Innovation Center.

However, when the scheme first launched, it was considered to be “very controversial,” and “there were a lot of complaints, from health care professionals, especially,” she added.

Over time, clinicians have embraced open notes, and the program has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, she observed during an Oct. 5 webinar on open notes.
 

More work for already overworked clinicians?

An outstanding concern about open notes is that it will cause more work for health care professionals.

Traditionally, doctors have written notes using medical lexicon, including a lot of abbreviations and jargon for efficiency’s sake. Now that patients will read the notes, will clinicians have to spell out things in lay terms, alter their writing so as not to offend, and generally do more work?

William Harvey, MD, chief medical information officer, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, acknowledged that that may be the case.

In a forthcoming note to staff about the Nov. 2 start of open notes, Dr. Harvey will include a reminder to accommodate the patient as a reader. But that may or may not mean an increase in work volume, depending on the provider. “Clinical note writing is highly personal. There’s an art to it,” he said in an interview. “So it’s hard to give standard advice.”

Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and a lecturer at California Pacific Medical Center, is particularly concerned about the impact of open notes on progress notes, which he calls a tool to develop strategies and make observations while working with a patient.

By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” he told this news organization.

“These notes serve many masters already,” he said, referring to purposes such as utilization review and billing. “The more masters they serve, the less useful they are to get medical work done.”

Dr. MacDonald, the medical information officer, said the new law doesn’t mandate a change in writing style.

In a study published last year, researchers analyzed notes written by oncologists before and after adoption of open notes. They found that, on average, clinicians did not change their note writing. The investigators analyzed more than 100,000 clinical notes written by 35 oncologists at a single center.

Advocates for open notes emphasize that there are benefits for clinicians.

“Doctors are overworked. They’re overburdened. But empowered patients can help the doctor,” said OpenNotes’ Dr. Blease. She cited survey data that show that patients better understand their treatment plan and medication, which can cut down on physician workload.

Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot program for 3 years. Each day, Dr. Millen discusses a shared note with two or three patients. “I actually end all of my appointments with, ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she told this news organization.

“I was a little afraid of this initially,” she said, but within the first 3 months of the pilot, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”

The persons quoted in this article have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

Correction, 10/23/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the campus' location. 

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

Starting Nov. 2, all patients in the United States will have immediate access to clinical notes and thus will be able to read their doctors’ writings, as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

FG Trade/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates that patients have fast, electronic access to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, history, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes.

But this federal mandate, called “open notes” by many, is potentially confusing and frightening for patients, say some physicians. Others worry that the change will increase workload as clinicians tailor notes for patients and answer related questions.

The law means that inpatient and outpatient notes will be released immediately and that patients will have immediate access to testing and imaging results, including results from sexually transmitted disease tests, Pap tests, cancer biopsies, CT and PET scans, fetal ultrasounds, pneumonia cultures, and mammograms.

Such notes could contain sensitive information, and there is concern that patients could be shocked, confused, or annoyed by what they read, even with more run-of-the-mill notes.

Champions of open notes say that the benefits, including better provider-patient communication, greatly outweigh such risks.

“This is about convenience – a bit like online banking,” commented Charlotte Blease, PhD, resident scholar at OpenNotes, an advocacy nonprofit organization headquartered at the Beth Israel–Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “But it’s a culture shift for doctors,” she said in an interview.

“It turns physician paternalism on its head,” said C. T. Lin, MD, chief medical information officer, UCHealth, Denver. The change requires “some letting go of old traditions” in medicine, he wrote in an August blog post, referring to the fact that a computer screen – and not a physician – may tell patients about a new health problem.

Dr. Lin summarized the experience at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, which has allowed patients to have access to oncology notes for the past 5 years: “No issues and highly appreciated by patients. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
 

A new audience

Other institutions have also been voluntarily implementing open notes.

UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., has run an optional program for the past year. However, only about two dozen of approximately 1,000 staff physicians opted in to the program.

“This illustrates the point that it’s a new thing that physicians aren’t used to doing. They’ve traditionally written notes for the benefit of their colleagues, for billing, for their own reference,” Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at UC Davis Health, told this news organization.

“They’ve never –until recently – had the patient as one of the audiences for a note,” he said.

Liam Keating, MD, an otolaryngologist in Martinez, Calif., recalls that he once wrote “globus hystericus,” and the patient wanted to sue him for saying that the patient was hysterical. “I now just code ‘Globus’ (if I don’t jump straight to LPD [lateral pharyngeal diverticulum]),” he commented in response to a commentary on open notes.

Sensitive information occurs more often in certain specialties, for example, psychiatry, genetics, adolescent medicine, and oncology, experts say.

“Cancer is an area that is highly charged for patients and doctors alike,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out. When reading pathology or imaging notes, patients may learn that they have been diagnosed with cancer or that they have a recurrence “without the physician being able to contextualize it and explain things – that’s just new and scary,” he said.

California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first, said Dr. MacDonald, but not all states have such laws.
 

Adjustments needed – or not – with open notes

At UCHealth in Aurora, Colo., Robert Breeze, MD, vice-chair of neurosurgery, said he has adjusted his practice to accommodate open notes and to anticipate trouble spots.*

“When I order imaging or send pathology specimens, I have already discussed with the patient the possibilities, including cancer, and what we will do next. Patients deeply appreciate these discussions, before they see the results,” he commented in an institutional white paper issued in anticipation of the changes on Nov. 2.

This is called precounseling, said Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., which has been a pioneer in information sharing with patients. Their system does delay the release of information in the case of “complicated” results, such as from cancer biopsies, he said in an interview.

However, Christiaan Hoff, MD, PhD, a surgeon at the Medical Center Leeuwarden (the Netherlands), wonders how important it is for the physician to be present when the patient receives bad news, including news about cancer. “We may overestimate our added value in these situations,” he suggested.

“Our empathy may not outweigh” the disadvantages of the situation, and the “finer points of our explanation will often go unnoticed” by the stressed patient, he commented. Dr. Hoff was also responding to the commentary about open notes.

In that commentary, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., was concerned about misunderstandings. Oncology is complex, and patients can struggle to understand their prognosis and planned treatment efficacy, especially in cases of metastatic disease, he wrote.

This concern is somewhat refuted by a study published Oct. 5 in Cancer Cell. Responses to two surveys involving 96 oncology clinicians at three U.S. centers found that almost half (44%) believed that their patients “would be confused” by open notes.

However, only 4% of the 3,418 cancer patients from the same surveys reported being confused by open notes. (A majority of participants had more than a high school education, and English was their primary language.)

“Patient and clinician views about open notes in oncology are not aligned, with patients expressing considerably more enthusiasm,” wrote the authors, led by Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who has been treated for brain cancer.

“All clinicians are anxious at first,” Ms. Salmi told this news organization. “Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions … are more likely to read their notes.”

The survey results echo the early experience reported from Sweden, where open notes was launched in 2012. “Patients have loved it from the beginning,” said Maria Haggland, PhD, of Uppsala MedTech Science Innovation Center.

However, when the scheme first launched, it was considered to be “very controversial,” and “there were a lot of complaints, from health care professionals, especially,” she added.

Over time, clinicians have embraced open notes, and the program has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, she observed during an Oct. 5 webinar on open notes.
 

More work for already overworked clinicians?

An outstanding concern about open notes is that it will cause more work for health care professionals.

Traditionally, doctors have written notes using medical lexicon, including a lot of abbreviations and jargon for efficiency’s sake. Now that patients will read the notes, will clinicians have to spell out things in lay terms, alter their writing so as not to offend, and generally do more work?

William Harvey, MD, chief medical information officer, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, acknowledged that that may be the case.

In a forthcoming note to staff about the Nov. 2 start of open notes, Dr. Harvey will include a reminder to accommodate the patient as a reader. But that may or may not mean an increase in work volume, depending on the provider. “Clinical note writing is highly personal. There’s an art to it,” he said in an interview. “So it’s hard to give standard advice.”

Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and a lecturer at California Pacific Medical Center, is particularly concerned about the impact of open notes on progress notes, which he calls a tool to develop strategies and make observations while working with a patient.

By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” he told this news organization.

“These notes serve many masters already,” he said, referring to purposes such as utilization review and billing. “The more masters they serve, the less useful they are to get medical work done.”

Dr. MacDonald, the medical information officer, said the new law doesn’t mandate a change in writing style.

In a study published last year, researchers analyzed notes written by oncologists before and after adoption of open notes. They found that, on average, clinicians did not change their note writing. The investigators analyzed more than 100,000 clinical notes written by 35 oncologists at a single center.

Advocates for open notes emphasize that there are benefits for clinicians.

“Doctors are overworked. They’re overburdened. But empowered patients can help the doctor,” said OpenNotes’ Dr. Blease. She cited survey data that show that patients better understand their treatment plan and medication, which can cut down on physician workload.

Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot program for 3 years. Each day, Dr. Millen discusses a shared note with two or three patients. “I actually end all of my appointments with, ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she told this news organization.

“I was a little afraid of this initially,” she said, but within the first 3 months of the pilot, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”

The persons quoted in this article have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

Correction, 10/23/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the campus' location. 

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

Starting Nov. 2, all patients in the United States will have immediate access to clinical notes and thus will be able to read their doctors’ writings, as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

FG Trade/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates that patients have fast, electronic access to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, history, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes.

But this federal mandate, called “open notes” by many, is potentially confusing and frightening for patients, say some physicians. Others worry that the change will increase workload as clinicians tailor notes for patients and answer related questions.

The law means that inpatient and outpatient notes will be released immediately and that patients will have immediate access to testing and imaging results, including results from sexually transmitted disease tests, Pap tests, cancer biopsies, CT and PET scans, fetal ultrasounds, pneumonia cultures, and mammograms.

Such notes could contain sensitive information, and there is concern that patients could be shocked, confused, or annoyed by what they read, even with more run-of-the-mill notes.

Champions of open notes say that the benefits, including better provider-patient communication, greatly outweigh such risks.

“This is about convenience – a bit like online banking,” commented Charlotte Blease, PhD, resident scholar at OpenNotes, an advocacy nonprofit organization headquartered at the Beth Israel–Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “But it’s a culture shift for doctors,” she said in an interview.

“It turns physician paternalism on its head,” said C. T. Lin, MD, chief medical information officer, UCHealth, Denver. The change requires “some letting go of old traditions” in medicine, he wrote in an August blog post, referring to the fact that a computer screen – and not a physician – may tell patients about a new health problem.

Dr. Lin summarized the experience at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, which has allowed patients to have access to oncology notes for the past 5 years: “No issues and highly appreciated by patients. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
 

A new audience

Other institutions have also been voluntarily implementing open notes.

UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., has run an optional program for the past year. However, only about two dozen of approximately 1,000 staff physicians opted in to the program.

“This illustrates the point that it’s a new thing that physicians aren’t used to doing. They’ve traditionally written notes for the benefit of their colleagues, for billing, for their own reference,” Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at UC Davis Health, told this news organization.

“They’ve never –until recently – had the patient as one of the audiences for a note,” he said.

Liam Keating, MD, an otolaryngologist in Martinez, Calif., recalls that he once wrote “globus hystericus,” and the patient wanted to sue him for saying that the patient was hysterical. “I now just code ‘Globus’ (if I don’t jump straight to LPD [lateral pharyngeal diverticulum]),” he commented in response to a commentary on open notes.

Sensitive information occurs more often in certain specialties, for example, psychiatry, genetics, adolescent medicine, and oncology, experts say.

“Cancer is an area that is highly charged for patients and doctors alike,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out. When reading pathology or imaging notes, patients may learn that they have been diagnosed with cancer or that they have a recurrence “without the physician being able to contextualize it and explain things – that’s just new and scary,” he said.

California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first, said Dr. MacDonald, but not all states have such laws.
 

Adjustments needed – or not – with open notes

At UCHealth in Aurora, Colo., Robert Breeze, MD, vice-chair of neurosurgery, said he has adjusted his practice to accommodate open notes and to anticipate trouble spots.*

“When I order imaging or send pathology specimens, I have already discussed with the patient the possibilities, including cancer, and what we will do next. Patients deeply appreciate these discussions, before they see the results,” he commented in an institutional white paper issued in anticipation of the changes on Nov. 2.

This is called precounseling, said Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., which has been a pioneer in information sharing with patients. Their system does delay the release of information in the case of “complicated” results, such as from cancer biopsies, he said in an interview.

However, Christiaan Hoff, MD, PhD, a surgeon at the Medical Center Leeuwarden (the Netherlands), wonders how important it is for the physician to be present when the patient receives bad news, including news about cancer. “We may overestimate our added value in these situations,” he suggested.

“Our empathy may not outweigh” the disadvantages of the situation, and the “finer points of our explanation will often go unnoticed” by the stressed patient, he commented. Dr. Hoff was also responding to the commentary about open notes.

In that commentary, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., was concerned about misunderstandings. Oncology is complex, and patients can struggle to understand their prognosis and planned treatment efficacy, especially in cases of metastatic disease, he wrote.

This concern is somewhat refuted by a study published Oct. 5 in Cancer Cell. Responses to two surveys involving 96 oncology clinicians at three U.S. centers found that almost half (44%) believed that their patients “would be confused” by open notes.

However, only 4% of the 3,418 cancer patients from the same surveys reported being confused by open notes. (A majority of participants had more than a high school education, and English was their primary language.)

“Patient and clinician views about open notes in oncology are not aligned, with patients expressing considerably more enthusiasm,” wrote the authors, led by Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who has been treated for brain cancer.

“All clinicians are anxious at first,” Ms. Salmi told this news organization. “Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions … are more likely to read their notes.”

The survey results echo the early experience reported from Sweden, where open notes was launched in 2012. “Patients have loved it from the beginning,” said Maria Haggland, PhD, of Uppsala MedTech Science Innovation Center.

However, when the scheme first launched, it was considered to be “very controversial,” and “there were a lot of complaints, from health care professionals, especially,” she added.

Over time, clinicians have embraced open notes, and the program has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, she observed during an Oct. 5 webinar on open notes.
 

More work for already overworked clinicians?

An outstanding concern about open notes is that it will cause more work for health care professionals.

Traditionally, doctors have written notes using medical lexicon, including a lot of abbreviations and jargon for efficiency’s sake. Now that patients will read the notes, will clinicians have to spell out things in lay terms, alter their writing so as not to offend, and generally do more work?

William Harvey, MD, chief medical information officer, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, acknowledged that that may be the case.

In a forthcoming note to staff about the Nov. 2 start of open notes, Dr. Harvey will include a reminder to accommodate the patient as a reader. But that may or may not mean an increase in work volume, depending on the provider. “Clinical note writing is highly personal. There’s an art to it,” he said in an interview. “So it’s hard to give standard advice.”

Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and a lecturer at California Pacific Medical Center, is particularly concerned about the impact of open notes on progress notes, which he calls a tool to develop strategies and make observations while working with a patient.

By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” he told this news organization.

“These notes serve many masters already,” he said, referring to purposes such as utilization review and billing. “The more masters they serve, the less useful they are to get medical work done.”

Dr. MacDonald, the medical information officer, said the new law doesn’t mandate a change in writing style.

In a study published last year, researchers analyzed notes written by oncologists before and after adoption of open notes. They found that, on average, clinicians did not change their note writing. The investigators analyzed more than 100,000 clinical notes written by 35 oncologists at a single center.

Advocates for open notes emphasize that there are benefits for clinicians.

“Doctors are overworked. They’re overburdened. But empowered patients can help the doctor,” said OpenNotes’ Dr. Blease. She cited survey data that show that patients better understand their treatment plan and medication, which can cut down on physician workload.

Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot program for 3 years. Each day, Dr. Millen discusses a shared note with two or three patients. “I actually end all of my appointments with, ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she told this news organization.

“I was a little afraid of this initially,” she said, but within the first 3 months of the pilot, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”

The persons quoted in this article have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

Correction, 10/23/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the campus' location. 

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

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

[email protected]

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

[email protected]

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

[email protected]

The Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) announced Oct. 21 that it is investigating data received on the death of a volunteer in a clinical trial of the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford University and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca.

In an email sent to Medscape Medical News, the agency states that it was formally informed of the death on October 19. It has already received data regarding the investigation of the case, which is now being conducted by the Brazilian International Security Assessment Committee.

The identity of the volunteer and cause of death have not yet been confirmed by any official source linked to the study. In the email, Anvisa reiterated that “according to national and international regulations on good clinical practices, data on clinical research volunteers must be kept confidential, in accordance with the principles of confidentiality, human dignity, and protection of participants.”

A report in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo, however, states that the patient who died is a 28-year-old doctor, recently graduated, who worked on the front line of combating COVID-19 in three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro. He reportedly died Oct. 15 due to complications from COVID-19. The newspaper report said he received a dose of the AZDI222 vaccine in late July. Due to the study design, it is impossible to know whether the volunteer received the vaccine or placebo.

It is imperative to wait for the results of the investigations, said Sergio Cimerman, MD, the scientific coordinator of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI), because death is possible during any vaccine trial, even more so in cases in which the final goal is to immunize the population in record time.

“It is precisely the phase 3 study that assesses efficacy and safety so that the vaccine can be used for the entire population. We cannot let ourselves lose hope, and we must move forward, as safely as possible, in search of an ideal vaccine,” said Cimerman, who works at the Instituto de Infectologia Emílio Ribas and is also an advisor to the Portuguese edition of Medscape.

This article was translated and adapted from the Portuguese edition of Medscape.

The Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) announced Oct. 21 that it is investigating data received on the death of a volunteer in a clinical trial of the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford University and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca.

In an email sent to Medscape Medical News, the agency states that it was formally informed of the death on October 19. It has already received data regarding the investigation of the case, which is now being conducted by the Brazilian International Security Assessment Committee.

The identity of the volunteer and cause of death have not yet been confirmed by any official source linked to the study. In the email, Anvisa reiterated that “according to national and international regulations on good clinical practices, data on clinical research volunteers must be kept confidential, in accordance with the principles of confidentiality, human dignity, and protection of participants.”

A report in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo, however, states that the patient who died is a 28-year-old doctor, recently graduated, who worked on the front line of combating COVID-19 in three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro. He reportedly died Oct. 15 due to complications from COVID-19. The newspaper report said he received a dose of the AZDI222 vaccine in late July. Due to the study design, it is impossible to know whether the volunteer received the vaccine or placebo.

It is imperative to wait for the results of the investigations, said Sergio Cimerman, MD, the scientific coordinator of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI), because death is possible during any vaccine trial, even more so in cases in which the final goal is to immunize the population in record time.

“It is precisely the phase 3 study that assesses efficacy and safety so that the vaccine can be used for the entire population. We cannot let ourselves lose hope, and we must move forward, as safely as possible, in search of an ideal vaccine,” said Cimerman, who works at the Instituto de Infectologia Emílio Ribas and is also an advisor to the Portuguese edition of Medscape.

This article was translated and adapted from the Portuguese edition of Medscape.

The Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) announced Oct. 21 that it is investigating data received on the death of a volunteer in a clinical trial of the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford University and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca.

In an email sent to Medscape Medical News, the agency states that it was formally informed of the death on October 19. It has already received data regarding the investigation of the case, which is now being conducted by the Brazilian International Security Assessment Committee.

The identity of the volunteer and cause of death have not yet been confirmed by any official source linked to the study. In the email, Anvisa reiterated that “according to national and international regulations on good clinical practices, data on clinical research volunteers must be kept confidential, in accordance with the principles of confidentiality, human dignity, and protection of participants.”

A report in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo, however, states that the patient who died is a 28-year-old doctor, recently graduated, who worked on the front line of combating COVID-19 in three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro. He reportedly died Oct. 15 due to complications from COVID-19. The newspaper report said he received a dose of the AZDI222 vaccine in late July. Due to the study design, it is impossible to know whether the volunteer received the vaccine or placebo.

It is imperative to wait for the results of the investigations, said Sergio Cimerman, MD, the scientific coordinator of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI), because death is possible during any vaccine trial, even more so in cases in which the final goal is to immunize the population in record time.

“It is precisely the phase 3 study that assesses efficacy and safety so that the vaccine can be used for the entire population. We cannot let ourselves lose hope, and we must move forward, as safely as possible, in search of an ideal vaccine,” said Cimerman, who works at the Instituto de Infectologia Emílio Ribas and is also an advisor to the Portuguese edition of Medscape.

This article was translated and adapted from the Portuguese edition of Medscape.

The Society of Hospital Medicine has announced its virtual annual conference for 2021: SHM Converge. Formerly known as Hospital Medicine 2021, SHM Converge will take place virtually from May 3-7, 2021, and will offer a fully digital experience with the same education, professional development, and networking hospitalists have come to expect from SHM’s annual conference.

“This year, COVID-19 has challenged us to embrace change and to innovate to better serve our hospital medicine community,” said Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM, president of SHM’s board of directors. “In that spirit, not only are we introducing an exciting new brand for the SHM annual conference, we are unveiling a reimagined experience for attendees, complete with sessions highlighting the latest research, best practices and innovations in the field.”

The SHM Converge schedule features 20 educational tracks, including the addition of four new tracks to support hospital medicine professionals in some of the most relevant topics affecting health care: diagnostic safety; diversity, equity, and inclusion; leadership; and wellness and resilience

Attendees will also have the option to follow many of the most popular tracks from previous SHM annual conferences, including Rapid Fire, Clinical Updates, and High-Value Care, among others. In many sessions, speakers will present the latest data and information available about COVID-19’s impact on the practice of hospital medicine. Precourses will be held on May 3.

SHM Converge will also offer additional professional development opportunities, including the Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes scientific abstract competition and a speed mentoring session. Networking will be an integral component of SHM Converge. Attendees will be able to choose from more than 20 Special Interest forums, live Q&A sessions and networking events through the interactive conference platform.

“While SHM Converge may look a bit different than the SHM annual conference we are accustomed to, I am confident the content will be among the best we have ever offered, spanning a broad range of clinical topics and issues affecting hospitalists and their patients,” said Daniel Steinberg, MD, SFHM, course director for SHM Converge. “This virtual experience will unite hospitalists from around the globe and connect them with renowned faculty members and thought leaders in hospital medicine – as well as with their hospitalist colleagues they look forward to reconnecting with each year.”

Keynote speaker announcements are forthcoming.

Registration for SHM Converge opens in November 2020. Learn more at shmconverge.org.

Members of the media can obtain press passes beginning in November 2020 by contacting [email protected].






 

The Society of Hospital Medicine has announced its virtual annual conference for 2021: SHM Converge. Formerly known as Hospital Medicine 2021, SHM Converge will take place virtually from May 3-7, 2021, and will offer a fully digital experience with the same education, professional development, and networking hospitalists have come to expect from SHM’s annual conference.

“This year, COVID-19 has challenged us to embrace change and to innovate to better serve our hospital medicine community,” said Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM, president of SHM’s board of directors. “In that spirit, not only are we introducing an exciting new brand for the SHM annual conference, we are unveiling a reimagined experience for attendees, complete with sessions highlighting the latest research, best practices and innovations in the field.”

The SHM Converge schedule features 20 educational tracks, including the addition of four new tracks to support hospital medicine professionals in some of the most relevant topics affecting health care: diagnostic safety; diversity, equity, and inclusion; leadership; and wellness and resilience

Attendees will also have the option to follow many of the most popular tracks from previous SHM annual conferences, including Rapid Fire, Clinical Updates, and High-Value Care, among others. In many sessions, speakers will present the latest data and information available about COVID-19’s impact on the practice of hospital medicine. Precourses will be held on May 3.

SHM Converge will also offer additional professional development opportunities, including the Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes scientific abstract competition and a speed mentoring session. Networking will be an integral component of SHM Converge. Attendees will be able to choose from more than 20 Special Interest forums, live Q&A sessions and networking events through the interactive conference platform.

“While SHM Converge may look a bit different than the SHM annual conference we are accustomed to, I am confident the content will be among the best we have ever offered, spanning a broad range of clinical topics and issues affecting hospitalists and their patients,” said Daniel Steinberg, MD, SFHM, course director for SHM Converge. “This virtual experience will unite hospitalists from around the globe and connect them with renowned faculty members and thought leaders in hospital medicine – as well as with their hospitalist colleagues they look forward to reconnecting with each year.”

Keynote speaker announcements are forthcoming.

Registration for SHM Converge opens in November 2020. Learn more at shmconverge.org.

Members of the media can obtain press passes beginning in November 2020 by contacting [email protected].






 

The Society of Hospital Medicine has announced its virtual annual conference for 2021: SHM Converge. Formerly known as Hospital Medicine 2021, SHM Converge will take place virtually from May 3-7, 2021, and will offer a fully digital experience with the same education, professional development, and networking hospitalists have come to expect from SHM’s annual conference.

“This year, COVID-19 has challenged us to embrace change and to innovate to better serve our hospital medicine community,” said Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM, president of SHM’s board of directors. “In that spirit, not only are we introducing an exciting new brand for the SHM annual conference, we are unveiling a reimagined experience for attendees, complete with sessions highlighting the latest research, best practices and innovations in the field.”

The SHM Converge schedule features 20 educational tracks, including the addition of four new tracks to support hospital medicine professionals in some of the most relevant topics affecting health care: diagnostic safety; diversity, equity, and inclusion; leadership; and wellness and resilience

Attendees will also have the option to follow many of the most popular tracks from previous SHM annual conferences, including Rapid Fire, Clinical Updates, and High-Value Care, among others. In many sessions, speakers will present the latest data and information available about COVID-19’s impact on the practice of hospital medicine. Precourses will be held on May 3.

SHM Converge will also offer additional professional development opportunities, including the Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes scientific abstract competition and a speed mentoring session. Networking will be an integral component of SHM Converge. Attendees will be able to choose from more than 20 Special Interest forums, live Q&A sessions and networking events through the interactive conference platform.

“While SHM Converge may look a bit different than the SHM annual conference we are accustomed to, I am confident the content will be among the best we have ever offered, spanning a broad range of clinical topics and issues affecting hospitalists and their patients,” said Daniel Steinberg, MD, SFHM, course director for SHM Converge. “This virtual experience will unite hospitalists from around the globe and connect them with renowned faculty members and thought leaders in hospital medicine – as well as with their hospitalist colleagues they look forward to reconnecting with each year.”

Keynote speaker announcements are forthcoming.

Registration for SHM Converge opens in November 2020. Learn more at shmconverge.org.

Members of the media can obtain press passes beginning in November 2020 by contacting [email protected].






 

Less than half of Americans now say that they would get a coronavirus vaccine if one became available, according to a survey conducted Oct. 8-10.

Only 48% of the 2,200 adults participating in the national tracking poll said that they would choose to get vaccinated against the coronavirus, the lowest number since the weekly survey began at the end of February, digital media company Morning Consult reported.

Americans’ willingness to receive such a vaccine reached its high point, 72%, in early April but has been steadily dropping. “Overall willingness has hovered around 50% throughout September, fueled primarily by a sharp drop among Democrats since mid-August, around the time reports of White House interference at the Food and Drug Administration and other federal health agencies began to command more public attention,” Morning Consult noted.

Despite that drop, a majority of Democrats (55%) are still willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, compared with 48% of Republicans and just 41% of independents. The willingness gap between the two parties was quite a bit wider in the previous poll, conducted Oct. 1-4: 60% of Democrats versus 48% for Republicans, the company said.

“Keeping with longstanding trends, the survey also shows women were less likely to say they’d seek a vaccine than men (42% to 55%), as were people with lower education levels and those who live in rural areas,” the news outlet added.

The latest poll results also show that 33% of respondents (43% of Republicans/25% of Democrats) are socializing in public places. The overall number was just 8% in mid-April but was up to 27% by mid-June. The proportion of all adults who believe in the effectiveness of face masks has been around 80% since April, but there is a significant gap between those who strongly approve of President Trump (66%) and those who strongly disapprove (95%), Morning Consult said.

[email protected]

Less than half of Americans now say that they would get a coronavirus vaccine if one became available, according to a survey conducted Oct. 8-10.

Only 48% of the 2,200 adults participating in the national tracking poll said that they would choose to get vaccinated against the coronavirus, the lowest number since the weekly survey began at the end of February, digital media company Morning Consult reported.

Americans’ willingness to receive such a vaccine reached its high point, 72%, in early April but has been steadily dropping. “Overall willingness has hovered around 50% throughout September, fueled primarily by a sharp drop among Democrats since mid-August, around the time reports of White House interference at the Food and Drug Administration and other federal health agencies began to command more public attention,” Morning Consult noted.

Despite that drop, a majority of Democrats (55%) are still willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, compared with 48% of Republicans and just 41% of independents. The willingness gap between the two parties was quite a bit wider in the previous poll, conducted Oct. 1-4: 60% of Democrats versus 48% for Republicans, the company said.

“Keeping with longstanding trends, the survey also shows women were less likely to say they’d seek a vaccine than men (42% to 55%), as were people with lower education levels and those who live in rural areas,” the news outlet added.

The latest poll results also show that 33% of respondents (43% of Republicans/25% of Democrats) are socializing in public places. The overall number was just 8% in mid-April but was up to 27% by mid-June. The proportion of all adults who believe in the effectiveness of face masks has been around 80% since April, but there is a significant gap between those who strongly approve of President Trump (66%) and those who strongly disapprove (95%), Morning Consult said.

[email protected]

Less than half of Americans now say that they would get a coronavirus vaccine if one became available, according to a survey conducted Oct. 8-10.

Only 48% of the 2,200 adults participating in the national tracking poll said that they would choose to get vaccinated against the coronavirus, the lowest number since the weekly survey began at the end of February, digital media company Morning Consult reported.

Americans’ willingness to receive such a vaccine reached its high point, 72%, in early April but has been steadily dropping. “Overall willingness has hovered around 50% throughout September, fueled primarily by a sharp drop among Democrats since mid-August, around the time reports of White House interference at the Food and Drug Administration and other federal health agencies began to command more public attention,” Morning Consult noted.

Despite that drop, a majority of Democrats (55%) are still willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, compared with 48% of Republicans and just 41% of independents. The willingness gap between the two parties was quite a bit wider in the previous poll, conducted Oct. 1-4: 60% of Democrats versus 48% for Republicans, the company said.

“Keeping with longstanding trends, the survey also shows women were less likely to say they’d seek a vaccine than men (42% to 55%), as were people with lower education levels and those who live in rural areas,” the news outlet added.

The latest poll results also show that 33% of respondents (43% of Republicans/25% of Democrats) are socializing in public places. The overall number was just 8% in mid-April but was up to 27% by mid-June. The proportion of all adults who believe in the effectiveness of face masks has been around 80% since April, but there is a significant gap between those who strongly approve of President Trump (66%) and those who strongly disapprove (95%), Morning Consult said.

[email protected]