Gynecology

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

[email protected]

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

[email protected]

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

[email protected]

Most clinicians are appropriately prescribing high-potency steroids for vulvar lichen sclerosus, but the recent analysis of a large commercial insurance database suggests that the condition may be underdiagnosed.

The claims-based prevalence of 0.05% found in the study is lower than previously reported, and only 16% of the diagnoses were in women aged 18-44 years, Laura E. Melnick, MD, and associates wrote after identifying 10,004 females aged 0-65 years with lichen sclerosus in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases from 2015 to 2017. The majority (79%) of those diagnosed were aged 45-65 years (average, 50.8 years).

In pediatric patients (up to age 17 years), the low prevalence (0.01%) “may be attributable to several factors including relative rarity, as well as variability in pediatric clinicians’ familiarity with [lichen sclerosus] and in patients’ clinical symptoms,” said Dr. Melnick and associates in the department of dermatology at New York University.

Just over half of all diagnoses (52.4%) were made by ob.gyns., with dermatologists next at 14.5%, followed by family physicians (6.5%), nurse practitioners (2.5%), and internists (0.4%), they reported in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

Treatment for lichen sclerosus, in the form of high-potency topical corticosteroids, was mostly appropriate. Ob.gyns. prescribed class 1/2 steroids to 83% of their patients, tops among all clinicians. Dermatologists were just over 80%, and the other clinician categories were all over 70%, the investigators said.

“Understanding the current management of [lichen sclerosus] is important given that un- or undertreated disease can significantly impact patients’ quality of life, lead to increased lower urinary tract symptoms and irreversible architectural changes, and predispose women to squamous cell carcinoma,” they wrote.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Melnick LE et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.05.001.

Most clinicians are appropriately prescribing high-potency steroids for vulvar lichen sclerosus, but the recent analysis of a large commercial insurance database suggests that the condition may be underdiagnosed.

The claims-based prevalence of 0.05% found in the study is lower than previously reported, and only 16% of the diagnoses were in women aged 18-44 years, Laura E. Melnick, MD, and associates wrote after identifying 10,004 females aged 0-65 years with lichen sclerosus in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases from 2015 to 2017. The majority (79%) of those diagnosed were aged 45-65 years (average, 50.8 years).

In pediatric patients (up to age 17 years), the low prevalence (0.01%) “may be attributable to several factors including relative rarity, as well as variability in pediatric clinicians’ familiarity with [lichen sclerosus] and in patients’ clinical symptoms,” said Dr. Melnick and associates in the department of dermatology at New York University.

Just over half of all diagnoses (52.4%) were made by ob.gyns., with dermatologists next at 14.5%, followed by family physicians (6.5%), nurse practitioners (2.5%), and internists (0.4%), they reported in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

Treatment for lichen sclerosus, in the form of high-potency topical corticosteroids, was mostly appropriate. Ob.gyns. prescribed class 1/2 steroids to 83% of their patients, tops among all clinicians. Dermatologists were just over 80%, and the other clinician categories were all over 70%, the investigators said.

“Understanding the current management of [lichen sclerosus] is important given that un- or undertreated disease can significantly impact patients’ quality of life, lead to increased lower urinary tract symptoms and irreversible architectural changes, and predispose women to squamous cell carcinoma,” they wrote.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Melnick LE et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.05.001.

Most clinicians are appropriately prescribing high-potency steroids for vulvar lichen sclerosus, but the recent analysis of a large commercial insurance database suggests that the condition may be underdiagnosed.

The claims-based prevalence of 0.05% found in the study is lower than previously reported, and only 16% of the diagnoses were in women aged 18-44 years, Laura E. Melnick, MD, and associates wrote after identifying 10,004 females aged 0-65 years with lichen sclerosus in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases from 2015 to 2017. The majority (79%) of those diagnosed were aged 45-65 years (average, 50.8 years).

In pediatric patients (up to age 17 years), the low prevalence (0.01%) “may be attributable to several factors including relative rarity, as well as variability in pediatric clinicians’ familiarity with [lichen sclerosus] and in patients’ clinical symptoms,” said Dr. Melnick and associates in the department of dermatology at New York University.

Just over half of all diagnoses (52.4%) were made by ob.gyns., with dermatologists next at 14.5%, followed by family physicians (6.5%), nurse practitioners (2.5%), and internists (0.4%), they reported in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

Treatment for lichen sclerosus, in the form of high-potency topical corticosteroids, was mostly appropriate. Ob.gyns. prescribed class 1/2 steroids to 83% of their patients, tops among all clinicians. Dermatologists were just over 80%, and the other clinician categories were all over 70%, the investigators said.

“Understanding the current management of [lichen sclerosus] is important given that un- or undertreated disease can significantly impact patients’ quality of life, lead to increased lower urinary tract symptoms and irreversible architectural changes, and predispose women to squamous cell carcinoma,” they wrote.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Melnick LE et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.05.001.

Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted emergency use authorization of remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, California) to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, the drug is considered an investigational agent, not yet formally approved by the FDA and whose efficacy and safety has not yet been fully characterized. Remdesivir has been shown to be effective in reducing the time to recovery of people with COVID-19 disease. It has not been tested in a large controlled clinical trial of pregnant women with COVID-19; however, remdesivir has been given to pregnant women infected with COVID-19 in a compassionate use protocol. For pregnant women, the drug should only be used if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the mother and fetus.¹

Pharmacology. Remdesivir is a nucleoside RNA polymerase inhibitor. It has a molecular formula of
C₂₇H₃₅N₆O₈P and a molecular weight of 602.6 g/mol.¹

Mechanism of action. From FDA’s fact sheet: “Remdesivir is an adenosine nucleotide prodrug that distributes into cells where it is metabolized to form the pharmacologically active nucleoside triphosphate metabolite. Metabolism of remdesivir to remdesivir triphosphate has been demonstrated in multiple cell types. Remdesivir triphosphate acts as an analog of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and competes with the natural ATP substrate for incorporation into nascent RNA chains by the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which results in chain termination during replication of the viral RNA. Remdesivir triphosphate is a weak inhibitor of mammalian DNA and RNA polymerases with low potential for mitochondrial toxicity.”¹

Treatment protocols

Remdesivir is authorized for treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 disease, defined as patients with an oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen or requiring mechanical ventilation or requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The optimal dose and duration of treatment of COVID-19 with remdesivir is unknown.¹

Prior to initiating treatment, the estimated glomerular filtration rate should be documented to be ≥ 30 mL/min. An excipient used in the remdesivir formulation—sulfobutylether-β-cylcodextrin sodium salt—is renally cleared and accumulates in patients with decreased renal function. 

Baseline liver function tests should be performed prior to treatment and daily during the course of treatment. Remdesivir should not be initiated in patients with an alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal at baseline. Remdesivir should be discontinued in patients who develop an ALT level ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal or in patients who develop elevated ALT levels and have increased bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, or international normalized ratio.¹

In one open-label study (GS-US-540-5773), remdesivir treatment was discontinued due to an adverse event in 5% of patients on a 5-day regimen and in 10% of patients on a 10-day regimen.¹

Under the emergency use authorization, two treatment protocols have been proposed depending on the clinical severity of the COVID-19 infection¹:

• Protocol 1: For people with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO, the duration of therapy is 10 days, beginning with a loading dose of remdesivir 200 mg infused intravenously for 30 to 120 minutes on day 1 followed by a once-daily dose of 100 mg for 9 days.
• Protocol 2: For people with COVID-19 disease not requiring mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO, the duration of therapy is 5 days, beginning with a loading dose of remdesivir 200 mg infused intravenously for 30 to 120 minutes on day 1 followed by a once-daily dose of 100 mg for 4 days. If the patient does not show clinical improvement, treatment may be extended for an additional 5 days. ​​​​​​

Continue to: Randomized placebo-controlled trial results...

Randomized placebo-controlled trial results

The Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT), sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted by Gilead Sciences. The study began in February and evaluated up to 10 days of remdesivir treatment—200 mg IV once daily for 1 day followed by 100 mg IV once daily for 9 days in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. Patients were enrolled in a 1:1 manner to remdesivir or placebo, and time to recovery within 28 days after randomization was the trial’s endpoint. According to preliminary analysis of 606 recovered patients, recovery took a median of 11 days in the remdesivir group and 15 days in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12‒1.54; P<.001). Mortality rates were 8.0% and 11.6% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (P=.059).¹

5 vs 10 days of remdesivir treatment

The Gilead Sciences‒sponsored study GS-US-540-5773 was a randomized, open-label multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19. A total of 197 adult patients received 10-day remdesivir treatment (200 mg IV once daily for 1 day followed by 100 mg IV once daily for 9 days). An additional 200 adult patients received 5-day remdesivir treatment (200 mg IV once daily followed by 100 mg IV for 4 days). Both groups also received standard of care. Results suggested that patients receiving 10 days of remdesivir had similar improvement in clinical status compared with those receiving a 5-day treatment course (10-to-5 day odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51‒1.13] on day 14).¹ Improvement in clinical status was defined as an improvement of 2 or more points from baseline on a predefined 7-point scale that ranged from hospital discharge to increasing levels of oxygen support to death. Clinical recovery was achieved if patients ceased the need for oxygen support or were discharged.¹

The time to clinical improvement for 50% of patients was similar in each treatment group (10 days in the 5-day group versus 11 days in the 10-day group). By day 14, observed clinical improvement rates were 65% and 54% in the 5- and 10-day treatment groups, respectively. Clinical recovery rates were 70% and 59% in the 5- and 10-day treatment groups and mortality rates were 8% and 11%.¹

Adverse events

The use of remdesivir is contraindicated in patients who are hypersensitive to the drug. Its infusion may cause hypotension, nausea, vomiting, diaphoresis, and shivering. If signs of a clinically significant infusion reaction are observed the infusion should be discontinued. As noted above, elevation in ALT levels occurs with remdesivir treatment.¹

Reporting serious adverse events. If a serious and unexpected adverse event occurs and appears to be associated with the use of remdesivir, the prescribing health care provider and/or the provider’s designee should complete and submit a MedWatch form to the FDA using one of the following methods¹:

• Complete and submit the report online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
• Return form FDA 3500 (available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM163919.pdf) to the FDA by mail (MedWatch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787) or fax (1-800-FDA-0178)
• Gilead requests that all FDA MedWatch forms also be returned to Gilead Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology: fax: 1-650-522-5477 726; e-mail: [email protected]

Continue to: Drug interactions...

Drug interactions

Remdesivir has not been evaluated for drug-drug interactions in humans. The clinical relevance of in vitro drug interactions also has not been established. According to the FDA, remdesivir is a substrate for the drug metabolizing enzymes CYP2C8, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4, and is a substrate for organic anion transporting polypeptides 1B1 (OAPT1B1) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transporters. In vitro, remdesivir inhibits CYP3A4, OATP1B1, OATP1B3, BSEP, MRP4, and NTCP.¹

Pregnancy risk summary

Remdesivir has not been studied adequately in pregnant women and only should be used during pregnancy if the potential benefit of the drug justifies the potential risk to both mother and fetus.

Nonclinical animal studies that included systemic exposure of the predominant circulating metabolite of remdesivir in pregnant rats and rabbits (at 4 times the recommended dose of human exposure) demonstrated no adverse effect on embryofetal development.¹

Breastfeeding

The only information regarding breastfeeding and remdesivir comes from animal studies. The drug and its metabolites were detected in the plasma of nursing rat pups whose mothers given intravenous remdesivir daily from gestation day 6 to lactation day 20. Measured on lactation day 10, remdesivir exposure in the pups was about 1% that of maternal exposure.¹

“Because of the potential for viral transmission to SARS-CoV-2-negative infants and adverse reactions from the drug in breastfeeding infants, the developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for remdesivir and any potential adverse effects on the breastfed child from remdesivir or from the underlying maternal condition.”¹

Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted emergency use authorization of remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, California) to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, the drug is considered an investigational agent, not yet formally approved by the FDA and whose efficacy and safety has not yet been fully characterized. Remdesivir has been shown to be effective in reducing the time to recovery of people with COVID-19 disease. It has not been tested in a large controlled clinical trial of pregnant women with COVID-19; however, remdesivir has been given to pregnant women infected with COVID-19 in a compassionate use protocol. For pregnant women, the drug should only be used if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the mother and fetus.¹

Pharmacology. Remdesivir is a nucleoside RNA polymerase inhibitor. It has a molecular formula of
C₂₇H₃₅N₆O₈P and a molecular weight of 602.6 g/mol.¹

Mechanism of action. From FDA’s fact sheet: “Remdesivir is an adenosine nucleotide prodrug that distributes into cells where it is metabolized to form the pharmacologically active nucleoside triphosphate metabolite. Metabolism of remdesivir to remdesivir triphosphate has been demonstrated in multiple cell types. Remdesivir triphosphate acts as an analog of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and competes with the natural ATP substrate for incorporation into nascent RNA chains by the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which results in chain termination during replication of the viral RNA. Remdesivir triphosphate is a weak inhibitor of mammalian DNA and RNA polymerases with low potential for mitochondrial toxicity.”¹

Treatment protocols

Remdesivir is authorized for treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 disease, defined as patients with an oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen or requiring mechanical ventilation or requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The optimal dose and duration of treatment of COVID-19 with remdesivir is unknown.¹

Prior to initiating treatment, the estimated glomerular filtration rate should be documented to be ≥ 30 mL/min. An excipient used in the remdesivir formulation—sulfobutylether-β-cylcodextrin sodium salt—is renally cleared and accumulates in patients with decreased renal function. 

Baseline liver function tests should be performed prior to treatment and daily during the course of treatment. Remdesivir should not be initiated in patients with an alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal at baseline. Remdesivir should be discontinued in patients who develop an ALT level ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal or in patients who develop elevated ALT levels and have increased bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, or international normalized ratio.¹

In one open-label study (GS-US-540-5773), remdesivir treatment was discontinued due to an adverse event in 5% of patients on a 5-day regimen and in 10% of patients on a 10-day regimen.¹

Under the emergency use authorization, two treatment protocols have been proposed depending on the clinical severity of the COVID-19 infection¹:

• Protocol 1: For people with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO, the duration of therapy is 10 days, beginning with a loading dose of remdesivir 200 mg infused intravenously for 30 to 120 minutes on day 1 followed by a once-daily dose of 100 mg for 9 days.
• Protocol 2: For people with COVID-19 disease not requiring mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO, the duration of therapy is 5 days, beginning with a loading dose of remdesivir 200 mg infused intravenously for 30 to 120 minutes on day 1 followed by a once-daily dose of 100 mg for 4 days. If the patient does not show clinical improvement, treatment may be extended for an additional 5 days. ​​​​​​

Continue to: Randomized placebo-controlled trial results...

Randomized placebo-controlled trial results

The Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT), sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted by Gilead Sciences. The study began in February and evaluated up to 10 days of remdesivir treatment—200 mg IV once daily for 1 day followed by 100 mg IV once daily for 9 days in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. Patients were enrolled in a 1:1 manner to remdesivir or placebo, and time to recovery within 28 days after randomization was the trial’s endpoint. According to preliminary analysis of 606 recovered patients, recovery took a median of 11 days in the remdesivir group and 15 days in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12‒1.54; P<.001). Mortality rates were 8.0% and 11.6% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (P=.059).¹

5 vs 10 days of remdesivir treatment

The Gilead Sciences‒sponsored study GS-US-540-5773 was a randomized, open-label multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19. A total of 197 adult patients received 10-day remdesivir treatment (200 mg IV once daily for 1 day followed by 100 mg IV once daily for 9 days). An additional 200 adult patients received 5-day remdesivir treatment (200 mg IV once daily followed by 100 mg IV for 4 days). Both groups also received standard of care. Results suggested that patients receiving 10 days of remdesivir had similar improvement in clinical status compared with those receiving a 5-day treatment course (10-to-5 day odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51‒1.13] on day 14).¹ Improvement in clinical status was defined as an improvement of 2 or more points from baseline on a predefined 7-point scale that ranged from hospital discharge to increasing levels of oxygen support to death. Clinical recovery was achieved if patients ceased the need for oxygen support or were discharged.¹

The time to clinical improvement for 50% of patients was similar in each treatment group (10 days in the 5-day group versus 11 days in the 10-day group). By day 14, observed clinical improvement rates were 65% and 54% in the 5- and 10-day treatment groups, respectively. Clinical recovery rates were 70% and 59% in the 5- and 10-day treatment groups and mortality rates were 8% and 11%.¹

Adverse events

The use of remdesivir is contraindicated in patients who are hypersensitive to the drug. Its infusion may cause hypotension, nausea, vomiting, diaphoresis, and shivering. If signs of a clinically significant infusion reaction are observed the infusion should be discontinued. As noted above, elevation in ALT levels occurs with remdesivir treatment.¹

Reporting serious adverse events. If a serious and unexpected adverse event occurs and appears to be associated with the use of remdesivir, the prescribing health care provider and/or the provider’s designee should complete and submit a MedWatch form to the FDA using one of the following methods¹:

• Complete and submit the report online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
• Return form FDA 3500 (available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM163919.pdf) to the FDA by mail (MedWatch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787) or fax (1-800-FDA-0178)
• Gilead requests that all FDA MedWatch forms also be returned to Gilead Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology: fax: 1-650-522-5477 726; e-mail: [email protected]

Continue to: Drug interactions...

Drug interactions

Remdesivir has not been evaluated for drug-drug interactions in humans. The clinical relevance of in vitro drug interactions also has not been established. According to the FDA, remdesivir is a substrate for the drug metabolizing enzymes CYP2C8, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4, and is a substrate for organic anion transporting polypeptides 1B1 (OAPT1B1) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transporters. In vitro, remdesivir inhibits CYP3A4, OATP1B1, OATP1B3, BSEP, MRP4, and NTCP.¹

Pregnancy risk summary

Remdesivir has not been studied adequately in pregnant women and only should be used during pregnancy if the potential benefit of the drug justifies the potential risk to both mother and fetus.

Nonclinical animal studies that included systemic exposure of the predominant circulating metabolite of remdesivir in pregnant rats and rabbits (at 4 times the recommended dose of human exposure) demonstrated no adverse effect on embryofetal development.¹

Breastfeeding

The only information regarding breastfeeding and remdesivir comes from animal studies. The drug and its metabolites were detected in the plasma of nursing rat pups whose mothers given intravenous remdesivir daily from gestation day 6 to lactation day 20. Measured on lactation day 10, remdesivir exposure in the pups was about 1% that of maternal exposure.¹

“Because of the potential for viral transmission to SARS-CoV-2-negative infants and adverse reactions from the drug in breastfeeding infants, the developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for remdesivir and any potential adverse effects on the breastfed child from remdesivir or from the underlying maternal condition.”¹

Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted emergency use authorization of remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, California) to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, the drug is considered an investigational agent, not yet formally approved by the FDA and whose efficacy and safety has not yet been fully characterized. Remdesivir has been shown to be effective in reducing the time to recovery of people with COVID-19 disease. It has not been tested in a large controlled clinical trial of pregnant women with COVID-19; however, remdesivir has been given to pregnant women infected with COVID-19 in a compassionate use protocol. For pregnant women, the drug should only be used if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the mother and fetus.¹

Pharmacology. Remdesivir is a nucleoside RNA polymerase inhibitor. It has a molecular formula of
C₂₇H₃₅N₆O₈P and a molecular weight of 602.6 g/mol.¹

Mechanism of action. From FDA’s fact sheet: “Remdesivir is an adenosine nucleotide prodrug that distributes into cells where it is metabolized to form the pharmacologically active nucleoside triphosphate metabolite. Metabolism of remdesivir to remdesivir triphosphate has been demonstrated in multiple cell types. Remdesivir triphosphate acts as an analog of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and competes with the natural ATP substrate for incorporation into nascent RNA chains by the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which results in chain termination during replication of the viral RNA. Remdesivir triphosphate is a weak inhibitor of mammalian DNA and RNA polymerases with low potential for mitochondrial toxicity.”¹

Treatment protocols

Remdesivir is authorized for treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 disease, defined as patients with an oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen or requiring mechanical ventilation or requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The optimal dose and duration of treatment of COVID-19 with remdesivir is unknown.¹

Prior to initiating treatment, the estimated glomerular filtration rate should be documented to be ≥ 30 mL/min. An excipient used in the remdesivir formulation—sulfobutylether-β-cylcodextrin sodium salt—is renally cleared and accumulates in patients with decreased renal function. 

Baseline liver function tests should be performed prior to treatment and daily during the course of treatment. Remdesivir should not be initiated in patients with an alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal at baseline. Remdesivir should be discontinued in patients who develop an ALT level ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal or in patients who develop elevated ALT levels and have increased bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, or international normalized ratio.¹

In one open-label study (GS-US-540-5773), remdesivir treatment was discontinued due to an adverse event in 5% of patients on a 5-day regimen and in 10% of patients on a 10-day regimen.¹

Under the emergency use authorization, two treatment protocols have been proposed depending on the clinical severity of the COVID-19 infection¹:

• Protocol 1: For people with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO, the duration of therapy is 10 days, beginning with a loading dose of remdesivir 200 mg infused intravenously for 30 to 120 minutes on day 1 followed by a once-daily dose of 100 mg for 9 days.
• Protocol 2: For people with COVID-19 disease not requiring mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO, the duration of therapy is 5 days, beginning with a loading dose of remdesivir 200 mg infused intravenously for 30 to 120 minutes on day 1 followed by a once-daily dose of 100 mg for 4 days. If the patient does not show clinical improvement, treatment may be extended for an additional 5 days. ​​​​​​

Continue to: Randomized placebo-controlled trial results...

Randomized placebo-controlled trial results

The Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT), sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted by Gilead Sciences. The study began in February and evaluated up to 10 days of remdesivir treatment—200 mg IV once daily for 1 day followed by 100 mg IV once daily for 9 days in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. Patients were enrolled in a 1:1 manner to remdesivir or placebo, and time to recovery within 28 days after randomization was the trial’s endpoint. According to preliminary analysis of 606 recovered patients, recovery took a median of 11 days in the remdesivir group and 15 days in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12‒1.54; P<.001). Mortality rates were 8.0% and 11.6% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (P=.059).¹

5 vs 10 days of remdesivir treatment

The Gilead Sciences‒sponsored study GS-US-540-5773 was a randomized, open-label multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19. A total of 197 adult patients received 10-day remdesivir treatment (200 mg IV once daily for 1 day followed by 100 mg IV once daily for 9 days). An additional 200 adult patients received 5-day remdesivir treatment (200 mg IV once daily followed by 100 mg IV for 4 days). Both groups also received standard of care. Results suggested that patients receiving 10 days of remdesivir had similar improvement in clinical status compared with those receiving a 5-day treatment course (10-to-5 day odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51‒1.13] on day 14).¹ Improvement in clinical status was defined as an improvement of 2 or more points from baseline on a predefined 7-point scale that ranged from hospital discharge to increasing levels of oxygen support to death. Clinical recovery was achieved if patients ceased the need for oxygen support or were discharged.¹

The time to clinical improvement for 50% of patients was similar in each treatment group (10 days in the 5-day group versus 11 days in the 10-day group). By day 14, observed clinical improvement rates were 65% and 54% in the 5- and 10-day treatment groups, respectively. Clinical recovery rates were 70% and 59% in the 5- and 10-day treatment groups and mortality rates were 8% and 11%.¹

Adverse events

The use of remdesivir is contraindicated in patients who are hypersensitive to the drug. Its infusion may cause hypotension, nausea, vomiting, diaphoresis, and shivering. If signs of a clinically significant infusion reaction are observed the infusion should be discontinued. As noted above, elevation in ALT levels occurs with remdesivir treatment.¹

Reporting serious adverse events. If a serious and unexpected adverse event occurs and appears to be associated with the use of remdesivir, the prescribing health care provider and/or the provider’s designee should complete and submit a MedWatch form to the FDA using one of the following methods¹:

• Complete and submit the report online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
• Return form FDA 3500 (available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM163919.pdf) to the FDA by mail (MedWatch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787) or fax (1-800-FDA-0178)
• Gilead requests that all FDA MedWatch forms also be returned to Gilead Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology: fax: 1-650-522-5477 726; e-mail: [email protected]

Continue to: Drug interactions...

Drug interactions

Remdesivir has not been evaluated for drug-drug interactions in humans. The clinical relevance of in vitro drug interactions also has not been established. According to the FDA, remdesivir is a substrate for the drug metabolizing enzymes CYP2C8, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4, and is a substrate for organic anion transporting polypeptides 1B1 (OAPT1B1) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transporters. In vitro, remdesivir inhibits CYP3A4, OATP1B1, OATP1B3, BSEP, MRP4, and NTCP.¹

Pregnancy risk summary

Remdesivir has not been studied adequately in pregnant women and only should be used during pregnancy if the potential benefit of the drug justifies the potential risk to both mother and fetus.

Nonclinical animal studies that included systemic exposure of the predominant circulating metabolite of remdesivir in pregnant rats and rabbits (at 4 times the recommended dose of human exposure) demonstrated no adverse effect on embryofetal development.¹

Breastfeeding

The only information regarding breastfeeding and remdesivir comes from animal studies. The drug and its metabolites were detected in the plasma of nursing rat pups whose mothers given intravenous remdesivir daily from gestation day 6 to lactation day 20. Measured on lactation day 10, remdesivir exposure in the pups was about 1% that of maternal exposure.¹

“Because of the potential for viral transmission to SARS-CoV-2-negative infants and adverse reactions from the drug in breastfeeding infants, the developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for remdesivir and any potential adverse effects on the breastfed child from remdesivir or from the underlying maternal condition.”¹

Combination therapy with relugolix, an investigational oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate effectively preserved bone mineral density (BMD) in two replicate phase 3 studies enrolling women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids.

The BMD findings, released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, build upon previously reported positive primary endpoint data from the LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2 studies. ACOG canceled the meeting and released abstracts for press coverage.

The developer of the drug, Myovant Sciences, plans to submit a new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of the single-tablet combination therapy for women with uterine fibroids, according to Albert Liao, the company’s director of corporate communications.

The two multinational LIBERTY studies randomized women who had a monthly menstrual blood loss volume of at least 80 mL in two consecutive cycles (or 160 mL in one cycle) in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: relugolix combination therapy for 24 weeks (once-daily relugolix 40 mg plus estradiol 1.0 mg plus norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg); relugolix alone (40 mg once daily) for 12 weeks followed by relugolix combination therapy for 12 weeks; or placebo for 24 weeks.

In October 2019 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Scientific Congress, investigators reported that 73% of women receiving combination therapy in the LIBERTY 1 trial achieved a menstrual blood loss of less than 80 mL and a 50% or greater reduction from baseline over the last 35 days of treatment, compared with 19% in the placebo group. The mean percent reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline at week 24 was 84% for combination therapy and 23% for placebo.

Earlier in 2019, Myovant Sciences announced that, in the LIBERTY 2 study, 71% of women receiving combination therapy met the primary endpoints, compared with 15% in the placebo group. The reduction in menstrual blood loss in this study’s combination therapy arm was also 84%, according to a company press release from June 2019.

Each of the two clinical trials enrolled upwards of 380 women.

The new abstract released for press coverage by ACOG and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology reports that women receiving relugolix combination therapy in the LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2 studies had a mean change in lumbar spine BMD of –0.36% and –0.13%, respectively, from baseline to 24 weeks. Percent change in lumbar spine BMD in the delayed combination therapy groups (12 initial weeks of relugolix monotherapy) was –1.82% and –2.12%. In the placebo groups, the change was 0.05% and 0.32%.

Michael R. McClung, MD, who is the lead author of the abstract and was scheduled to present the findings at the ACOG meeting, said in an interview that the slight decreases in lumbar spine BMD with combination therapy were noted largely at week 12 and are “clinically insignificant in my opinion.” BMD by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was assessed at weeks 12 and 24.

“There was no further increase [after week 12] and [in some patients] there was even a return to baseline,” said Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.

The safety and efficacy of longer-term treatment with relugolix combination therapy has been investigated thus far through an open-label extension study that brought the treatment period to 52 weeks. The 1-year data has been positive and will be presented or published soon, said Mr. Liao. In addition, a “second, 52-week randomized withdrawal study has been designed to provide 2-year safety and efficacy data … and to evaluate the need for maintenance therapy.”

It’s important, Dr. McClung said, “for clinicians to be confident that BMD loss is prevented or minimized with longer-term relugolix combination therapy since treatment for uterine fibroids is not a short-term proposition. Given the stability of BMD values between weeks 12 and 24 in the LIBERTY studies, I’d anticipate that we will see stable values with longer-term treatment.”

Dr. McClung disclosed that he has served as a consultant/advisory board member and speaker for Amgen and a consultant/advisory board member for Myovant. Several of his coauthors disclosed employment and ownerships interests in Myovant.

SOURCE: McClung MR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000662944.34860.b4.

Combination therapy with relugolix, an investigational oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate effectively preserved bone mineral density (BMD) in two replicate phase 3 studies enrolling women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids.

The BMD findings, released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, build upon previously reported positive primary endpoint data from the LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2 studies. ACOG canceled the meeting and released abstracts for press coverage.

The developer of the drug, Myovant Sciences, plans to submit a new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of the single-tablet combination therapy for women with uterine fibroids, according to Albert Liao, the company’s director of corporate communications.

The two multinational LIBERTY studies randomized women who had a monthly menstrual blood loss volume of at least 80 mL in two consecutive cycles (or 160 mL in one cycle) in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: relugolix combination therapy for 24 weeks (once-daily relugolix 40 mg plus estradiol 1.0 mg plus norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg); relugolix alone (40 mg once daily) for 12 weeks followed by relugolix combination therapy for 12 weeks; or placebo for 24 weeks.

In October 2019 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Scientific Congress, investigators reported that 73% of women receiving combination therapy in the LIBERTY 1 trial achieved a menstrual blood loss of less than 80 mL and a 50% or greater reduction from baseline over the last 35 days of treatment, compared with 19% in the placebo group. The mean percent reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline at week 24 was 84% for combination therapy and 23% for placebo.

Earlier in 2019, Myovant Sciences announced that, in the LIBERTY 2 study, 71% of women receiving combination therapy met the primary endpoints, compared with 15% in the placebo group. The reduction in menstrual blood loss in this study’s combination therapy arm was also 84%, according to a company press release from June 2019.

Each of the two clinical trials enrolled upwards of 380 women.

The new abstract released for press coverage by ACOG and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology reports that women receiving relugolix combination therapy in the LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2 studies had a mean change in lumbar spine BMD of –0.36% and –0.13%, respectively, from baseline to 24 weeks. Percent change in lumbar spine BMD in the delayed combination therapy groups (12 initial weeks of relugolix monotherapy) was –1.82% and –2.12%. In the placebo groups, the change was 0.05% and 0.32%.

Michael R. McClung, MD, who is the lead author of the abstract and was scheduled to present the findings at the ACOG meeting, said in an interview that the slight decreases in lumbar spine BMD with combination therapy were noted largely at week 12 and are “clinically insignificant in my opinion.” BMD by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was assessed at weeks 12 and 24.

“There was no further increase [after week 12] and [in some patients] there was even a return to baseline,” said Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.

The safety and efficacy of longer-term treatment with relugolix combination therapy has been investigated thus far through an open-label extension study that brought the treatment period to 52 weeks. The 1-year data has been positive and will be presented or published soon, said Mr. Liao. In addition, a “second, 52-week randomized withdrawal study has been designed to provide 2-year safety and efficacy data … and to evaluate the need for maintenance therapy.”

It’s important, Dr. McClung said, “for clinicians to be confident that BMD loss is prevented or minimized with longer-term relugolix combination therapy since treatment for uterine fibroids is not a short-term proposition. Given the stability of BMD values between weeks 12 and 24 in the LIBERTY studies, I’d anticipate that we will see stable values with longer-term treatment.”

Dr. McClung disclosed that he has served as a consultant/advisory board member and speaker for Amgen and a consultant/advisory board member for Myovant. Several of his coauthors disclosed employment and ownerships interests in Myovant.

SOURCE: McClung MR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000662944.34860.b4.

Combination therapy with relugolix, an investigational oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate effectively preserved bone mineral density (BMD) in two replicate phase 3 studies enrolling women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids.

The BMD findings, released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, build upon previously reported positive primary endpoint data from the LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2 studies. ACOG canceled the meeting and released abstracts for press coverage.

The developer of the drug, Myovant Sciences, plans to submit a new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of the single-tablet combination therapy for women with uterine fibroids, according to Albert Liao, the company’s director of corporate communications.

The two multinational LIBERTY studies randomized women who had a monthly menstrual blood loss volume of at least 80 mL in two consecutive cycles (or 160 mL in one cycle) in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: relugolix combination therapy for 24 weeks (once-daily relugolix 40 mg plus estradiol 1.0 mg plus norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg); relugolix alone (40 mg once daily) for 12 weeks followed by relugolix combination therapy for 12 weeks; or placebo for 24 weeks.

In October 2019 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Scientific Congress, investigators reported that 73% of women receiving combination therapy in the LIBERTY 1 trial achieved a menstrual blood loss of less than 80 mL and a 50% or greater reduction from baseline over the last 35 days of treatment, compared with 19% in the placebo group. The mean percent reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline at week 24 was 84% for combination therapy and 23% for placebo.

Earlier in 2019, Myovant Sciences announced that, in the LIBERTY 2 study, 71% of women receiving combination therapy met the primary endpoints, compared with 15% in the placebo group. The reduction in menstrual blood loss in this study’s combination therapy arm was also 84%, according to a company press release from June 2019.

Each of the two clinical trials enrolled upwards of 380 women.

The new abstract released for press coverage by ACOG and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology reports that women receiving relugolix combination therapy in the LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2 studies had a mean change in lumbar spine BMD of –0.36% and –0.13%, respectively, from baseline to 24 weeks. Percent change in lumbar spine BMD in the delayed combination therapy groups (12 initial weeks of relugolix monotherapy) was –1.82% and –2.12%. In the placebo groups, the change was 0.05% and 0.32%.

Michael R. McClung, MD, who is the lead author of the abstract and was scheduled to present the findings at the ACOG meeting, said in an interview that the slight decreases in lumbar spine BMD with combination therapy were noted largely at week 12 and are “clinically insignificant in my opinion.” BMD by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was assessed at weeks 12 and 24.

“There was no further increase [after week 12] and [in some patients] there was even a return to baseline,” said Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.

The safety and efficacy of longer-term treatment with relugolix combination therapy has been investigated thus far through an open-label extension study that brought the treatment period to 52 weeks. The 1-year data has been positive and will be presented or published soon, said Mr. Liao. In addition, a “second, 52-week randomized withdrawal study has been designed to provide 2-year safety and efficacy data … and to evaluate the need for maintenance therapy.”

It’s important, Dr. McClung said, “for clinicians to be confident that BMD loss is prevented or minimized with longer-term relugolix combination therapy since treatment for uterine fibroids is not a short-term proposition. Given the stability of BMD values between weeks 12 and 24 in the LIBERTY studies, I’d anticipate that we will see stable values with longer-term treatment.”

Dr. McClung disclosed that he has served as a consultant/advisory board member and speaker for Amgen and a consultant/advisory board member for Myovant. Several of his coauthors disclosed employment and ownerships interests in Myovant.

SOURCE: McClung MR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000662944.34860.b4.

Stadnytskyi and colleagues explored the size of droplets created by speech using a highly sensitive laser system. They reported in PNAS that speaking resulted in the generation of a high number of medium-sized droplets (10- to 100-µm in diameter). Under the conditions of their experiment (27% humidity and 23° C) they reported that speech probably generates droplets that originate at a size of 12 to 21 µm in diameter and quickly dehydrate to an estimated diameter of 4 µm. The 4 µm-sized particles had a falling rate of only 0.06 cm·s⁻¹ and remained airborne for 8 to 14 minutes.¹

As reported by Hamner and colleagues, on March 10, 2020, 61 persons attended a 2.5-hour choir practice. One choir member had symptoms of an upper respiratory infection that began on March 7. Eventually that choir member tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 60 remaining persons, 52 (86.7%) eventually developed an upper respiratory illness. In total, 33 cases of SARS-CoV-2 were confirmed by nucleic acid testing and 20 probable cases were diagnosed (these individuals declined testing). The  choir attendees developed symptoms at a median of 3 days following the practice, with a range of 1 to 12 days. Three of the 53 ill people were hospitalized, and two died.²

The Stadnytskyi study suggests that speech generates large respiratory droplets that dehydrate into very small droplets that may remain in the air for an extended period of time. If the SARS-CoV-2 virus were in the original large droplet, the rapid dehydration of the droplet would result in prolonged airborne presence of the virus and enhance its infectivity.

The Hamner study highlights the importance of vocalization and respiratory particles in transmitting the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For clinicians and patients, both studies support many recommendations to reduce viral transmission, including:

• all clinicians and patients need to wear face masks
• all clinicians and patients should avoid face-to-face contact if alternative approaches to communication are possible
• all clinicians and patients should avoid gathering in large groups or crowded public spaces and need to maintain physical distancing.

The COVID pandemic has dramatically changed how we practice medicine and socialize.

Stadnytskyi and colleagues explored the size of droplets created by speech using a highly sensitive laser system. They reported in PNAS that speaking resulted in the generation of a high number of medium-sized droplets (10- to 100-µm in diameter). Under the conditions of their experiment (27% humidity and 23° C) they reported that speech probably generates droplets that originate at a size of 12 to 21 µm in diameter and quickly dehydrate to an estimated diameter of 4 µm. The 4 µm-sized particles had a falling rate of only 0.06 cm·s⁻¹ and remained airborne for 8 to 14 minutes.¹

As reported by Hamner and colleagues, on March 10, 2020, 61 persons attended a 2.5-hour choir practice. One choir member had symptoms of an upper respiratory infection that began on March 7. Eventually that choir member tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 60 remaining persons, 52 (86.7%) eventually developed an upper respiratory illness. In total, 33 cases of SARS-CoV-2 were confirmed by nucleic acid testing and 20 probable cases were diagnosed (these individuals declined testing). The  choir attendees developed symptoms at a median of 3 days following the practice, with a range of 1 to 12 days. Three of the 53 ill people were hospitalized, and two died.²

The Stadnytskyi study suggests that speech generates large respiratory droplets that dehydrate into very small droplets that may remain in the air for an extended period of time. If the SARS-CoV-2 virus were in the original large droplet, the rapid dehydration of the droplet would result in prolonged airborne presence of the virus and enhance its infectivity.

The Hamner study highlights the importance of vocalization and respiratory particles in transmitting the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For clinicians and patients, both studies support many recommendations to reduce viral transmission, including:

• all clinicians and patients need to wear face masks
• all clinicians and patients should avoid face-to-face contact if alternative approaches to communication are possible
• all clinicians and patients should avoid gathering in large groups or crowded public spaces and need to maintain physical distancing.

The COVID pandemic has dramatically changed how we practice medicine and socialize.

Stadnytskyi and colleagues explored the size of droplets created by speech using a highly sensitive laser system. They reported in PNAS that speaking resulted in the generation of a high number of medium-sized droplets (10- to 100-µm in diameter). Under the conditions of their experiment (27% humidity and 23° C) they reported that speech probably generates droplets that originate at a size of 12 to 21 µm in diameter and quickly dehydrate to an estimated diameter of 4 µm. The 4 µm-sized particles had a falling rate of only 0.06 cm·s⁻¹ and remained airborne for 8 to 14 minutes.¹

As reported by Hamner and colleagues, on March 10, 2020, 61 persons attended a 2.5-hour choir practice. One choir member had symptoms of an upper respiratory infection that began on March 7. Eventually that choir member tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 60 remaining persons, 52 (86.7%) eventually developed an upper respiratory illness. In total, 33 cases of SARS-CoV-2 were confirmed by nucleic acid testing and 20 probable cases were diagnosed (these individuals declined testing). The  choir attendees developed symptoms at a median of 3 days following the practice, with a range of 1 to 12 days. Three of the 53 ill people were hospitalized, and two died.²

The Stadnytskyi study suggests that speech generates large respiratory droplets that dehydrate into very small droplets that may remain in the air for an extended period of time. If the SARS-CoV-2 virus were in the original large droplet, the rapid dehydration of the droplet would result in prolonged airborne presence of the virus and enhance its infectivity.

The Hamner study highlights the importance of vocalization and respiratory particles in transmitting the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For clinicians and patients, both studies support many recommendations to reduce viral transmission, including:

• all clinicians and patients need to wear face masks
• all clinicians and patients should avoid face-to-face contact if alternative approaches to communication are possible
• all clinicians and patients should avoid gathering in large groups or crowded public spaces and need to maintain physical distancing.

The COVID pandemic has dramatically changed how we practice medicine and socialize.

CASE Woman with malodorous vaginal discharge

A 26-year-old nulligravid woman with 2 current sexual partners requests evaluation because she has a yellow-green frothy vaginal discharge that is slightly malodorous. One of her sexual partners has noted a similar discharge from his urethra. On physical examination, the clinician notes that the patient’s discharge emanates from the vaginal mucosa, and the exocervix has multiple punctate hemorrhages. Considerations in this case include:

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• How should this patient be evaluated and treated?
• Should the patient’s sexual partners be treated?

This clinical scenario is most consistent with a trichomonas infection, although other conditions, including bacterial vaginosis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia infection, must be considered in the differential diagnosis.

In this article, we examine the microbiology, epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis and treatment of this common sexually transmitted infection (STI).

The causative microbe

Trichomonas vaginalis is a free-living flagellated protozoan that accounts for almost half of all nonviral STIs globally. It has a predilection for the mucosal epithelium of the genitourinary tract, including the vagina and urethra. Humans are the only known host for T vaginalis. The infection is transmitted through sexual intercourse, and the organism reproduces through binary fission in the lower genital tract of women and in the urethra and prostate of men.

This anaerobic trophozoite has 4 flagella anteriorly and 1 flagellum that projects posteriorly, with an undulating membrane that gives its characteristic motile appearance on saline microscopy.¹

T vaginalis infection causes major mechanical stress on epithelial cells, which results in disruption of the plasma cell membrane and, ultimately, cell death. The necrotic cell fragments are then phagocytosed by trichomonads, thus accelerating the infection.²

Groups at risk

Trichomonal infections are not reportable to public health authorities, which makes assessing the true prevalence of infection difficult.

The World Health Organization estimated the incidence of infection to be more than 156 million cases globally in 2016, with a prevalence of 110.4 million people at any one time.³

The 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey tested 4,057 men and women aged 18 to 59 years for T vaginalis and found a prevalence of 0.5% among men and 1.8% among women.⁴ The prevalence increased with age. There was a disproportionate burden of trichomonas infections in the non-Hispanic black population, with 4.2% of black men and 8.9% of black women affected.⁴

Targeted screening of urogenital samples for T vaginalis in a population of US women undergoing Chlamydia trachomatis/Neisseria gonorrhoeae screening demonstrated prevalence rates of 8.7%, 6.7%, and 1.7% for T vaginalis, C trachomatis, and N gonorrhoeae, respectively.⁵

Differences in prevalence estimates may be due to differences in the varying sensitivity of each testing modality and patient populations. In one study, nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for T vaginalis detected rates as high as 11.3% in women and 6.1% in men undergoing evaluations at STI clinics.⁶

Continue to: Clinical manifestations of infection...

Clinical manifestations of infection

Most cases of T vaginalis remain in an asymptomatic carrier state, with up to 85% of women and 77% of men reporting no clinical symptoms.¹ However, approximately one-third of asymptomatic carriers will experience symptoms within 6 months of infection acquisition. This latency in appearance of clinical symptoms certainly contributes to the high transmission rate of T vaginalis.

Infected men may experience purulent urethritis, dysuria, and postcoital pruritus. Common clinical symptoms in women include abnormal vaginal discharge that may be malodorous, purulent, thin, frothy, and yellow-green, as well as symptoms of dyspareunia and vulvar irritation. Punctate hemorrhages in the cervix (colpitis macularis) and vaginal walls (macular vaginitis) give the characteristic “strawberry appearance,” but these findings are seen in only 2% of affected women.⁷

Complications in ObGyn patients

Although T vaginalis once was regarded as more of an annoyance than a public health issue, awareness of the infection’s ramifications has increased in recent years. Because of these complications, treatment of both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients is clearly indicated.

Complications of trichomonal infection in men include balanoposthitis, epididymitis, prostatitis, urethritis, and infertility.⁷ In women, complications include infections of the adnexa, endometrium, and vestibular glands, as well as cervical neoplasia and increased co-infection rates with other STIs, such as bacterial vaginosis, chlamydia infection, gonorrhea, syphilis, and herpes simplex virus type 2.¹

Infection in pregnancy. Adverse outcomes in pregnant women with T vaginalis infections at mid-gestation include low birth weight, preterm premature rupture of membranes, preterm delivery, and postpartum endometritis.⁸ A disproportionately larger share of the low birth weight rate associated with T vaginalis infections occurs in black women compared with white and Hispanic women.⁸ Perinatal transmission to newborns can cause fever; respiratory difficulties; urinary tract infections; nasal discharge; and, in female infants, vaginal discharge.^9,10

Co-infection concerns. The increased rate of co-infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and T vaginalis is a major concern.¹¹ One study found a higher concentration of HIV-1 in semen samples from men with T vaginalis and symptomatic urethritis.¹² Further, T vaginalis was found in 17.4% of women with HIV screened at a public clinic in California, with almost 38% of black women affected.¹³ Trichomoniasis can increase the risk of HIV-1 acquisition by 1.52-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.04- to 2.24-fold), pointing toward a potential amplifying effect of T vaginalis on HIV transmission rates.¹⁴ This association may be based at least in part on the organism’s ability to cause microulcerations in the genital and urinary tract epithelium, thus creating pathways for other microorganisms to enter the vascular system.

Making the diagnosis

The nonspecific symptoms of T vaginalis create a wide differential to consider. Vaginal discharge may be due to bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, physiologic discharge, atrophy, and nonspecific inflammation. The presence of malodorous and discolored discharge increases the likelihood of bacterial vaginosis or T vaginalis infection. Pruritus often is associated with candidiasis co-infection.

The diagnosis of trichomoniasis can be confirmed in the outpatient office with the use of saline microscopy, an inexpensive test that is based on observation of motile trichomonads in a wet mount of vaginal fluid. The sensitivity of the wet mount ranges from 44% to 68% compared with culture. Culture, traditionally using Diamond’s medium, has a sensitivity of 81% to 94% and was long the gold standard; however, culture has been replaced largely by molecular and antigen testing.

Three US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved NAATs for T vaginalis currently are on the market; all can detect co-infection with gonorrhea and chlamydia from the same specimen. These tests include the Aptima T vaginalis rRNA target assay (Hologic, Bedford, Massachusetts) and the BD ProbTec T vaginalis Q^x (TVQ) amplified DNA assay (BD Diagnostics, Baltimore, Maryland), both of which require up to 8 hours to yield results. The Xpert T vaginalis (TV) assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, California) is the first NAAT that is FDA approved for use with male urine (in addition to female urine), and it yields results in 60 to 90 minutes. Sensitivity for these NAAT assays ranges from 88% to 100%.¹⁵
 

Point-of-care testing is preferred for rapid diagnosis and for helping the clinician provide same-visit treatment for STIs. The Solana trichomonas assay (Quidel, San Diego, California) detects T vaginalis DNA and can yield results within 40 minutes, but it requires specialized equipment for running the samples. The AmpliVue trichomonas assay (Quidel, San Diego, California) is similar to the Solana assay but it is contained within a small handheld cartridge that does not require additional equipment. Sensitivities are 92% to 98% for Solona and 90.7% to 100% for AmpliVue. The OSOM trichomonas rapid test (Sekisui, Framingham, Massachusetts) uses antigen-detection immunochromatography to provide results in 10 to 15 minutes, with 83% to 92% sensitivity and 99% specificity for vaginal specimens.^15,16

Continue to: The TABLE provides a summary...

The TABLE provides a summary of the clinical performance of the various tests for T vaginalis. ^15-18

Treatment options

The 5-nitroimidazole agents, which include metronidazole and tinidazole, are the preferred agents for the treatment of trichomoniasis.

Dosing regimen. While a single oral dose of metronidazole 2 g has long been the mainstay of treatment for T vaginalis, this regimen recently has been questioned, at least in women, due to the high posttreatment positive rate of T vaginalis, which ranges from 5% to 37%.^19,20 These cases may be due to reinfection by untreated sexual partners. They also may result from treatment failure, however, specifically inadequate treatment time.²¹ Overall, patients treated with single-dose metronidazole are 1.87 times more likely to experience treatment failure compared with those treated with a multidose regimen.¹⁹ Since many cases of T vaginalis infection are associated with bacterial vaginosis co-infection, recommending metronidazole 500 mg twice daily for 7 days is beneficial because this course provides optimal treatment for both infections.

Treatment during pregnancy. In the minds of some investigators, treatment of T vaginalis in asymptomatic pregnant women is problematic. One study demonstrated a similar to slightly increased risk of preterm delivery for metronidazole-treated patients compared with a placebo-treated group.²² Limitations of the study included atypical treatment dosing (2 doses of metronidazole 2 g given 48 hours apart at 16 to 23 weeks’ gestation and repeated at 24 to 29 weeks’ gestation) and a latency between the last dose of metronidazole and preterm delivery.²²

We believe that all pregnant women, symptomatic or asymptomatic, should be treated because of the sexually transmitted nature of the infection and the probability that most asymptomatic carriers ultimately become symptomatic.

Cost of treatment. Generic oral metronidazole is very inexpensive. The approximate retail price for 14 metronidazole 500-mg tablets is $15.69 (www.goodrx.com). By contrast, a single-dose course of tinidazole (four 500-mg tablets) costs approximately $45. Accordingly, we reserve tinidazole for patients who have experienced a treatment failure with metronidazole or who cannot tolerate metronidazole.

Drug‒alcohol interaction. With both metronidazole and tinidazole, patients must abstain from alcohol during treatment and for 72 hours after completing therapy because these drugs have a disulfiram-like reaction with ethanol.
 

CASE Woman with malodorous vaginal discharge

A 26-year-old nulligravid woman with 2 current sexual partners requests evaluation because she has a yellow-green frothy vaginal discharge that is slightly malodorous. One of her sexual partners has noted a similar discharge from his urethra. On physical examination, the clinician notes that the patient’s discharge emanates from the vaginal mucosa, and the exocervix has multiple punctate hemorrhages. Considerations in this case include:

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• How should this patient be evaluated and treated?
• Should the patient’s sexual partners be treated?

This clinical scenario is most consistent with a trichomonas infection, although other conditions, including bacterial vaginosis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia infection, must be considered in the differential diagnosis.

In this article, we examine the microbiology, epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis and treatment of this common sexually transmitted infection (STI).

The causative microbe

Trichomonas vaginalis is a free-living flagellated protozoan that accounts for almost half of all nonviral STIs globally. It has a predilection for the mucosal epithelium of the genitourinary tract, including the vagina and urethra. Humans are the only known host for T vaginalis. The infection is transmitted through sexual intercourse, and the organism reproduces through binary fission in the lower genital tract of women and in the urethra and prostate of men.

This anaerobic trophozoite has 4 flagella anteriorly and 1 flagellum that projects posteriorly, with an undulating membrane that gives its characteristic motile appearance on saline microscopy.¹

T vaginalis infection causes major mechanical stress on epithelial cells, which results in disruption of the plasma cell membrane and, ultimately, cell death. The necrotic cell fragments are then phagocytosed by trichomonads, thus accelerating the infection.²

Groups at risk

Trichomonal infections are not reportable to public health authorities, which makes assessing the true prevalence of infection difficult.

The World Health Organization estimated the incidence of infection to be more than 156 million cases globally in 2016, with a prevalence of 110.4 million people at any one time.³

The 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey tested 4,057 men and women aged 18 to 59 years for T vaginalis and found a prevalence of 0.5% among men and 1.8% among women.⁴ The prevalence increased with age. There was a disproportionate burden of trichomonas infections in the non-Hispanic black population, with 4.2% of black men and 8.9% of black women affected.⁴

Targeted screening of urogenital samples for T vaginalis in a population of US women undergoing Chlamydia trachomatis/Neisseria gonorrhoeae screening demonstrated prevalence rates of 8.7%, 6.7%, and 1.7% for T vaginalis, C trachomatis, and N gonorrhoeae, respectively.⁵

Differences in prevalence estimates may be due to differences in the varying sensitivity of each testing modality and patient populations. In one study, nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for T vaginalis detected rates as high as 11.3% in women and 6.1% in men undergoing evaluations at STI clinics.⁶

Continue to: Clinical manifestations of infection...

Clinical manifestations of infection

Most cases of T vaginalis remain in an asymptomatic carrier state, with up to 85% of women and 77% of men reporting no clinical symptoms.¹ However, approximately one-third of asymptomatic carriers will experience symptoms within 6 months of infection acquisition. This latency in appearance of clinical symptoms certainly contributes to the high transmission rate of T vaginalis.

Infected men may experience purulent urethritis, dysuria, and postcoital pruritus. Common clinical symptoms in women include abnormal vaginal discharge that may be malodorous, purulent, thin, frothy, and yellow-green, as well as symptoms of dyspareunia and vulvar irritation. Punctate hemorrhages in the cervix (colpitis macularis) and vaginal walls (macular vaginitis) give the characteristic “strawberry appearance,” but these findings are seen in only 2% of affected women.⁷

Complications in ObGyn patients

Although T vaginalis once was regarded as more of an annoyance than a public health issue, awareness of the infection’s ramifications has increased in recent years. Because of these complications, treatment of both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients is clearly indicated.

Complications of trichomonal infection in men include balanoposthitis, epididymitis, prostatitis, urethritis, and infertility.⁷ In women, complications include infections of the adnexa, endometrium, and vestibular glands, as well as cervical neoplasia and increased co-infection rates with other STIs, such as bacterial vaginosis, chlamydia infection, gonorrhea, syphilis, and herpes simplex virus type 2.¹

Infection in pregnancy. Adverse outcomes in pregnant women with T vaginalis infections at mid-gestation include low birth weight, preterm premature rupture of membranes, preterm delivery, and postpartum endometritis.⁸ A disproportionately larger share of the low birth weight rate associated with T vaginalis infections occurs in black women compared with white and Hispanic women.⁸ Perinatal transmission to newborns can cause fever; respiratory difficulties; urinary tract infections; nasal discharge; and, in female infants, vaginal discharge.^9,10

Co-infection concerns. The increased rate of co-infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and T vaginalis is a major concern.¹¹ One study found a higher concentration of HIV-1 in semen samples from men with T vaginalis and symptomatic urethritis.¹² Further, T vaginalis was found in 17.4% of women with HIV screened at a public clinic in California, with almost 38% of black women affected.¹³ Trichomoniasis can increase the risk of HIV-1 acquisition by 1.52-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.04- to 2.24-fold), pointing toward a potential amplifying effect of T vaginalis on HIV transmission rates.¹⁴ This association may be based at least in part on the organism’s ability to cause microulcerations in the genital and urinary tract epithelium, thus creating pathways for other microorganisms to enter the vascular system.

Making the diagnosis

The nonspecific symptoms of T vaginalis create a wide differential to consider. Vaginal discharge may be due to bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, physiologic discharge, atrophy, and nonspecific inflammation. The presence of malodorous and discolored discharge increases the likelihood of bacterial vaginosis or T vaginalis infection. Pruritus often is associated with candidiasis co-infection.

The diagnosis of trichomoniasis can be confirmed in the outpatient office with the use of saline microscopy, an inexpensive test that is based on observation of motile trichomonads in a wet mount of vaginal fluid. The sensitivity of the wet mount ranges from 44% to 68% compared with culture. Culture, traditionally using Diamond’s medium, has a sensitivity of 81% to 94% and was long the gold standard; however, culture has been replaced largely by molecular and antigen testing.

Three US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved NAATs for T vaginalis currently are on the market; all can detect co-infection with gonorrhea and chlamydia from the same specimen. These tests include the Aptima T vaginalis rRNA target assay (Hologic, Bedford, Massachusetts) and the BD ProbTec T vaginalis Q^x (TVQ) amplified DNA assay (BD Diagnostics, Baltimore, Maryland), both of which require up to 8 hours to yield results. The Xpert T vaginalis (TV) assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, California) is the first NAAT that is FDA approved for use with male urine (in addition to female urine), and it yields results in 60 to 90 minutes. Sensitivity for these NAAT assays ranges from 88% to 100%.¹⁵
 

Point-of-care testing is preferred for rapid diagnosis and for helping the clinician provide same-visit treatment for STIs. The Solana trichomonas assay (Quidel, San Diego, California) detects T vaginalis DNA and can yield results within 40 minutes, but it requires specialized equipment for running the samples. The AmpliVue trichomonas assay (Quidel, San Diego, California) is similar to the Solana assay but it is contained within a small handheld cartridge that does not require additional equipment. Sensitivities are 92% to 98% for Solona and 90.7% to 100% for AmpliVue. The OSOM trichomonas rapid test (Sekisui, Framingham, Massachusetts) uses antigen-detection immunochromatography to provide results in 10 to 15 minutes, with 83% to 92% sensitivity and 99% specificity for vaginal specimens.^15,16

Continue to: The TABLE provides a summary...

The TABLE provides a summary of the clinical performance of the various tests for T vaginalis. ^15-18

Treatment options

The 5-nitroimidazole agents, which include metronidazole and tinidazole, are the preferred agents for the treatment of trichomoniasis.

Dosing regimen. While a single oral dose of metronidazole 2 g has long been the mainstay of treatment for T vaginalis, this regimen recently has been questioned, at least in women, due to the high posttreatment positive rate of T vaginalis, which ranges from 5% to 37%.^19,20 These cases may be due to reinfection by untreated sexual partners. They also may result from treatment failure, however, specifically inadequate treatment time.²¹ Overall, patients treated with single-dose metronidazole are 1.87 times more likely to experience treatment failure compared with those treated with a multidose regimen.¹⁹ Since many cases of T vaginalis infection are associated with bacterial vaginosis co-infection, recommending metronidazole 500 mg twice daily for 7 days is beneficial because this course provides optimal treatment for both infections.

Treatment during pregnancy. In the minds of some investigators, treatment of T vaginalis in asymptomatic pregnant women is problematic. One study demonstrated a similar to slightly increased risk of preterm delivery for metronidazole-treated patients compared with a placebo-treated group.²² Limitations of the study included atypical treatment dosing (2 doses of metronidazole 2 g given 48 hours apart at 16 to 23 weeks’ gestation and repeated at 24 to 29 weeks’ gestation) and a latency between the last dose of metronidazole and preterm delivery.²²

We believe that all pregnant women, symptomatic or asymptomatic, should be treated because of the sexually transmitted nature of the infection and the probability that most asymptomatic carriers ultimately become symptomatic.

Cost of treatment. Generic oral metronidazole is very inexpensive. The approximate retail price for 14 metronidazole 500-mg tablets is $15.69 (www.goodrx.com). By contrast, a single-dose course of tinidazole (four 500-mg tablets) costs approximately $45. Accordingly, we reserve tinidazole for patients who have experienced a treatment failure with metronidazole or who cannot tolerate metronidazole.

Drug‒alcohol interaction. With both metronidazole and tinidazole, patients must abstain from alcohol during treatment and for 72 hours after completing therapy because these drugs have a disulfiram-like reaction with ethanol.
 

CASE Woman with malodorous vaginal discharge

A 26-year-old nulligravid woman with 2 current sexual partners requests evaluation because she has a yellow-green frothy vaginal discharge that is slightly malodorous. One of her sexual partners has noted a similar discharge from his urethra. On physical examination, the clinician notes that the patient’s discharge emanates from the vaginal mucosa, and the exocervix has multiple punctate hemorrhages. Considerations in this case include:

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• How should this patient be evaluated and treated?
• Should the patient’s sexual partners be treated?

This clinical scenario is most consistent with a trichomonas infection, although other conditions, including bacterial vaginosis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia infection, must be considered in the differential diagnosis.

In this article, we examine the microbiology, epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis and treatment of this common sexually transmitted infection (STI).

The causative microbe

Trichomonas vaginalis is a free-living flagellated protozoan that accounts for almost half of all nonviral STIs globally. It has a predilection for the mucosal epithelium of the genitourinary tract, including the vagina and urethra. Humans are the only known host for T vaginalis. The infection is transmitted through sexual intercourse, and the organism reproduces through binary fission in the lower genital tract of women and in the urethra and prostate of men.

This anaerobic trophozoite has 4 flagella anteriorly and 1 flagellum that projects posteriorly, with an undulating membrane that gives its characteristic motile appearance on saline microscopy.¹

T vaginalis infection causes major mechanical stress on epithelial cells, which results in disruption of the plasma cell membrane and, ultimately, cell death. The necrotic cell fragments are then phagocytosed by trichomonads, thus accelerating the infection.²

Groups at risk

Trichomonal infections are not reportable to public health authorities, which makes assessing the true prevalence of infection difficult.

The World Health Organization estimated the incidence of infection to be more than 156 million cases globally in 2016, with a prevalence of 110.4 million people at any one time.³

The 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey tested 4,057 men and women aged 18 to 59 years for T vaginalis and found a prevalence of 0.5% among men and 1.8% among women.⁴ The prevalence increased with age. There was a disproportionate burden of trichomonas infections in the non-Hispanic black population, with 4.2% of black men and 8.9% of black women affected.⁴

Targeted screening of urogenital samples for T vaginalis in a population of US women undergoing Chlamydia trachomatis/Neisseria gonorrhoeae screening demonstrated prevalence rates of 8.7%, 6.7%, and 1.7% for T vaginalis, C trachomatis, and N gonorrhoeae, respectively.⁵

Differences in prevalence estimates may be due to differences in the varying sensitivity of each testing modality and patient populations. In one study, nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for T vaginalis detected rates as high as 11.3% in women and 6.1% in men undergoing evaluations at STI clinics.⁶

Continue to: Clinical manifestations of infection...

Clinical manifestations of infection

Most cases of T vaginalis remain in an asymptomatic carrier state, with up to 85% of women and 77% of men reporting no clinical symptoms.¹ However, approximately one-third of asymptomatic carriers will experience symptoms within 6 months of infection acquisition. This latency in appearance of clinical symptoms certainly contributes to the high transmission rate of T vaginalis.

Infected men may experience purulent urethritis, dysuria, and postcoital pruritus. Common clinical symptoms in women include abnormal vaginal discharge that may be malodorous, purulent, thin, frothy, and yellow-green, as well as symptoms of dyspareunia and vulvar irritation. Punctate hemorrhages in the cervix (colpitis macularis) and vaginal walls (macular vaginitis) give the characteristic “strawberry appearance,” but these findings are seen in only 2% of affected women.⁷

Complications in ObGyn patients

Although T vaginalis once was regarded as more of an annoyance than a public health issue, awareness of the infection’s ramifications has increased in recent years. Because of these complications, treatment of both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients is clearly indicated.

Complications of trichomonal infection in men include balanoposthitis, epididymitis, prostatitis, urethritis, and infertility.⁷ In women, complications include infections of the adnexa, endometrium, and vestibular glands, as well as cervical neoplasia and increased co-infection rates with other STIs, such as bacterial vaginosis, chlamydia infection, gonorrhea, syphilis, and herpes simplex virus type 2.¹

Infection in pregnancy. Adverse outcomes in pregnant women with T vaginalis infections at mid-gestation include low birth weight, preterm premature rupture of membranes, preterm delivery, and postpartum endometritis.⁸ A disproportionately larger share of the low birth weight rate associated with T vaginalis infections occurs in black women compared with white and Hispanic women.⁸ Perinatal transmission to newborns can cause fever; respiratory difficulties; urinary tract infections; nasal discharge; and, in female infants, vaginal discharge.^9,10

Co-infection concerns. The increased rate of co-infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and T vaginalis is a major concern.¹¹ One study found a higher concentration of HIV-1 in semen samples from men with T vaginalis and symptomatic urethritis.¹² Further, T vaginalis was found in 17.4% of women with HIV screened at a public clinic in California, with almost 38% of black women affected.¹³ Trichomoniasis can increase the risk of HIV-1 acquisition by 1.52-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.04- to 2.24-fold), pointing toward a potential amplifying effect of T vaginalis on HIV transmission rates.¹⁴ This association may be based at least in part on the organism’s ability to cause microulcerations in the genital and urinary tract epithelium, thus creating pathways for other microorganisms to enter the vascular system.

Making the diagnosis

The nonspecific symptoms of T vaginalis create a wide differential to consider. Vaginal discharge may be due to bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, physiologic discharge, atrophy, and nonspecific inflammation. The presence of malodorous and discolored discharge increases the likelihood of bacterial vaginosis or T vaginalis infection. Pruritus often is associated with candidiasis co-infection.

The diagnosis of trichomoniasis can be confirmed in the outpatient office with the use of saline microscopy, an inexpensive test that is based on observation of motile trichomonads in a wet mount of vaginal fluid. The sensitivity of the wet mount ranges from 44% to 68% compared with culture. Culture, traditionally using Diamond’s medium, has a sensitivity of 81% to 94% and was long the gold standard; however, culture has been replaced largely by molecular and antigen testing.

Three US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved NAATs for T vaginalis currently are on the market; all can detect co-infection with gonorrhea and chlamydia from the same specimen. These tests include the Aptima T vaginalis rRNA target assay (Hologic, Bedford, Massachusetts) and the BD ProbTec T vaginalis Q^x (TVQ) amplified DNA assay (BD Diagnostics, Baltimore, Maryland), both of which require up to 8 hours to yield results. The Xpert T vaginalis (TV) assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, California) is the first NAAT that is FDA approved for use with male urine (in addition to female urine), and it yields results in 60 to 90 minutes. Sensitivity for these NAAT assays ranges from 88% to 100%.¹⁵
 

Point-of-care testing is preferred for rapid diagnosis and for helping the clinician provide same-visit treatment for STIs. The Solana trichomonas assay (Quidel, San Diego, California) detects T vaginalis DNA and can yield results within 40 minutes, but it requires specialized equipment for running the samples. The AmpliVue trichomonas assay (Quidel, San Diego, California) is similar to the Solana assay but it is contained within a small handheld cartridge that does not require additional equipment. Sensitivities are 92% to 98% for Solona and 90.7% to 100% for AmpliVue. The OSOM trichomonas rapid test (Sekisui, Framingham, Massachusetts) uses antigen-detection immunochromatography to provide results in 10 to 15 minutes, with 83% to 92% sensitivity and 99% specificity for vaginal specimens.^15,16

Continue to: The TABLE provides a summary...

The TABLE provides a summary of the clinical performance of the various tests for T vaginalis. ^15-18

Treatment options

The 5-nitroimidazole agents, which include metronidazole and tinidazole, are the preferred agents for the treatment of trichomoniasis.

Dosing regimen. While a single oral dose of metronidazole 2 g has long been the mainstay of treatment for T vaginalis, this regimen recently has been questioned, at least in women, due to the high posttreatment positive rate of T vaginalis, which ranges from 5% to 37%.^19,20 These cases may be due to reinfection by untreated sexual partners. They also may result from treatment failure, however, specifically inadequate treatment time.²¹ Overall, patients treated with single-dose metronidazole are 1.87 times more likely to experience treatment failure compared with those treated with a multidose regimen.¹⁹ Since many cases of T vaginalis infection are associated with bacterial vaginosis co-infection, recommending metronidazole 500 mg twice daily for 7 days is beneficial because this course provides optimal treatment for both infections.

Treatment during pregnancy. In the minds of some investigators, treatment of T vaginalis in asymptomatic pregnant women is problematic. One study demonstrated a similar to slightly increased risk of preterm delivery for metronidazole-treated patients compared with a placebo-treated group.²² Limitations of the study included atypical treatment dosing (2 doses of metronidazole 2 g given 48 hours apart at 16 to 23 weeks’ gestation and repeated at 24 to 29 weeks’ gestation) and a latency between the last dose of metronidazole and preterm delivery.²²

We believe that all pregnant women, symptomatic or asymptomatic, should be treated because of the sexually transmitted nature of the infection and the probability that most asymptomatic carriers ultimately become symptomatic.

Cost of treatment. Generic oral metronidazole is very inexpensive. The approximate retail price for 14 metronidazole 500-mg tablets is $15.69 (www.goodrx.com). By contrast, a single-dose course of tinidazole (four 500-mg tablets) costs approximately $45. Accordingly, we reserve tinidazole for patients who have experienced a treatment failure with metronidazole or who cannot tolerate metronidazole.

Drug‒alcohol interaction. With both metronidazole and tinidazole, patients must abstain from alcohol during treatment and for 72 hours after completing therapy because these drugs have a disulfiram-like reaction with ethanol.
 

U.S. Supreme Court justices appear divided over whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.

jsmith/iStockphoto

During oral arguments on May 6, the court expressed differing perspectives about the administration’s authority to allow for more exemptions under the health law’s birth control mandate and whether the expansions were reasonable. Justices heard the consolidated cases – Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania – by teleconference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are expected to make a decision by the summer.

Associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who participated in the telephone conference call from a hospital where she was recovering from a gallbladder condition, said the exemptions ignored the intent of Congress to provide women with comprehensive coverage through the ACA.

“The glaring feature of what the government has done in expanding this exemption is to toss to the winds entirely Congress’s instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage,” she said during oral arguments. “This leaves the women to hunt for other government programs that might cover them, and for those who are not covered by Medicaid or one of the other government programs, they can get contraceptive coverage only from paying out of their own pocket, which is exactly what Congress didn’t want to happen.”

Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., meanwhile, indicated that a lower court opinion that had blocked the exemptions from going forward conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling in a related case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

“Explain to me why the Third Circuit’s analysis of the question of substantial burden is not squarely inconsistent with our reasoning in Hobby Lobby,” Associate Justice Alito said during oral arguments. “Hobby Lobby held that, if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, a federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That’s precisely the situation here. Reading the Third Circuit’s discussion of the substantial burden question, I wondered whether they had read that part of the Hobby Lobby decision.”

The dispute surrounding the ACA’s birth control mandate and the extent of exemptions afforded has gone on for a decade and has led to numerous legal challenges. The ACA initially required all employers to cover birth control for employees with no copayments, but exempted group health plans of religious employers. Those religious employers were primarily churches and other houses of worship. After a number of complaints and lawsuits, the Obama administration created a workaround for nonprofit religious employers not included in that exemption to opt out of the mandate. However, critics argued the process itself was a violation of their religious freedom.

The issue led to the case of Zubik v. Burwell, a legal challenge over the mandate exemption that went before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2016. The issue was never resolved however, and in May 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court rulings related to Zubik v. Burwell and remanded the case back to the four appeals courts that had originally ruled on the issue.

In 2018, the Trump administration announced new rules aimed at broadening exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” A second rule allowed nonprofit organizations and small businesses that had nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate to opt out.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia then sued the Trump administration over the rules, as well as Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a separate case. Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious nonprofit operating a home in Pittsburgh, intervened in the case as an aggrieved party. An appeal court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward.

During oral arguments, Solicitor General for the Department of Justice Noel J. Francisco said the exemptions are lawful because they are authorized under a provision of the ACA as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

“RFRA at the very least authorizes the religious exemption,” Mr. Francisco said during oral arguments.

Chief Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania Michael J. Fischer argued that the Trump administration’s moral and religious exemption rules rest on overly broad assertions of agency authority.

“First, the agencies twist a narrow delegation that allows the Health Resources and Services Administration to decide which preventive services insurers must cover under the Women’s Health Amendment into a grant of authority so broad it allows them to permit virtually any employer or college to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage entirely, including for reasons as amorphous as vaguely defined moral beliefs,” he said during oral arguments. “Second, the agencies claim that RFRA, a statute that limits government action, affirmatively authorizes them to permit employers to deny women their rights to contraceptive coverage even in the absence of a RFRA violation in the first place.”

[email protected]

U.S. Supreme Court justices appear divided over whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.

jsmith/iStockphoto

During oral arguments on May 6, the court expressed differing perspectives about the administration’s authority to allow for more exemptions under the health law’s birth control mandate and whether the expansions were reasonable. Justices heard the consolidated cases – Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania – by teleconference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are expected to make a decision by the summer.

Associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who participated in the telephone conference call from a hospital where she was recovering from a gallbladder condition, said the exemptions ignored the intent of Congress to provide women with comprehensive coverage through the ACA.

“The glaring feature of what the government has done in expanding this exemption is to toss to the winds entirely Congress’s instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage,” she said during oral arguments. “This leaves the women to hunt for other government programs that might cover them, and for those who are not covered by Medicaid or one of the other government programs, they can get contraceptive coverage only from paying out of their own pocket, which is exactly what Congress didn’t want to happen.”

Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., meanwhile, indicated that a lower court opinion that had blocked the exemptions from going forward conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling in a related case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

“Explain to me why the Third Circuit’s analysis of the question of substantial burden is not squarely inconsistent with our reasoning in Hobby Lobby,” Associate Justice Alito said during oral arguments. “Hobby Lobby held that, if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, a federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That’s precisely the situation here. Reading the Third Circuit’s discussion of the substantial burden question, I wondered whether they had read that part of the Hobby Lobby decision.”

The dispute surrounding the ACA’s birth control mandate and the extent of exemptions afforded has gone on for a decade and has led to numerous legal challenges. The ACA initially required all employers to cover birth control for employees with no copayments, but exempted group health plans of religious employers. Those religious employers were primarily churches and other houses of worship. After a number of complaints and lawsuits, the Obama administration created a workaround for nonprofit religious employers not included in that exemption to opt out of the mandate. However, critics argued the process itself was a violation of their religious freedom.

The issue led to the case of Zubik v. Burwell, a legal challenge over the mandate exemption that went before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2016. The issue was never resolved however, and in May 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court rulings related to Zubik v. Burwell and remanded the case back to the four appeals courts that had originally ruled on the issue.

In 2018, the Trump administration announced new rules aimed at broadening exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” A second rule allowed nonprofit organizations and small businesses that had nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate to opt out.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia then sued the Trump administration over the rules, as well as Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a separate case. Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious nonprofit operating a home in Pittsburgh, intervened in the case as an aggrieved party. An appeal court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward.

During oral arguments, Solicitor General for the Department of Justice Noel J. Francisco said the exemptions are lawful because they are authorized under a provision of the ACA as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

“RFRA at the very least authorizes the religious exemption,” Mr. Francisco said during oral arguments.

Chief Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania Michael J. Fischer argued that the Trump administration’s moral and religious exemption rules rest on overly broad assertions of agency authority.

“First, the agencies twist a narrow delegation that allows the Health Resources and Services Administration to decide which preventive services insurers must cover under the Women’s Health Amendment into a grant of authority so broad it allows them to permit virtually any employer or college to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage entirely, including for reasons as amorphous as vaguely defined moral beliefs,” he said during oral arguments. “Second, the agencies claim that RFRA, a statute that limits government action, affirmatively authorizes them to permit employers to deny women their rights to contraceptive coverage even in the absence of a RFRA violation in the first place.”

[email protected]

U.S. Supreme Court justices appear divided over whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.

jsmith/iStockphoto

During oral arguments on May 6, the court expressed differing perspectives about the administration’s authority to allow for more exemptions under the health law’s birth control mandate and whether the expansions were reasonable. Justices heard the consolidated cases – Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania – by teleconference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are expected to make a decision by the summer.

Associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who participated in the telephone conference call from a hospital where she was recovering from a gallbladder condition, said the exemptions ignored the intent of Congress to provide women with comprehensive coverage through the ACA.

“The glaring feature of what the government has done in expanding this exemption is to toss to the winds entirely Congress’s instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage,” she said during oral arguments. “This leaves the women to hunt for other government programs that might cover them, and for those who are not covered by Medicaid or one of the other government programs, they can get contraceptive coverage only from paying out of their own pocket, which is exactly what Congress didn’t want to happen.”

Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., meanwhile, indicated that a lower court opinion that had blocked the exemptions from going forward conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling in a related case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

“Explain to me why the Third Circuit’s analysis of the question of substantial burden is not squarely inconsistent with our reasoning in Hobby Lobby,” Associate Justice Alito said during oral arguments. “Hobby Lobby held that, if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, a federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That’s precisely the situation here. Reading the Third Circuit’s discussion of the substantial burden question, I wondered whether they had read that part of the Hobby Lobby decision.”

The dispute surrounding the ACA’s birth control mandate and the extent of exemptions afforded has gone on for a decade and has led to numerous legal challenges. The ACA initially required all employers to cover birth control for employees with no copayments, but exempted group health plans of religious employers. Those religious employers were primarily churches and other houses of worship. After a number of complaints and lawsuits, the Obama administration created a workaround for nonprofit religious employers not included in that exemption to opt out of the mandate. However, critics argued the process itself was a violation of their religious freedom.

The issue led to the case of Zubik v. Burwell, a legal challenge over the mandate exemption that went before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2016. The issue was never resolved however, and in May 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court rulings related to Zubik v. Burwell and remanded the case back to the four appeals courts that had originally ruled on the issue.

In 2018, the Trump administration announced new rules aimed at broadening exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” A second rule allowed nonprofit organizations and small businesses that had nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate to opt out.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia then sued the Trump administration over the rules, as well as Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a separate case. Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious nonprofit operating a home in Pittsburgh, intervened in the case as an aggrieved party. An appeal court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward.

During oral arguments, Solicitor General for the Department of Justice Noel J. Francisco said the exemptions are lawful because they are authorized under a provision of the ACA as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

“RFRA at the very least authorizes the religious exemption,” Mr. Francisco said during oral arguments.

Chief Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania Michael J. Fischer argued that the Trump administration’s moral and religious exemption rules rest on overly broad assertions of agency authority.

“First, the agencies twist a narrow delegation that allows the Health Resources and Services Administration to decide which preventive services insurers must cover under the Women’s Health Amendment into a grant of authority so broad it allows them to permit virtually any employer or college to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage entirely, including for reasons as amorphous as vaguely defined moral beliefs,” he said during oral arguments. “Second, the agencies claim that RFRA, a statute that limits government action, affirmatively authorizes them to permit employers to deny women their rights to contraceptive coverage even in the absence of a RFRA violation in the first place.”

[email protected]

Wiesenfeld HC, Meyn LA, Darville T, et al. A randomized controlled trial of ceftriaxone and doxycycline, with or without metronidazole, for the treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Clin Infect Dis. February 13, 2020. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa101.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Pelvic inflammatory disease remains prevalent among young women and is commonly diagnosed in emergency departments and sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics. This tubal infection is associated with significant reproductive sequelae, including tubal factor infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. In addition, these women remain at risk for recurrent PID.

Bacterial vaginosis is present in more than half of women with PID. Not surprisingly, anaerobic microorganisms are more commonly isolated from the upper genital tract of patients with acute PID than either Neisseria gonorrhoeae or Chlamydia trachomatis, yet recommended antimicrobial regimens do not necessarily include antibiotics with an excellent antianaerobic spectrum.

Details of the study

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Wiesenfeld and colleagues enrolled women from hospital emergency departments or an STD clinic with symptoms of lower abdominal or pelvic pain associated with pelvic organ tenderness. The 233 study participants were randomly assigned to 2 treatment arms: ceftriaxone, doxycycline, and placebo (n = 117) or ceftriaxone, doxycycline, and metronidazole (n = 116).

Findings. Women treated with metronidazole were less likely to have pelvic organ tenderness a month after enrollment compared with the placebo group (9% vs 20%, respectively). Although the clinical cure rates at 30 days were statistically similar in both arms of the study, those receiving metronidazole had a 97% clinical cure rate while those not treated with metronidazole had a 90% clinical cure rate
(P = .38).

Moreover, the concurrent disorders of bacterial vaginosis and trichomonas vaginitis were more effectively treated in the metronidazole group, and fewer women had positive follow-up endometrial cultures for anaerobic bacteria compared with the placebo group (8% vs 21%, respectively).

The anticipated gastrointestinal adverse effects of a combination doxycycline-and-metronidazole regimen was a significant concern; however, combination therapy was no more likely to cause gastrointestinal adverse effects than doxycycline alone.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

This well-designed randomized, double-blinded clinical trial was performed by clinical investigators experienced in the clinical diagnosis of PID. The demography of the population and their history of C trachomatis, N gonorrhoeae, plus the concurrent diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis make the diagnosis believable and real world, and these factors contribute to the generalizability of the study results.

However, PID is an imprecise clinical diagnosis (specificity averages 65%) when held to the gold standard of diagnostic laparoscopy to confirm the presence of acute salpingitis. Given the reticence of investigators and clinicians to embark on such an invasive procedure to confirm this diagnosis, endometrial biopsy showing evidence of histologic acute endometritis has been offered as an alternative gold standard. Confirmation of acute endometritis in the trial participants would have enhanced the validity of this study.

This study challenges a long held, but never proven, belief that the combination of doxycycline and metronidazole would be poorly tolerated as a combination antimicrobial regimen. It also further solidifies the role of anaerobic bacteria as major players in the microbial etiology of acute PID. In addition, it appears that treating bacterial vaginosis concurrently may lessen the likelihood of endometrial recolonization with anaerobic bacteria. ●

Wiesenfeld HC, Meyn LA, Darville T, et al. A randomized controlled trial of ceftriaxone and doxycycline, with or without metronidazole, for the treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Clin Infect Dis. February 13, 2020. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa101.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Pelvic inflammatory disease remains prevalent among young women and is commonly diagnosed in emergency departments and sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics. This tubal infection is associated with significant reproductive sequelae, including tubal factor infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. In addition, these women remain at risk for recurrent PID.

Bacterial vaginosis is present in more than half of women with PID. Not surprisingly, anaerobic microorganisms are more commonly isolated from the upper genital tract of patients with acute PID than either Neisseria gonorrhoeae or Chlamydia trachomatis, yet recommended antimicrobial regimens do not necessarily include antibiotics with an excellent antianaerobic spectrum.

Details of the study

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Wiesenfeld and colleagues enrolled women from hospital emergency departments or an STD clinic with symptoms of lower abdominal or pelvic pain associated with pelvic organ tenderness. The 233 study participants were randomly assigned to 2 treatment arms: ceftriaxone, doxycycline, and placebo (n = 117) or ceftriaxone, doxycycline, and metronidazole (n = 116).

Findings. Women treated with metronidazole were less likely to have pelvic organ tenderness a month after enrollment compared with the placebo group (9% vs 20%, respectively). Although the clinical cure rates at 30 days were statistically similar in both arms of the study, those receiving metronidazole had a 97% clinical cure rate while those not treated with metronidazole had a 90% clinical cure rate
(P = .38).

Moreover, the concurrent disorders of bacterial vaginosis and trichomonas vaginitis were more effectively treated in the metronidazole group, and fewer women had positive follow-up endometrial cultures for anaerobic bacteria compared with the placebo group (8% vs 21%, respectively).

The anticipated gastrointestinal adverse effects of a combination doxycycline-and-metronidazole regimen was a significant concern; however, combination therapy was no more likely to cause gastrointestinal adverse effects than doxycycline alone.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

This well-designed randomized, double-blinded clinical trial was performed by clinical investigators experienced in the clinical diagnosis of PID. The demography of the population and their history of C trachomatis, N gonorrhoeae, plus the concurrent diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis make the diagnosis believable and real world, and these factors contribute to the generalizability of the study results.

However, PID is an imprecise clinical diagnosis (specificity averages 65%) when held to the gold standard of diagnostic laparoscopy to confirm the presence of acute salpingitis. Given the reticence of investigators and clinicians to embark on such an invasive procedure to confirm this diagnosis, endometrial biopsy showing evidence of histologic acute endometritis has been offered as an alternative gold standard. Confirmation of acute endometritis in the trial participants would have enhanced the validity of this study.

This study challenges a long held, but never proven, belief that the combination of doxycycline and metronidazole would be poorly tolerated as a combination antimicrobial regimen. It also further solidifies the role of anaerobic bacteria as major players in the microbial etiology of acute PID. In addition, it appears that treating bacterial vaginosis concurrently may lessen the likelihood of endometrial recolonization with anaerobic bacteria. ●

Wiesenfeld HC, Meyn LA, Darville T, et al. A randomized controlled trial of ceftriaxone and doxycycline, with or without metronidazole, for the treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Clin Infect Dis. February 13, 2020. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa101.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Pelvic inflammatory disease remains prevalent among young women and is commonly diagnosed in emergency departments and sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics. This tubal infection is associated with significant reproductive sequelae, including tubal factor infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. In addition, these women remain at risk for recurrent PID.

Bacterial vaginosis is present in more than half of women with PID. Not surprisingly, anaerobic microorganisms are more commonly isolated from the upper genital tract of patients with acute PID than either Neisseria gonorrhoeae or Chlamydia trachomatis, yet recommended antimicrobial regimens do not necessarily include antibiotics with an excellent antianaerobic spectrum.

Details of the study

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Wiesenfeld and colleagues enrolled women from hospital emergency departments or an STD clinic with symptoms of lower abdominal or pelvic pain associated with pelvic organ tenderness. The 233 study participants were randomly assigned to 2 treatment arms: ceftriaxone, doxycycline, and placebo (n = 117) or ceftriaxone, doxycycline, and metronidazole (n = 116).

Findings. Women treated with metronidazole were less likely to have pelvic organ tenderness a month after enrollment compared with the placebo group (9% vs 20%, respectively). Although the clinical cure rates at 30 days were statistically similar in both arms of the study, those receiving metronidazole had a 97% clinical cure rate while those not treated with metronidazole had a 90% clinical cure rate
(P = .38).

Moreover, the concurrent disorders of bacterial vaginosis and trichomonas vaginitis were more effectively treated in the metronidazole group, and fewer women had positive follow-up endometrial cultures for anaerobic bacteria compared with the placebo group (8% vs 21%, respectively).

The anticipated gastrointestinal adverse effects of a combination doxycycline-and-metronidazole regimen was a significant concern; however, combination therapy was no more likely to cause gastrointestinal adverse effects than doxycycline alone.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

This well-designed randomized, double-blinded clinical trial was performed by clinical investigators experienced in the clinical diagnosis of PID. The demography of the population and their history of C trachomatis, N gonorrhoeae, plus the concurrent diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis make the diagnosis believable and real world, and these factors contribute to the generalizability of the study results.

However, PID is an imprecise clinical diagnosis (specificity averages 65%) when held to the gold standard of diagnostic laparoscopy to confirm the presence of acute salpingitis. Given the reticence of investigators and clinicians to embark on such an invasive procedure to confirm this diagnosis, endometrial biopsy showing evidence of histologic acute endometritis has been offered as an alternative gold standard. Confirmation of acute endometritis in the trial participants would have enhanced the validity of this study.

This study challenges a long held, but never proven, belief that the combination of doxycycline and metronidazole would be poorly tolerated as a combination antimicrobial regimen. It also further solidifies the role of anaerobic bacteria as major players in the microbial etiology of acute PID. In addition, it appears that treating bacterial vaginosis concurrently may lessen the likelihood of endometrial recolonization with anaerobic bacteria. ●

If telemedicine had not yet begun to play a significant role in your ObGyn practice, it is almost certain to now as the COVID-19 pandemic demands new ways of caring for our patients while keeping others safe from disease. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the term “telemedicine” refers to delivering traditional clinical diagnosis and monitoring via technology (see “ACOG weighs in on telehealth”).¹

Whether they realize it or not, most Ob­Gyns have practiced a simple form of telemedicine when they take phone calls from patients who are seeking medication refills. In these cases, physicians either can call the pharmacy to refill the medication or suggest patients make an office appointment to receive a new prescription (much to the chagrin of many patients—especially millennials). Physicians who acquiesce to patients’ phone requests to have prescriptions filled or to others seeking free medical advice are not compensated for these services, yet are legally responsible for their actions and advice—a situation that does not make for good medicine.

This is where telemedicine can be an important addition to an ObGyn practice. Telemedicine saves the patient the time and effort of coming to the office, while providing compensation to the physician for his/her time and advice and providing a record of the interaction, all of which makes for far better medicine. This article—the first of 3 on the subject—discusses the process of integrating telemedicine into a practice with minimal time, energy, and expense.

Telemedicine and the ObGyn practice

Many ObGyn patients do not require an in-person visit in order to receive effective care. There is even the potential to provide prenatal care via telemedicine by replacing some of the many prenatal well-care office visits with at-home care for pregnant women with low-risk pregnancies. A typical virtual visit for a low-risk pregnancy includes utilizing home monitoring equipment to track fetal heart rate, maternal blood pressure, and fundal height.²

Practices typically use telemedicine platforms to manage one or both of the following types of encounters: 1) walk-in visits through the practice’s web site; for most of these, patients tend not to care which physicians they see; their priority is usually the first available provider; and 2) appointment-based consultations, where patients schedule video chats in advance, usually with a specific provider.

Although incorporating telemedicine into a practice may seem overwhelming, it requires minimal additional equipment, interfaces easily with a practice’s web site and electronic medical record (EMR) system, increases productivity, and improves workflow. And patients generally appreciate the option of not having to travel to the office for an appointment.

Most patients and physicians are already comfortable with their mobile phones, tablets, social media, and wearable technology, such as Fitbits. Telemedicine is a logical next step. And given the current situation with COVID-19, it is really not a matter of “if,” but rather “when” to incorporate telemedicine as a communication and practice tool, and the sooner the better.

Continue to: Getting started...

Getting started

Physicians and their colleagues and staff first need to become comfortable with telemedicine technology. Physicians can begin by using video communication for other purposes, such as for conducting staff meetings. They should practice starting and ending calls and adjusting audio volume and video quality to ensure good reception.

Selecting a video platform

TABLE 1 provides a list of the most popular video providers and the advantages and disadvantages of each, and TABLE 2 shows a list of free video chat apps. Apps are available that can:

• share and mark up lab tests, magnetic resonance images, and other medical documents without exposing the entire desktop
• securely send documents over a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant video
• stream digital device images live while still seeing patients’ faces.

Physicians should make sure their implementation team has the necessary equipment, including webcams, microphones, and speakers, and they should take the time to do research and test out a few programs before selecting one for their practice. Consider appointing a telemedicine point person who is knowledgeable about the technology and can patiently explain it to others. And keep in mind that video chatting is dependent upon a fast, strong Internet connection that has sufficient bandwidth to transport a large amount of data. If your practice has connectivity problems, consider consulting with an information technology (IT) expert.

Testing it out and obtaining feedback

Once a team is comfortable using video within the practice, it is time to test it out with a few patients and perhaps a few payers. Most patients are eager to start using video for their medical encounters. Even senior patients are often willing to try consults via video. According to a recent survey, 64% of patients are willing to see a physician over video.³ And among those who were comfortable accepting an invitation to participate in a video encounter, increasing age was actually associated with a higher likelihood to accept an invite.

Physician colleagues, medical assistants, and nurse practitioners will need some basic telemedicine skills, and physicians and staff should be prepared to make video connections seamless for patients. Usually, patients need some guidance and encouragement, such as telling them to check their spam folder for their invites if the invites fail to arrive in their email inbox, adjusting audio settings, or setting up a webcam. In the beginning, ObGyns should make sure they build in plenty of buffer time for the unexpected, as there will certainly be some “bugs” that need to be worked out.

ObGyns should encourage and collect patient feedback to such questions as:

• What kinds of devices (laptop, mobile) do they prefer using?
• What kind of networks are they using (3G, corporate, home)?
• What features do they like? What features do they have a hard time finding?
• What do they like or not like about the video experience?
• Keep track of the types of questions patients ask, and be patient as patients become acclimated to the video consultation experience.

Continue to: Streamlining online workflow...

Streamlining online workflow

Armed with feedback from patients, it is time to start streamlining online workflow. Most ObGyns want to be able to manage video visits in a way that is similar to the way they manage face-to-face visits with patients. This may mean experimenting with a virtual waiting room. A virtual waiting room is a simple web page or link that can be sent to patients. On that page, patients sign in with minimal demographic information and select one of the time slots when the physician is available. Typically, these programs are designed to alert the physicians and/or staff when a patient enters the virtual waiting room. Patients have access to the online patient queue and can start a chat or video call when both parties are ready. Such a waiting room model serves as a stepping stone for new practices to familiarize themselves with video conferencing. This approach is also perfect for practices that already have a practice management system and just want to add a video component.

Influences on practice workflow

With good time management, telemedicine can improve the efficiency and productivity of your practice. Your daily schedule and management of patients will need some minor changes, but significant alterations to your existing schedule and workflow are generally unnecessary. One of the advantages of telemedicine is the convenience of prompt care and the easy access patients have to your practice. This decreases visits to the emergency department and to urgent care centers.

Consider scheduling telemedicine appointments at the end of the day when your staff has left the office, as no staff members are required for a telemedicine visit. Ideally, you should offer a set time to communicate with patients, as this avoids having to make multiple calls to reach a patient. Another advantage of telemedicine is that you can provide care in the evenings and on weekends if you want. Whereas before you might have been fielding calls from patients during these times and not being compensated, with telemedicine you can conduct a virtual visit from any location and any computer or mobile phone and receive remuneration for your care.

And while access to care has been a problem in many ObGyn practices, many additional patients can be accommodated into a busy ObGyn practice by using telemedicine.

Telemedicine and the coronavirus

The current health care crisis makes implementing telemedicine essential. Patients who think they may have COVID-19 or who have been diagnosed need to be quarantined. Such patients can be helped safely in the comfort of their own homes without endangering others. Patients can be triaged virtually. All those who are febrile or have respiratory symptoms can continue to avail themselves of virtual visits.

According to reports in the media, COVID-19 is stretching the health care workforce to its limits and creating a shortage, both because of the sheer number of cases and because health care workers are getting sick themselves. Physicians who test positive do not have to be completely removed from the workforce if they have the ability to care for patients remotely from their homes. And not incidentally the new environment has prompted the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and private payers to initiate national payment policies that create parity between office and telemedicine visits.⁴

Continue to: Bottom line...

Bottom line

Patient-driven care is the future, and telemedicine is part of that. Patients want to have ready access to their health care providers without having to devote hours to a medical encounter that could be completed in a matter of minutes via telemedicine.

In the next article in this series, we will review the proper coding for a telemedicine visit so that appropriate compensation is gleaned. We will also review the barriers to implementing telemedicine visits. The third article is written with the assistance of 2 health care attorneys, Anjali Dooley and Nadia de la Houssaye, who are experts in telemedicine and who have helped dozens of practices and hospitals implement the technology. They provide legal guidelines for ObGyns who are considering adding telemedicine to their practice. ●

If telemedicine had not yet begun to play a significant role in your ObGyn practice, it is almost certain to now as the COVID-19 pandemic demands new ways of caring for our patients while keeping others safe from disease. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the term “telemedicine” refers to delivering traditional clinical diagnosis and monitoring via technology (see “ACOG weighs in on telehealth”).¹

Whether they realize it or not, most Ob­Gyns have practiced a simple form of telemedicine when they take phone calls from patients who are seeking medication refills. In these cases, physicians either can call the pharmacy to refill the medication or suggest patients make an office appointment to receive a new prescription (much to the chagrin of many patients—especially millennials). Physicians who acquiesce to patients’ phone requests to have prescriptions filled or to others seeking free medical advice are not compensated for these services, yet are legally responsible for their actions and advice—a situation that does not make for good medicine.

This is where telemedicine can be an important addition to an ObGyn practice. Telemedicine saves the patient the time and effort of coming to the office, while providing compensation to the physician for his/her time and advice and providing a record of the interaction, all of which makes for far better medicine. This article—the first of 3 on the subject—discusses the process of integrating telemedicine into a practice with minimal time, energy, and expense.

Telemedicine and the ObGyn practice

Many ObGyn patients do not require an in-person visit in order to receive effective care. There is even the potential to provide prenatal care via telemedicine by replacing some of the many prenatal well-care office visits with at-home care for pregnant women with low-risk pregnancies. A typical virtual visit for a low-risk pregnancy includes utilizing home monitoring equipment to track fetal heart rate, maternal blood pressure, and fundal height.²

Practices typically use telemedicine platforms to manage one or both of the following types of encounters: 1) walk-in visits through the practice’s web site; for most of these, patients tend not to care which physicians they see; their priority is usually the first available provider; and 2) appointment-based consultations, where patients schedule video chats in advance, usually with a specific provider.

Although incorporating telemedicine into a practice may seem overwhelming, it requires minimal additional equipment, interfaces easily with a practice’s web site and electronic medical record (EMR) system, increases productivity, and improves workflow. And patients generally appreciate the option of not having to travel to the office for an appointment.

Most patients and physicians are already comfortable with their mobile phones, tablets, social media, and wearable technology, such as Fitbits. Telemedicine is a logical next step. And given the current situation with COVID-19, it is really not a matter of “if,” but rather “when” to incorporate telemedicine as a communication and practice tool, and the sooner the better.

Continue to: Getting started...

Getting started

Physicians and their colleagues and staff first need to become comfortable with telemedicine technology. Physicians can begin by using video communication for other purposes, such as for conducting staff meetings. They should practice starting and ending calls and adjusting audio volume and video quality to ensure good reception.

Selecting a video platform

TABLE 1 provides a list of the most popular video providers and the advantages and disadvantages of each, and TABLE 2 shows a list of free video chat apps. Apps are available that can:

• share and mark up lab tests, magnetic resonance images, and other medical documents without exposing the entire desktop
• securely send documents over a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant video
• stream digital device images live while still seeing patients’ faces.

Physicians should make sure their implementation team has the necessary equipment, including webcams, microphones, and speakers, and they should take the time to do research and test out a few programs before selecting one for their practice. Consider appointing a telemedicine point person who is knowledgeable about the technology and can patiently explain it to others. And keep in mind that video chatting is dependent upon a fast, strong Internet connection that has sufficient bandwidth to transport a large amount of data. If your practice has connectivity problems, consider consulting with an information technology (IT) expert.

Testing it out and obtaining feedback

Once a team is comfortable using video within the practice, it is time to test it out with a few patients and perhaps a few payers. Most patients are eager to start using video for their medical encounters. Even senior patients are often willing to try consults via video. According to a recent survey, 64% of patients are willing to see a physician over video.³ And among those who were comfortable accepting an invitation to participate in a video encounter, increasing age was actually associated with a higher likelihood to accept an invite.

Physician colleagues, medical assistants, and nurse practitioners will need some basic telemedicine skills, and physicians and staff should be prepared to make video connections seamless for patients. Usually, patients need some guidance and encouragement, such as telling them to check their spam folder for their invites if the invites fail to arrive in their email inbox, adjusting audio settings, or setting up a webcam. In the beginning, ObGyns should make sure they build in plenty of buffer time for the unexpected, as there will certainly be some “bugs” that need to be worked out.

ObGyns should encourage and collect patient feedback to such questions as:

• What kinds of devices (laptop, mobile) do they prefer using?
• What kind of networks are they using (3G, corporate, home)?
• What features do they like? What features do they have a hard time finding?
• What do they like or not like about the video experience?
• Keep track of the types of questions patients ask, and be patient as patients become acclimated to the video consultation experience.

Continue to: Streamlining online workflow...

Streamlining online workflow

Armed with feedback from patients, it is time to start streamlining online workflow. Most ObGyns want to be able to manage video visits in a way that is similar to the way they manage face-to-face visits with patients. This may mean experimenting with a virtual waiting room. A virtual waiting room is a simple web page or link that can be sent to patients. On that page, patients sign in with minimal demographic information and select one of the time slots when the physician is available. Typically, these programs are designed to alert the physicians and/or staff when a patient enters the virtual waiting room. Patients have access to the online patient queue and can start a chat or video call when both parties are ready. Such a waiting room model serves as a stepping stone for new practices to familiarize themselves with video conferencing. This approach is also perfect for practices that already have a practice management system and just want to add a video component.

Influences on practice workflow

With good time management, telemedicine can improve the efficiency and productivity of your practice. Your daily schedule and management of patients will need some minor changes, but significant alterations to your existing schedule and workflow are generally unnecessary. One of the advantages of telemedicine is the convenience of prompt care and the easy access patients have to your practice. This decreases visits to the emergency department and to urgent care centers.

Consider scheduling telemedicine appointments at the end of the day when your staff has left the office, as no staff members are required for a telemedicine visit. Ideally, you should offer a set time to communicate with patients, as this avoids having to make multiple calls to reach a patient. Another advantage of telemedicine is that you can provide care in the evenings and on weekends if you want. Whereas before you might have been fielding calls from patients during these times and not being compensated, with telemedicine you can conduct a virtual visit from any location and any computer or mobile phone and receive remuneration for your care.

And while access to care has been a problem in many ObGyn practices, many additional patients can be accommodated into a busy ObGyn practice by using telemedicine.

Telemedicine and the coronavirus

The current health care crisis makes implementing telemedicine essential. Patients who think they may have COVID-19 or who have been diagnosed need to be quarantined. Such patients can be helped safely in the comfort of their own homes without endangering others. Patients can be triaged virtually. All those who are febrile or have respiratory symptoms can continue to avail themselves of virtual visits.

According to reports in the media, COVID-19 is stretching the health care workforce to its limits and creating a shortage, both because of the sheer number of cases and because health care workers are getting sick themselves. Physicians who test positive do not have to be completely removed from the workforce if they have the ability to care for patients remotely from their homes. And not incidentally the new environment has prompted the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and private payers to initiate national payment policies that create parity between office and telemedicine visits.⁴

Continue to: Bottom line...

Bottom line

Patient-driven care is the future, and telemedicine is part of that. Patients want to have ready access to their health care providers without having to devote hours to a medical encounter that could be completed in a matter of minutes via telemedicine.

In the next article in this series, we will review the proper coding for a telemedicine visit so that appropriate compensation is gleaned. We will also review the barriers to implementing telemedicine visits. The third article is written with the assistance of 2 health care attorneys, Anjali Dooley and Nadia de la Houssaye, who are experts in telemedicine and who have helped dozens of practices and hospitals implement the technology. They provide legal guidelines for ObGyns who are considering adding telemedicine to their practice. ●

If telemedicine had not yet begun to play a significant role in your ObGyn practice, it is almost certain to now as the COVID-19 pandemic demands new ways of caring for our patients while keeping others safe from disease. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the term “telemedicine” refers to delivering traditional clinical diagnosis and monitoring via technology (see “ACOG weighs in on telehealth”).¹

Whether they realize it or not, most Ob­Gyns have practiced a simple form of telemedicine when they take phone calls from patients who are seeking medication refills. In these cases, physicians either can call the pharmacy to refill the medication or suggest patients make an office appointment to receive a new prescription (much to the chagrin of many patients—especially millennials). Physicians who acquiesce to patients’ phone requests to have prescriptions filled or to others seeking free medical advice are not compensated for these services, yet are legally responsible for their actions and advice—a situation that does not make for good medicine.

This is where telemedicine can be an important addition to an ObGyn practice. Telemedicine saves the patient the time and effort of coming to the office, while providing compensation to the physician for his/her time and advice and providing a record of the interaction, all of which makes for far better medicine. This article—the first of 3 on the subject—discusses the process of integrating telemedicine into a practice with minimal time, energy, and expense.

Telemedicine and the ObGyn practice

Many ObGyn patients do not require an in-person visit in order to receive effective care. There is even the potential to provide prenatal care via telemedicine by replacing some of the many prenatal well-care office visits with at-home care for pregnant women with low-risk pregnancies. A typical virtual visit for a low-risk pregnancy includes utilizing home monitoring equipment to track fetal heart rate, maternal blood pressure, and fundal height.²

Practices typically use telemedicine platforms to manage one or both of the following types of encounters: 1) walk-in visits through the practice’s web site; for most of these, patients tend not to care which physicians they see; their priority is usually the first available provider; and 2) appointment-based consultations, where patients schedule video chats in advance, usually with a specific provider.

Although incorporating telemedicine into a practice may seem overwhelming, it requires minimal additional equipment, interfaces easily with a practice’s web site and electronic medical record (EMR) system, increases productivity, and improves workflow. And patients generally appreciate the option of not having to travel to the office for an appointment.

Most patients and physicians are already comfortable with their mobile phones, tablets, social media, and wearable technology, such as Fitbits. Telemedicine is a logical next step. And given the current situation with COVID-19, it is really not a matter of “if,” but rather “when” to incorporate telemedicine as a communication and practice tool, and the sooner the better.

Continue to: Getting started...

Getting started

Physicians and their colleagues and staff first need to become comfortable with telemedicine technology. Physicians can begin by using video communication for other purposes, such as for conducting staff meetings. They should practice starting and ending calls and adjusting audio volume and video quality to ensure good reception.

Selecting a video platform

TABLE 1 provides a list of the most popular video providers and the advantages and disadvantages of each, and TABLE 2 shows a list of free video chat apps. Apps are available that can:

• share and mark up lab tests, magnetic resonance images, and other medical documents without exposing the entire desktop
• securely send documents over a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant video
• stream digital device images live while still seeing patients’ faces.

Physicians should make sure their implementation team has the necessary equipment, including webcams, microphones, and speakers, and they should take the time to do research and test out a few programs before selecting one for their practice. Consider appointing a telemedicine point person who is knowledgeable about the technology and can patiently explain it to others. And keep in mind that video chatting is dependent upon a fast, strong Internet connection that has sufficient bandwidth to transport a large amount of data. If your practice has connectivity problems, consider consulting with an information technology (IT) expert.

Testing it out and obtaining feedback

Once a team is comfortable using video within the practice, it is time to test it out with a few patients and perhaps a few payers. Most patients are eager to start using video for their medical encounters. Even senior patients are often willing to try consults via video. According to a recent survey, 64% of patients are willing to see a physician over video.³ And among those who were comfortable accepting an invitation to participate in a video encounter, increasing age was actually associated with a higher likelihood to accept an invite.

Physician colleagues, medical assistants, and nurse practitioners will need some basic telemedicine skills, and physicians and staff should be prepared to make video connections seamless for patients. Usually, patients need some guidance and encouragement, such as telling them to check their spam folder for their invites if the invites fail to arrive in their email inbox, adjusting audio settings, or setting up a webcam. In the beginning, ObGyns should make sure they build in plenty of buffer time for the unexpected, as there will certainly be some “bugs” that need to be worked out.

ObGyns should encourage and collect patient feedback to such questions as:

• What kinds of devices (laptop, mobile) do they prefer using?
• What kind of networks are they using (3G, corporate, home)?
• What features do they like? What features do they have a hard time finding?
• What do they like or not like about the video experience?
• Keep track of the types of questions patients ask, and be patient as patients become acclimated to the video consultation experience.

Continue to: Streamlining online workflow...

Streamlining online workflow

Armed with feedback from patients, it is time to start streamlining online workflow. Most ObGyns want to be able to manage video visits in a way that is similar to the way they manage face-to-face visits with patients. This may mean experimenting with a virtual waiting room. A virtual waiting room is a simple web page or link that can be sent to patients. On that page, patients sign in with minimal demographic information and select one of the time slots when the physician is available. Typically, these programs are designed to alert the physicians and/or staff when a patient enters the virtual waiting room. Patients have access to the online patient queue and can start a chat or video call when both parties are ready. Such a waiting room model serves as a stepping stone for new practices to familiarize themselves with video conferencing. This approach is also perfect for practices that already have a practice management system and just want to add a video component.

Influences on practice workflow

With good time management, telemedicine can improve the efficiency and productivity of your practice. Your daily schedule and management of patients will need some minor changes, but significant alterations to your existing schedule and workflow are generally unnecessary. One of the advantages of telemedicine is the convenience of prompt care and the easy access patients have to your practice. This decreases visits to the emergency department and to urgent care centers.

Consider scheduling telemedicine appointments at the end of the day when your staff has left the office, as no staff members are required for a telemedicine visit. Ideally, you should offer a set time to communicate with patients, as this avoids having to make multiple calls to reach a patient. Another advantage of telemedicine is that you can provide care in the evenings and on weekends if you want. Whereas before you might have been fielding calls from patients during these times and not being compensated, with telemedicine you can conduct a virtual visit from any location and any computer or mobile phone and receive remuneration for your care.

And while access to care has been a problem in many ObGyn practices, many additional patients can be accommodated into a busy ObGyn practice by using telemedicine.

Telemedicine and the coronavirus

The current health care crisis makes implementing telemedicine essential. Patients who think they may have COVID-19 or who have been diagnosed need to be quarantined. Such patients can be helped safely in the comfort of their own homes without endangering others. Patients can be triaged virtually. All those who are febrile or have respiratory symptoms can continue to avail themselves of virtual visits.

According to reports in the media, COVID-19 is stretching the health care workforce to its limits and creating a shortage, both because of the sheer number of cases and because health care workers are getting sick themselves. Physicians who test positive do not have to be completely removed from the workforce if they have the ability to care for patients remotely from their homes. And not incidentally the new environment has prompted the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and private payers to initiate national payment policies that create parity between office and telemedicine visits.⁴

Continue to: Bottom line...

Bottom line

Patient-driven care is the future, and telemedicine is part of that. Patients want to have ready access to their health care providers without having to devote hours to a medical encounter that could be completed in a matter of minutes via telemedicine.

In the next article in this series, we will review the proper coding for a telemedicine visit so that appropriate compensation is gleaned. We will also review the barriers to implementing telemedicine visits. The third article is written with the assistance of 2 health care attorneys, Anjali Dooley and Nadia de la Houssaye, who are experts in telemedicine and who have helped dozens of practices and hospitals implement the technology. They provide legal guidelines for ObGyns who are considering adding telemedicine to their practice. ●

In the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health care providers, including ObGyns, need up-to-date information to keep pace with the ever-changing health care crisis. Literature regarding obstetric populations is emerging in journals.^1,2 General guidance in the management of COVID-19–positive patients may also be helpful to the ObGyn provider. Although scientific journals are now publishing COVID-19 research at warp speed, those same journals tend to be too specialized for general readers.³ Mobile apps may make the information more accessible.

This app review focuses on 3 apps that provide information about the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and detail general guidance for treatment of COVID-19–positive patients. An initial search in early April 2020 of major national health care organizations and ObGyn-specific organizational apps yielded the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) app. A subsequent search in the app stores using the term “COVID” yielded 2 additional apps: the Osler COVID Learning Centre app and the Relief Central app.

The CDC app contains a COVID-19-specific section that highlights pertinent information for health care providers as well as a section on caring for the obstetric patient. The Osler app includes podcasts and videos on critical care for noncritical care providers. Finally, the Relief Central app contains updated information on screening and treatment for COVID-19. The TABLE features details of the 3 apps.

In the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health care providers, including ObGyns, need up-to-date information to keep pace with the ever-changing health care crisis. Literature regarding obstetric populations is emerging in journals.^1,2 General guidance in the management of COVID-19–positive patients may also be helpful to the ObGyn provider. Although scientific journals are now publishing COVID-19 research at warp speed, those same journals tend to be too specialized for general readers.³ Mobile apps may make the information more accessible.

This app review focuses on 3 apps that provide information about the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and detail general guidance for treatment of COVID-19–positive patients. An initial search in early April 2020 of major national health care organizations and ObGyn-specific organizational apps yielded the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) app. A subsequent search in the app stores using the term “COVID” yielded 2 additional apps: the Osler COVID Learning Centre app and the Relief Central app.

The CDC app contains a COVID-19-specific section that highlights pertinent information for health care providers as well as a section on caring for the obstetric patient. The Osler app includes podcasts and videos on critical care for noncritical care providers. Finally, the Relief Central app contains updated information on screening and treatment for COVID-19. The TABLE features details of the 3 apps.

In the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health care providers, including ObGyns, need up-to-date information to keep pace with the ever-changing health care crisis. Literature regarding obstetric populations is emerging in journals.^1,2 General guidance in the management of COVID-19–positive patients may also be helpful to the ObGyn provider. Although scientific journals are now publishing COVID-19 research at warp speed, those same journals tend to be too specialized for general readers.³ Mobile apps may make the information more accessible.

This app review focuses on 3 apps that provide information about the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and detail general guidance for treatment of COVID-19–positive patients. An initial search in early April 2020 of major national health care organizations and ObGyn-specific organizational apps yielded the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) app. A subsequent search in the app stores using the term “COVID” yielded 2 additional apps: the Osler COVID Learning Centre app and the Relief Central app.

The CDC app contains a COVID-19-specific section that highlights pertinent information for health care providers as well as a section on caring for the obstetric patient. The Osler app includes podcasts and videos on critical care for noncritical care providers. Finally, the Relief Central app contains updated information on screening and treatment for COVID-19. The TABLE features details of the 3 apps.