Infectious Diseases

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children continue to represent an increasing proportion of reported COVID-19 cases in the United States, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 38,516 child cases reported during the week ending Sept. 17 bring the cumulative number to 587,948, which is 10.3% of all COVID-19 cases. The previous week, children represented 10.0% of all cases, and that proportion has continued to rise throughout the pandemic, the AAP and CHA report shows.

Looking at just new cases for the latest week, the 38,000+ pediatric cases made up almost 17% of the 228,396 cases reported for all ages, compared with 16% and 15% the two previous weeks. For the weeks ending Aug. 13 and Aug. 6, the corresponding figures were 8% and 13%, based on the data in the AAP/CHA report, which cover 49 states (New York City but not New York state), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The state with the highest proportion of child COVID-19 cases as of Sept. 17 was Wyoming, with 20.6%, followed by North Dakota at 18.3% and Tennessee at 17.9%. New York City has a cumulative rate of just 3.4%, but New Jersey is the state with the lowest rate at 3.6%. Florida comes in at 5.9% but is using an age range of 0-14 years for children, and Texas has a rate of 6.0% but has reported ages for only 8% of confirmed cases, the AAP and CHA noted.

Severe illness, however, continues to be rare in children. The overall hospitalization rate for children was down to 1.7% among the 26 jurisdictions providing ages as Sept. 17 – down from 1.8% the week before and 2.3% on Aug. 20. The death rate is just 0.02% among 43 jurisdictions, the report said.

[email protected]

Children continue to represent an increasing proportion of reported COVID-19 cases in the United States, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 38,516 child cases reported during the week ending Sept. 17 bring the cumulative number to 587,948, which is 10.3% of all COVID-19 cases. The previous week, children represented 10.0% of all cases, and that proportion has continued to rise throughout the pandemic, the AAP and CHA report shows.

Looking at just new cases for the latest week, the 38,000+ pediatric cases made up almost 17% of the 228,396 cases reported for all ages, compared with 16% and 15% the two previous weeks. For the weeks ending Aug. 13 and Aug. 6, the corresponding figures were 8% and 13%, based on the data in the AAP/CHA report, which cover 49 states (New York City but not New York state), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The state with the highest proportion of child COVID-19 cases as of Sept. 17 was Wyoming, with 20.6%, followed by North Dakota at 18.3% and Tennessee at 17.9%. New York City has a cumulative rate of just 3.4%, but New Jersey is the state with the lowest rate at 3.6%. Florida comes in at 5.9% but is using an age range of 0-14 years for children, and Texas has a rate of 6.0% but has reported ages for only 8% of confirmed cases, the AAP and CHA noted.

Severe illness, however, continues to be rare in children. The overall hospitalization rate for children was down to 1.7% among the 26 jurisdictions providing ages as Sept. 17 – down from 1.8% the week before and 2.3% on Aug. 20. The death rate is just 0.02% among 43 jurisdictions, the report said.

[email protected]

Children continue to represent an increasing proportion of reported COVID-19 cases in the United States, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 38,516 child cases reported during the week ending Sept. 17 bring the cumulative number to 587,948, which is 10.3% of all COVID-19 cases. The previous week, children represented 10.0% of all cases, and that proportion has continued to rise throughout the pandemic, the AAP and CHA report shows.

Looking at just new cases for the latest week, the 38,000+ pediatric cases made up almost 17% of the 228,396 cases reported for all ages, compared with 16% and 15% the two previous weeks. For the weeks ending Aug. 13 and Aug. 6, the corresponding figures were 8% and 13%, based on the data in the AAP/CHA report, which cover 49 states (New York City but not New York state), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The state with the highest proportion of child COVID-19 cases as of Sept. 17 was Wyoming, with 20.6%, followed by North Dakota at 18.3% and Tennessee at 17.9%. New York City has a cumulative rate of just 3.4%, but New Jersey is the state with the lowest rate at 3.6%. Florida comes in at 5.9% but is using an age range of 0-14 years for children, and Texas has a rate of 6.0% but has reported ages for only 8% of confirmed cases, the AAP and CHA noted.

Severe illness, however, continues to be rare in children. The overall hospitalization rate for children was down to 1.7% among the 26 jurisdictions providing ages as Sept. 17 – down from 1.8% the week before and 2.3% on Aug. 20. The death rate is just 0.02% among 43 jurisdictions, the report said.

[email protected]

President Donald Trump, who seems intent on announcing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day, could legally authorize a vaccine over the objections of experts, officials at the Food and Drug Administration and even vaccine manufacturers, who have pledged not to release any vaccine unless it’s proved safe and effective.

In podcasts, public forums, social media and medical journals, a growing number of prominent health leaders say they fear that Mr. Trump – who has repeatedly signaled his desire for the swift approval of a vaccine and his displeasure with perceived delays at the FDA – will take matters into his own hands, running roughshod over the usual regulatory process.

It would reflect another attempt by a norm-breaking administration, poised to ram through a Supreme Court nominee opposed to existing abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, to inject politics into sensitive public health decisions. Mr. Trump has repeatedly contradicted the advice of senior scientists on COVID-19 while pushing controversial treatments for the disease.

If the executive branch were to overrule the FDA’s scientific judgment, a vaccine of limited efficacy and, worse, unknown side effects could be rushed to market.

The worries intensified over the weekend, after Alex Azar, the administration’s secretary of Health & Human Services, asserted his agency’s rule-making authority over the FDA. HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said Mr. Azar’s decision had no bearing on the vaccine approval process.

Vaccines are typically approved by the FDA. Alternatively, Mr. Azar – who reports directly to Mr. Trump – can issue an emergency use authorization, even before any vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in late-stage clinical trials.

“Yes, this scenario is certainly possible legally and politically,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who outlined such an event in the New England Journal of Medicine. He said it “seems frighteningly more plausible each day.”

Vaccine experts and public health officials are particularly vexed by the possibility because it could ruin the fragile public confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine. It might put scientific authorities in the position of urging people not to be vaccinated after years of coaxing hesitant parents to ignore baseless fears.

Physicians might refuse to administer a vaccine approved with inadequate data, said Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in a recent webinar. “You could have a safe, effective vaccine that no one wants to take.” A recent KFF poll found that 54% of Americans would not submit to a COVID-19 vaccine authorized before Election Day.

After this story was published, an HHS official said that Mr. Azar “will defer completely to the FDA” as the agency weighs whether to approve a vaccine produced through the government’s Operation Warp Speed effort.

“The idea the Secretary would approve or authorize a vaccine over the FDA’s objections is preposterous and betrays ignorance of the transparent process that we’re following for the development of the OWS vaccines,” HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison wrote in an email.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere dismissed the scientists’ concerns, saying Trump cared only about the public’s safety and health. “This false narrative that the media and Democrats have created that politics is influencing approvals is not only false but is a danger to the American public,” he said.

Usually, the FDA approves vaccines only after companies submit years of data proving that a vaccine is safe and effective. But a 2004 law allows the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization with much less evidence, as long as the vaccine “may be effective” and its “known and potential benefits” outweigh its “known and potential risks.”

Many scientists doubt a vaccine could meet those criteria before the election. But the terms might be legally vague enough to allow the administration to take such steps.

Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the government program aiming to more quickly develop COVID-19 vaccines, said it’s “extremely unlikely” that vaccine trial results will be ready before the end of October.

Mr. Trump, however, has insisted repeatedly that a vaccine to fight the pandemic that has claimed 200,000 American lives will be distributed starting next month. He reiterated that claim Saturday at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C.

The vaccine will be ready “in a matter of weeks,” he said. “We will end the pandemic from China.”

Although pharmaceutical companies have launched three clinical trials in the United States, no one can say with certainty when those trials will have enough data to determine whether the vaccines are safe and effective.

Officials at Moderna, whose vaccine is being tested in 30,000 volunteers, have said their studies could produce a result by the end of the year, although the final analysis could take place next spring.

Pfizer executives, who have expanded their clinical trial to 44,000 participants, boast that they could know their vaccine works by the end of October.

AstraZeneca’s U.S. vaccine trial, which was scheduled to enroll 30,000 volunteers, is on hold pending an investigation of a possible vaccine-related illness.

Scientists have warned for months that the Trump administration could try to win the election with an “October surprise,” authorizing a vaccine that hasn’t been fully tested. “I don’t think people are crazy to be thinking about all of this,” said William Schultz, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm who served as a former FDA commissioner for policy and as general counsel for HHS.

“You’ve got a president saying you’ll have an approval in October. Everybody’s wondering how that could happen.”

In an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, conservative former FDA commissioners Scott Gottlieb and Mark McClellan argued that presidential intrusion was unlikely because the FDA’s “thorough and transparent process doesn’t lend itself to meddling. Any deviation would quickly be apparent.”

But the administration has demonstrated a willingness to bend the agency to its will. The FDA has been criticized for issuing emergency authorizations for two COVID-19 treatments that were boosted by the president but lacked strong evidence to support them: hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma.

Mr. Azar has sidelined the FDA in other ways, such as by blocking the agency from regulating lab-developed tests, including tests for the novel coronavirus.

Although FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times he would be willing to approve emergency use of a vaccine before large-scale studies conclude, agency officials also have pledged to ensure the safety of any COVID-19 vaccines.

A senior FDA official who oversees vaccine approvals, Peter Marks, MD, has said he will quit if his agency rubber-stamps an unproven COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think there would be an outcry from the public health community second to none, which is my worst nightmare – my worst nightmare – because we will so confuse the public,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in his weekly podcast.

Still, “even if a company did not want it to be done, even if the FDA did not want it to be done, he could still do that,” said Dr. Osterholm, in his podcast. “I hope that we’d never see that happen, but we have to entertain that’s a possibility.”

In the New England Journal editorial, Dr. Avorn and coauthor Aaron Kesselheim, MD, wondered whether Mr. Trump might invoke the 1950 Defense Production Act to force reluctant drug companies to manufacture their vaccines.

But Mr. Trump would have to sue a company to enforce the Defense Production Act, and the company would have a strong case in refusing, said Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

Also, he noted that Mr. Trump could not invoke the Defense Production Act unless a vaccine were “scientifically justified and approved by the FDA.”

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

President Donald Trump, who seems intent on announcing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day, could legally authorize a vaccine over the objections of experts, officials at the Food and Drug Administration and even vaccine manufacturers, who have pledged not to release any vaccine unless it’s proved safe and effective.

In podcasts, public forums, social media and medical journals, a growing number of prominent health leaders say they fear that Mr. Trump – who has repeatedly signaled his desire for the swift approval of a vaccine and his displeasure with perceived delays at the FDA – will take matters into his own hands, running roughshod over the usual regulatory process.

It would reflect another attempt by a norm-breaking administration, poised to ram through a Supreme Court nominee opposed to existing abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, to inject politics into sensitive public health decisions. Mr. Trump has repeatedly contradicted the advice of senior scientists on COVID-19 while pushing controversial treatments for the disease.

If the executive branch were to overrule the FDA’s scientific judgment, a vaccine of limited efficacy and, worse, unknown side effects could be rushed to market.

The worries intensified over the weekend, after Alex Azar, the administration’s secretary of Health & Human Services, asserted his agency’s rule-making authority over the FDA. HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said Mr. Azar’s decision had no bearing on the vaccine approval process.

Vaccines are typically approved by the FDA. Alternatively, Mr. Azar – who reports directly to Mr. Trump – can issue an emergency use authorization, even before any vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in late-stage clinical trials.

“Yes, this scenario is certainly possible legally and politically,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who outlined such an event in the New England Journal of Medicine. He said it “seems frighteningly more plausible each day.”

Vaccine experts and public health officials are particularly vexed by the possibility because it could ruin the fragile public confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine. It might put scientific authorities in the position of urging people not to be vaccinated after years of coaxing hesitant parents to ignore baseless fears.

Physicians might refuse to administer a vaccine approved with inadequate data, said Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in a recent webinar. “You could have a safe, effective vaccine that no one wants to take.” A recent KFF poll found that 54% of Americans would not submit to a COVID-19 vaccine authorized before Election Day.

After this story was published, an HHS official said that Mr. Azar “will defer completely to the FDA” as the agency weighs whether to approve a vaccine produced through the government’s Operation Warp Speed effort.

“The idea the Secretary would approve or authorize a vaccine over the FDA’s objections is preposterous and betrays ignorance of the transparent process that we’re following for the development of the OWS vaccines,” HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison wrote in an email.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere dismissed the scientists’ concerns, saying Trump cared only about the public’s safety and health. “This false narrative that the media and Democrats have created that politics is influencing approvals is not only false but is a danger to the American public,” he said.

Usually, the FDA approves vaccines only after companies submit years of data proving that a vaccine is safe and effective. But a 2004 law allows the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization with much less evidence, as long as the vaccine “may be effective” and its “known and potential benefits” outweigh its “known and potential risks.”

Many scientists doubt a vaccine could meet those criteria before the election. But the terms might be legally vague enough to allow the administration to take such steps.

Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the government program aiming to more quickly develop COVID-19 vaccines, said it’s “extremely unlikely” that vaccine trial results will be ready before the end of October.

Mr. Trump, however, has insisted repeatedly that a vaccine to fight the pandemic that has claimed 200,000 American lives will be distributed starting next month. He reiterated that claim Saturday at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C.

The vaccine will be ready “in a matter of weeks,” he said. “We will end the pandemic from China.”

Although pharmaceutical companies have launched three clinical trials in the United States, no one can say with certainty when those trials will have enough data to determine whether the vaccines are safe and effective.

Officials at Moderna, whose vaccine is being tested in 30,000 volunteers, have said their studies could produce a result by the end of the year, although the final analysis could take place next spring.

Pfizer executives, who have expanded their clinical trial to 44,000 participants, boast that they could know their vaccine works by the end of October.

AstraZeneca’s U.S. vaccine trial, which was scheduled to enroll 30,000 volunteers, is on hold pending an investigation of a possible vaccine-related illness.

Scientists have warned for months that the Trump administration could try to win the election with an “October surprise,” authorizing a vaccine that hasn’t been fully tested. “I don’t think people are crazy to be thinking about all of this,” said William Schultz, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm who served as a former FDA commissioner for policy and as general counsel for HHS.

“You’ve got a president saying you’ll have an approval in October. Everybody’s wondering how that could happen.”

In an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, conservative former FDA commissioners Scott Gottlieb and Mark McClellan argued that presidential intrusion was unlikely because the FDA’s “thorough and transparent process doesn’t lend itself to meddling. Any deviation would quickly be apparent.”

But the administration has demonstrated a willingness to bend the agency to its will. The FDA has been criticized for issuing emergency authorizations for two COVID-19 treatments that were boosted by the president but lacked strong evidence to support them: hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma.

Mr. Azar has sidelined the FDA in other ways, such as by blocking the agency from regulating lab-developed tests, including tests for the novel coronavirus.

Although FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times he would be willing to approve emergency use of a vaccine before large-scale studies conclude, agency officials also have pledged to ensure the safety of any COVID-19 vaccines.

A senior FDA official who oversees vaccine approvals, Peter Marks, MD, has said he will quit if his agency rubber-stamps an unproven COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think there would be an outcry from the public health community second to none, which is my worst nightmare – my worst nightmare – because we will so confuse the public,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in his weekly podcast.

Still, “even if a company did not want it to be done, even if the FDA did not want it to be done, he could still do that,” said Dr. Osterholm, in his podcast. “I hope that we’d never see that happen, but we have to entertain that’s a possibility.”

In the New England Journal editorial, Dr. Avorn and coauthor Aaron Kesselheim, MD, wondered whether Mr. Trump might invoke the 1950 Defense Production Act to force reluctant drug companies to manufacture their vaccines.

But Mr. Trump would have to sue a company to enforce the Defense Production Act, and the company would have a strong case in refusing, said Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

Also, he noted that Mr. Trump could not invoke the Defense Production Act unless a vaccine were “scientifically justified and approved by the FDA.”

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

President Donald Trump, who seems intent on announcing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day, could legally authorize a vaccine over the objections of experts, officials at the Food and Drug Administration and even vaccine manufacturers, who have pledged not to release any vaccine unless it’s proved safe and effective.

In podcasts, public forums, social media and medical journals, a growing number of prominent health leaders say they fear that Mr. Trump – who has repeatedly signaled his desire for the swift approval of a vaccine and his displeasure with perceived delays at the FDA – will take matters into his own hands, running roughshod over the usual regulatory process.

It would reflect another attempt by a norm-breaking administration, poised to ram through a Supreme Court nominee opposed to existing abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, to inject politics into sensitive public health decisions. Mr. Trump has repeatedly contradicted the advice of senior scientists on COVID-19 while pushing controversial treatments for the disease.

If the executive branch were to overrule the FDA’s scientific judgment, a vaccine of limited efficacy and, worse, unknown side effects could be rushed to market.

The worries intensified over the weekend, after Alex Azar, the administration’s secretary of Health & Human Services, asserted his agency’s rule-making authority over the FDA. HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said Mr. Azar’s decision had no bearing on the vaccine approval process.

Vaccines are typically approved by the FDA. Alternatively, Mr. Azar – who reports directly to Mr. Trump – can issue an emergency use authorization, even before any vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in late-stage clinical trials.

“Yes, this scenario is certainly possible legally and politically,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who outlined such an event in the New England Journal of Medicine. He said it “seems frighteningly more plausible each day.”

Vaccine experts and public health officials are particularly vexed by the possibility because it could ruin the fragile public confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine. It might put scientific authorities in the position of urging people not to be vaccinated after years of coaxing hesitant parents to ignore baseless fears.

Physicians might refuse to administer a vaccine approved with inadequate data, said Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in a recent webinar. “You could have a safe, effective vaccine that no one wants to take.” A recent KFF poll found that 54% of Americans would not submit to a COVID-19 vaccine authorized before Election Day.

After this story was published, an HHS official said that Mr. Azar “will defer completely to the FDA” as the agency weighs whether to approve a vaccine produced through the government’s Operation Warp Speed effort.

“The idea the Secretary would approve or authorize a vaccine over the FDA’s objections is preposterous and betrays ignorance of the transparent process that we’re following for the development of the OWS vaccines,” HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison wrote in an email.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere dismissed the scientists’ concerns, saying Trump cared only about the public’s safety and health. “This false narrative that the media and Democrats have created that politics is influencing approvals is not only false but is a danger to the American public,” he said.

Usually, the FDA approves vaccines only after companies submit years of data proving that a vaccine is safe and effective. But a 2004 law allows the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization with much less evidence, as long as the vaccine “may be effective” and its “known and potential benefits” outweigh its “known and potential risks.”

Many scientists doubt a vaccine could meet those criteria before the election. But the terms might be legally vague enough to allow the administration to take such steps.

Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the government program aiming to more quickly develop COVID-19 vaccines, said it’s “extremely unlikely” that vaccine trial results will be ready before the end of October.

Mr. Trump, however, has insisted repeatedly that a vaccine to fight the pandemic that has claimed 200,000 American lives will be distributed starting next month. He reiterated that claim Saturday at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C.

The vaccine will be ready “in a matter of weeks,” he said. “We will end the pandemic from China.”

Although pharmaceutical companies have launched three clinical trials in the United States, no one can say with certainty when those trials will have enough data to determine whether the vaccines are safe and effective.

Officials at Moderna, whose vaccine is being tested in 30,000 volunteers, have said their studies could produce a result by the end of the year, although the final analysis could take place next spring.

Pfizer executives, who have expanded their clinical trial to 44,000 participants, boast that they could know their vaccine works by the end of October.

AstraZeneca’s U.S. vaccine trial, which was scheduled to enroll 30,000 volunteers, is on hold pending an investigation of a possible vaccine-related illness.

Scientists have warned for months that the Trump administration could try to win the election with an “October surprise,” authorizing a vaccine that hasn’t been fully tested. “I don’t think people are crazy to be thinking about all of this,” said William Schultz, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm who served as a former FDA commissioner for policy and as general counsel for HHS.

“You’ve got a president saying you’ll have an approval in October. Everybody’s wondering how that could happen.”

In an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, conservative former FDA commissioners Scott Gottlieb and Mark McClellan argued that presidential intrusion was unlikely because the FDA’s “thorough and transparent process doesn’t lend itself to meddling. Any deviation would quickly be apparent.”

But the administration has demonstrated a willingness to bend the agency to its will. The FDA has been criticized for issuing emergency authorizations for two COVID-19 treatments that were boosted by the president but lacked strong evidence to support them: hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma.

Mr. Azar has sidelined the FDA in other ways, such as by blocking the agency from regulating lab-developed tests, including tests for the novel coronavirus.

Although FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times he would be willing to approve emergency use of a vaccine before large-scale studies conclude, agency officials also have pledged to ensure the safety of any COVID-19 vaccines.

A senior FDA official who oversees vaccine approvals, Peter Marks, MD, has said he will quit if his agency rubber-stamps an unproven COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think there would be an outcry from the public health community second to none, which is my worst nightmare – my worst nightmare – because we will so confuse the public,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in his weekly podcast.

Still, “even if a company did not want it to be done, even if the FDA did not want it to be done, he could still do that,” said Dr. Osterholm, in his podcast. “I hope that we’d never see that happen, but we have to entertain that’s a possibility.”

In the New England Journal editorial, Dr. Avorn and coauthor Aaron Kesselheim, MD, wondered whether Mr. Trump might invoke the 1950 Defense Production Act to force reluctant drug companies to manufacture their vaccines.

But Mr. Trump would have to sue a company to enforce the Defense Production Act, and the company would have a strong case in refusing, said Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

Also, he noted that Mr. Trump could not invoke the Defense Production Act unless a vaccine were “scientifically justified and approved by the FDA.”

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

From the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroscience Intensive Care, Jackson, MS.

Abstract

Objective: To test a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) screening tool to identify patients who qualify for testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction who are unable to answer the usual screening questions, which could help to prevent unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers to COVID-19.

Methods: The Neuro-COVID-19 Time-out Process and Checklist (NCOT-PC) was implemented at our institution for 1 week as a quality improvement project to improve the pathway for COVID-19 screening and testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction.

Results: A total of 14 new patients were admitted into the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) service during the pilot period. The NCOT-PC was utilized on 9 (64%) patients with neurologic dysfunction; 7 of these patients were found to have a likelihood of requiring testing based on the NCOT-PC and were subsequently screened for COVID-19 testing by contacting the institution’s COVID-19 testing hotline (Med-Com). All these patients were subsequently transitioned into person-under-investigation status based on the determination from Med-Com. The NSICU staff involved were able to utilize NCOT-PC without issues. The NCOT-PC was immediately adopted into the NSICU process.

Conclusion: Use of the NCOT-PC tool was found to be feasible and improved the screening methodology of patients with neurologic dysfunction.

Keywords: coronavirus; health care planning; quality improvement; patient safety; medical decision-making; neuroscience intensive care unit. 

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered various standard emergent care pathways. Current recommendations regarding COVID-19 screening for testing involve asking patients about their symptoms, including fever, cough, chest pain, and dyspnea.¹ This standard screening method poses a problem when caring for patients with neurologic dysfunction. COVID-19 patients may pre-sent with conditions that affect their ability to answer questions, such as stroke, encephalitis, neuromuscular disorders, or headache, and that may preclude the use of standard screening for testing.² Patients with acute neurologic dysfunction who cannot undergo standard screening may leave the emergency department (ED) and transition into the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) or any intensive care unit (ICU) without a reliable COVID-19 screening test.

The Protected Code Stroke pathway offers protection in the emergent setting for patients with stroke when their COVID-19 status is unknown.³ A similar process has been applied at our institution for emergent management of patients with cerebrovascular disease (stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage). However, the process from the ED after designating “difficult to screen” patients as persons under investigation (PUI) is unclear. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has delineated the priorities for testing, with not all declared PUIs requiring testing.⁴ This poses a great challenge, because patients designated as PUIs require the same management as a COVID-19-positive patient, with negative-pressure isolation rooms as well as use of protective personal equipment (PPE), which may not be readily available. It was also recognized that, because the ED staff can be overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients, there may not be enough time to perform detailed screening of patients with neurologic dysfunction and that “reverse masking” may not be done consistently for nonintubated patients. This may place patients and health care workers at risk of unprotected exposure.

Recognizing these challenges, we created a Neuro-COVID-19 Time-out Process and Checklist (NCOT-PC) as a quality improvement project. The aim of this project was to improve and standardize the current process of identifying patients with neurologic dysfunction who require COVID-19 testing to decrease the risk of unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers.

Methods

Patients and Definitions

This quality improvement project was undertaken at the University of Mississippi Medical Center NSICU. Because this was a quality improvement project, an Institutional Review Board exemption was granted.

The NCOT-PC was utilized in consecutive patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted to the NSICU during a period of 1 week. “Neurologic dysfunction” encompasses any neurologic illness affecting the mental status and/or level of alertness, subsequently precluding the ability to reliably screen the patient utilizing standard COVID-19 screening. “Med-Com” at our institution is the equivalent of the national COVID-19 testing hotline, where our institution’s infectious diseases experts screen calls for testing and determine whether testing is warranted. “Unprotected exposure” means exposure to COVID-19 without adequate and appropriate PPE.

Quality Improvement Process

As more PUIs were being admitted to the institution, we used the Plan-Do-Study-Act method for process improvements in the NSICU.⁵ NSICU stakeholders, including attendings, the nurse manager, and nurse practitioners (NPs), developed an algorithm to facilitate the coordination of the NSICU staff in screening patients to identify those with a high likelihood of needing COVID-19 testing upon arrival in the NSICU (Figure 1). Once the NCOT-PC was finalized, NSICU stakeholders were educated regarding the use of this screening tool.

The checklist clinicians review when screening patients is shown in Figure 2. The risk factors comprising the checklist include patient history and clinical and radiographic characteristics that have been shown to be relevant for identifying patients with COVID-19.^6,7 The imaging criteria utilize imaging that is part of the standard of care for NSICU patients. For example, computed tomography angiogram of the head and neck performed as part of the acute stroke protocol captures the upper part of the chest. These images are utilized for their incidental findings, such as apical ground-glass opacities and tree-in-bud formation. The risk factors applicable to the patient determine whether the clinician will call Med-Com for testing approval. Institutional COVID-19 processes were then followed accordingly.⁸ The decision from Med-Com was considered final, and no deviation from institutional policies was allowed.

NCOT-PC was utilized for consecutive days for 1 week before re-evaluation of its feasibility and adaptability.

Data Collection and Analysis

Consecutive patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted into the NSICU were assigned nonlinkable patient numbers. No identifiers were collected for the purpose of this project. The primary diagnosis for admission, the neurologic dysfunction that precluded standard screening, and checklist components that the patient fulfilled were collected.

To assess the tool’s feasibility, feedback regarding the ease of use of the NCOT-PC was gathered from the nurses, NPs, charge nurses, fellows, and other attendings. To assess the utility of the NCOT-PC in identifying patients who will be approved for COVID-19 testing, we calculated the proportion of patients who were deemed to have a high likelihood of testing and the proportion of patients who were approved for testing. Descriptive statistics were used, as applicable for the project, to summarize the utility of the NCOT-PC.

Results

We found that the NCOT-PC can be easily used by clinicians. The NSICU staff did not communicate any implementation issues, and since the NCOT-PC was implemented, no problems have been identified.

During the pilot period of the NCOT-PC, 14 new patients were admitted to the NSICU service. Nine (64%) of these had neurologic dysfunction, and the NCOT-PC was used to determine whether Med-Com should be called based on the patients’ likelihood (high vs low) of needing a COVID-19 test. Of those patients with neurologic dysfunction, 7 (78%) were deemed to have a high likelihood of needing a COVID-19 test based on the NCOT-PC. Med-Com was contacted regarding these patients, and all were deemed to require the COVID-19 test by Med-Com and were transitioned into PUI status per institutional policy (Table).

Discussion

The NCOT-PC project improved and standardized the process of identifying and screening patients with neurologic dysfunction for COVID-19 testing. The screening tool is feasible to use, and it decreased inadvertent unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers.

The NCOT-PC was easy to administer. Educating the staff regarding the new process took only a few minutes and involved a meeting with the nurse manager, NPs, fellows, residents, and attendings. We found that this process works well in tandem with the standard institutional processes in place in terms of Protected Code Stroke pathway, PUI isolation, PPE use, and Med-Com screening for COVID-19 testing. Med-Com was called only if the patient fulfilled the checklist criteria. In addition, no extra cost was attributed to implementing the NCOT-PC, since we utilized imaging that was already done as part of the standard of care for patients with neurologic dysfunction.

The standardization of the process of screening for COVID-19 testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction improved patient selection. Before the NCOT-PC, there was no consistency in terms of who should get tested and the reason for testing patients with neurologic dysfunction. Patients can pass through the ED and arrive in the NSICU with an unclear screening status, which may cause inadvertent patient and health care worker exposure to COVID-19. With the NCOT-PC, we have avoided instances of inadvertent staff or patient exposure in the NSICU.

The NCOT-PC was adopted into the NSICU process after the first week it was piloted. Beyond the NSICU, the application of the NCOT-PC can be extended to any patient presentation that precludes standard screening, such as ED and interhospital transfers for stroke codes, trauma codes, code blue, or myocardial infarction codes. In our department, as we started the process of PCS for stroke codes, we included NCOT-PC for stroke patients with neurologic dysfunction.

The results of our initiative are largely limited by the decision-making process of Med-Com when patients are called in for testing. At the time of our project, there were no specific criteria used for patients with altered mental status, except for the standard screening methods, and it was through clinician-to-clinician discussion that testing decisions were made. Another limitation is the short period of time that the NCOT-PC was applied before adoption.

In summary, the NCOT-PC tool improved the screening process for COVID-19 testing in patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted to the NSICU. It was feasible and prevented unprotected staff and patient exposure to COVID-19. The NCOT-PC functionality was compatible with institutional COVID-19 policies in place, which contributed to its overall sustainability.

The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) were utilized in preparing this manuscript.⁹

Acknowledgment: The authors thank the University of Mississippi Medical Center NSICU staff for their input with implementation of the NCOT-PC. 

Corresponding author: Prashant A. Natteru, MD, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Department of Neurology, 2500 North State St., Jackson, MS 39216; [email protected]. 

Financial disclosures: None.

From the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroscience Intensive Care, Jackson, MS.

Abstract

Objective: To test a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) screening tool to identify patients who qualify for testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction who are unable to answer the usual screening questions, which could help to prevent unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers to COVID-19.

Methods: The Neuro-COVID-19 Time-out Process and Checklist (NCOT-PC) was implemented at our institution for 1 week as a quality improvement project to improve the pathway for COVID-19 screening and testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction.

Results: A total of 14 new patients were admitted into the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) service during the pilot period. The NCOT-PC was utilized on 9 (64%) patients with neurologic dysfunction; 7 of these patients were found to have a likelihood of requiring testing based on the NCOT-PC and were subsequently screened for COVID-19 testing by contacting the institution’s COVID-19 testing hotline (Med-Com). All these patients were subsequently transitioned into person-under-investigation status based on the determination from Med-Com. The NSICU staff involved were able to utilize NCOT-PC without issues. The NCOT-PC was immediately adopted into the NSICU process.

Conclusion: Use of the NCOT-PC tool was found to be feasible and improved the screening methodology of patients with neurologic dysfunction.

Keywords: coronavirus; health care planning; quality improvement; patient safety; medical decision-making; neuroscience intensive care unit. 

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered various standard emergent care pathways. Current recommendations regarding COVID-19 screening for testing involve asking patients about their symptoms, including fever, cough, chest pain, and dyspnea.¹ This standard screening method poses a problem when caring for patients with neurologic dysfunction. COVID-19 patients may pre-sent with conditions that affect their ability to answer questions, such as stroke, encephalitis, neuromuscular disorders, or headache, and that may preclude the use of standard screening for testing.² Patients with acute neurologic dysfunction who cannot undergo standard screening may leave the emergency department (ED) and transition into the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) or any intensive care unit (ICU) without a reliable COVID-19 screening test.

The Protected Code Stroke pathway offers protection in the emergent setting for patients with stroke when their COVID-19 status is unknown.³ A similar process has been applied at our institution for emergent management of patients with cerebrovascular disease (stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage). However, the process from the ED after designating “difficult to screen” patients as persons under investigation (PUI) is unclear. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has delineated the priorities for testing, with not all declared PUIs requiring testing.⁴ This poses a great challenge, because patients designated as PUIs require the same management as a COVID-19-positive patient, with negative-pressure isolation rooms as well as use of protective personal equipment (PPE), which may not be readily available. It was also recognized that, because the ED staff can be overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients, there may not be enough time to perform detailed screening of patients with neurologic dysfunction and that “reverse masking” may not be done consistently for nonintubated patients. This may place patients and health care workers at risk of unprotected exposure.

Recognizing these challenges, we created a Neuro-COVID-19 Time-out Process and Checklist (NCOT-PC) as a quality improvement project. The aim of this project was to improve and standardize the current process of identifying patients with neurologic dysfunction who require COVID-19 testing to decrease the risk of unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers.

Methods

Patients and Definitions

This quality improvement project was undertaken at the University of Mississippi Medical Center NSICU. Because this was a quality improvement project, an Institutional Review Board exemption was granted.

The NCOT-PC was utilized in consecutive patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted to the NSICU during a period of 1 week. “Neurologic dysfunction” encompasses any neurologic illness affecting the mental status and/or level of alertness, subsequently precluding the ability to reliably screen the patient utilizing standard COVID-19 screening. “Med-Com” at our institution is the equivalent of the national COVID-19 testing hotline, where our institution’s infectious diseases experts screen calls for testing and determine whether testing is warranted. “Unprotected exposure” means exposure to COVID-19 without adequate and appropriate PPE.

Quality Improvement Process

As more PUIs were being admitted to the institution, we used the Plan-Do-Study-Act method for process improvements in the NSICU.⁵ NSICU stakeholders, including attendings, the nurse manager, and nurse practitioners (NPs), developed an algorithm to facilitate the coordination of the NSICU staff in screening patients to identify those with a high likelihood of needing COVID-19 testing upon arrival in the NSICU (Figure 1). Once the NCOT-PC was finalized, NSICU stakeholders were educated regarding the use of this screening tool.

The checklist clinicians review when screening patients is shown in Figure 2. The risk factors comprising the checklist include patient history and clinical and radiographic characteristics that have been shown to be relevant for identifying patients with COVID-19.^6,7 The imaging criteria utilize imaging that is part of the standard of care for NSICU patients. For example, computed tomography angiogram of the head and neck performed as part of the acute stroke protocol captures the upper part of the chest. These images are utilized for their incidental findings, such as apical ground-glass opacities and tree-in-bud formation. The risk factors applicable to the patient determine whether the clinician will call Med-Com for testing approval. Institutional COVID-19 processes were then followed accordingly.⁸ The decision from Med-Com was considered final, and no deviation from institutional policies was allowed.

NCOT-PC was utilized for consecutive days for 1 week before re-evaluation of its feasibility and adaptability.

Data Collection and Analysis

Consecutive patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted into the NSICU were assigned nonlinkable patient numbers. No identifiers were collected for the purpose of this project. The primary diagnosis for admission, the neurologic dysfunction that precluded standard screening, and checklist components that the patient fulfilled were collected.

To assess the tool’s feasibility, feedback regarding the ease of use of the NCOT-PC was gathered from the nurses, NPs, charge nurses, fellows, and other attendings. To assess the utility of the NCOT-PC in identifying patients who will be approved for COVID-19 testing, we calculated the proportion of patients who were deemed to have a high likelihood of testing and the proportion of patients who were approved for testing. Descriptive statistics were used, as applicable for the project, to summarize the utility of the NCOT-PC.

Results

We found that the NCOT-PC can be easily used by clinicians. The NSICU staff did not communicate any implementation issues, and since the NCOT-PC was implemented, no problems have been identified.

During the pilot period of the NCOT-PC, 14 new patients were admitted to the NSICU service. Nine (64%) of these had neurologic dysfunction, and the NCOT-PC was used to determine whether Med-Com should be called based on the patients’ likelihood (high vs low) of needing a COVID-19 test. Of those patients with neurologic dysfunction, 7 (78%) were deemed to have a high likelihood of needing a COVID-19 test based on the NCOT-PC. Med-Com was contacted regarding these patients, and all were deemed to require the COVID-19 test by Med-Com and were transitioned into PUI status per institutional policy (Table).

Discussion

The NCOT-PC project improved and standardized the process of identifying and screening patients with neurologic dysfunction for COVID-19 testing. The screening tool is feasible to use, and it decreased inadvertent unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers.

The NCOT-PC was easy to administer. Educating the staff regarding the new process took only a few minutes and involved a meeting with the nurse manager, NPs, fellows, residents, and attendings. We found that this process works well in tandem with the standard institutional processes in place in terms of Protected Code Stroke pathway, PUI isolation, PPE use, and Med-Com screening for COVID-19 testing. Med-Com was called only if the patient fulfilled the checklist criteria. In addition, no extra cost was attributed to implementing the NCOT-PC, since we utilized imaging that was already done as part of the standard of care for patients with neurologic dysfunction.

The standardization of the process of screening for COVID-19 testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction improved patient selection. Before the NCOT-PC, there was no consistency in terms of who should get tested and the reason for testing patients with neurologic dysfunction. Patients can pass through the ED and arrive in the NSICU with an unclear screening status, which may cause inadvertent patient and health care worker exposure to COVID-19. With the NCOT-PC, we have avoided instances of inadvertent staff or patient exposure in the NSICU.

The NCOT-PC was adopted into the NSICU process after the first week it was piloted. Beyond the NSICU, the application of the NCOT-PC can be extended to any patient presentation that precludes standard screening, such as ED and interhospital transfers for stroke codes, trauma codes, code blue, or myocardial infarction codes. In our department, as we started the process of PCS for stroke codes, we included NCOT-PC for stroke patients with neurologic dysfunction.

The results of our initiative are largely limited by the decision-making process of Med-Com when patients are called in for testing. At the time of our project, there were no specific criteria used for patients with altered mental status, except for the standard screening methods, and it was through clinician-to-clinician discussion that testing decisions were made. Another limitation is the short period of time that the NCOT-PC was applied before adoption.

In summary, the NCOT-PC tool improved the screening process for COVID-19 testing in patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted to the NSICU. It was feasible and prevented unprotected staff and patient exposure to COVID-19. The NCOT-PC functionality was compatible with institutional COVID-19 policies in place, which contributed to its overall sustainability.

The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) were utilized in preparing this manuscript.⁹

Acknowledgment: The authors thank the University of Mississippi Medical Center NSICU staff for their input with implementation of the NCOT-PC. 

Corresponding author: Prashant A. Natteru, MD, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Department of Neurology, 2500 North State St., Jackson, MS 39216; [email protected]. 

Financial disclosures: None.

From the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroscience Intensive Care, Jackson, MS.

Abstract

Objective: To test a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) screening tool to identify patients who qualify for testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction who are unable to answer the usual screening questions, which could help to prevent unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers to COVID-19.

Methods: The Neuro-COVID-19 Time-out Process and Checklist (NCOT-PC) was implemented at our institution for 1 week as a quality improvement project to improve the pathway for COVID-19 screening and testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction.

Results: A total of 14 new patients were admitted into the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) service during the pilot period. The NCOT-PC was utilized on 9 (64%) patients with neurologic dysfunction; 7 of these patients were found to have a likelihood of requiring testing based on the NCOT-PC and were subsequently screened for COVID-19 testing by contacting the institution’s COVID-19 testing hotline (Med-Com). All these patients were subsequently transitioned into person-under-investigation status based on the determination from Med-Com. The NSICU staff involved were able to utilize NCOT-PC without issues. The NCOT-PC was immediately adopted into the NSICU process.

Conclusion: Use of the NCOT-PC tool was found to be feasible and improved the screening methodology of patients with neurologic dysfunction.

Keywords: coronavirus; health care planning; quality improvement; patient safety; medical decision-making; neuroscience intensive care unit. 

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered various standard emergent care pathways. Current recommendations regarding COVID-19 screening for testing involve asking patients about their symptoms, including fever, cough, chest pain, and dyspnea.¹ This standard screening method poses a problem when caring for patients with neurologic dysfunction. COVID-19 patients may pre-sent with conditions that affect their ability to answer questions, such as stroke, encephalitis, neuromuscular disorders, or headache, and that may preclude the use of standard screening for testing.² Patients with acute neurologic dysfunction who cannot undergo standard screening may leave the emergency department (ED) and transition into the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) or any intensive care unit (ICU) without a reliable COVID-19 screening test.

The Protected Code Stroke pathway offers protection in the emergent setting for patients with stroke when their COVID-19 status is unknown.³ A similar process has been applied at our institution for emergent management of patients with cerebrovascular disease (stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage). However, the process from the ED after designating “difficult to screen” patients as persons under investigation (PUI) is unclear. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has delineated the priorities for testing, with not all declared PUIs requiring testing.⁴ This poses a great challenge, because patients designated as PUIs require the same management as a COVID-19-positive patient, with negative-pressure isolation rooms as well as use of protective personal equipment (PPE), which may not be readily available. It was also recognized that, because the ED staff can be overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients, there may not be enough time to perform detailed screening of patients with neurologic dysfunction and that “reverse masking” may not be done consistently for nonintubated patients. This may place patients and health care workers at risk of unprotected exposure.

Recognizing these challenges, we created a Neuro-COVID-19 Time-out Process and Checklist (NCOT-PC) as a quality improvement project. The aim of this project was to improve and standardize the current process of identifying patients with neurologic dysfunction who require COVID-19 testing to decrease the risk of unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers.

Methods

Patients and Definitions

This quality improvement project was undertaken at the University of Mississippi Medical Center NSICU. Because this was a quality improvement project, an Institutional Review Board exemption was granted.

The NCOT-PC was utilized in consecutive patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted to the NSICU during a period of 1 week. “Neurologic dysfunction” encompasses any neurologic illness affecting the mental status and/or level of alertness, subsequently precluding the ability to reliably screen the patient utilizing standard COVID-19 screening. “Med-Com” at our institution is the equivalent of the national COVID-19 testing hotline, where our institution’s infectious diseases experts screen calls for testing and determine whether testing is warranted. “Unprotected exposure” means exposure to COVID-19 without adequate and appropriate PPE.

Quality Improvement Process

As more PUIs were being admitted to the institution, we used the Plan-Do-Study-Act method for process improvements in the NSICU.⁵ NSICU stakeholders, including attendings, the nurse manager, and nurse practitioners (NPs), developed an algorithm to facilitate the coordination of the NSICU staff in screening patients to identify those with a high likelihood of needing COVID-19 testing upon arrival in the NSICU (Figure 1). Once the NCOT-PC was finalized, NSICU stakeholders were educated regarding the use of this screening tool.

The checklist clinicians review when screening patients is shown in Figure 2. The risk factors comprising the checklist include patient history and clinical and radiographic characteristics that have been shown to be relevant for identifying patients with COVID-19.^6,7 The imaging criteria utilize imaging that is part of the standard of care for NSICU patients. For example, computed tomography angiogram of the head and neck performed as part of the acute stroke protocol captures the upper part of the chest. These images are utilized for their incidental findings, such as apical ground-glass opacities and tree-in-bud formation. The risk factors applicable to the patient determine whether the clinician will call Med-Com for testing approval. Institutional COVID-19 processes were then followed accordingly.⁸ The decision from Med-Com was considered final, and no deviation from institutional policies was allowed.

NCOT-PC was utilized for consecutive days for 1 week before re-evaluation of its feasibility and adaptability.

Data Collection and Analysis

Consecutive patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted into the NSICU were assigned nonlinkable patient numbers. No identifiers were collected for the purpose of this project. The primary diagnosis for admission, the neurologic dysfunction that precluded standard screening, and checklist components that the patient fulfilled were collected.

To assess the tool’s feasibility, feedback regarding the ease of use of the NCOT-PC was gathered from the nurses, NPs, charge nurses, fellows, and other attendings. To assess the utility of the NCOT-PC in identifying patients who will be approved for COVID-19 testing, we calculated the proportion of patients who were deemed to have a high likelihood of testing and the proportion of patients who were approved for testing. Descriptive statistics were used, as applicable for the project, to summarize the utility of the NCOT-PC.

Results

We found that the NCOT-PC can be easily used by clinicians. The NSICU staff did not communicate any implementation issues, and since the NCOT-PC was implemented, no problems have been identified.

During the pilot period of the NCOT-PC, 14 new patients were admitted to the NSICU service. Nine (64%) of these had neurologic dysfunction, and the NCOT-PC was used to determine whether Med-Com should be called based on the patients’ likelihood (high vs low) of needing a COVID-19 test. Of those patients with neurologic dysfunction, 7 (78%) were deemed to have a high likelihood of needing a COVID-19 test based on the NCOT-PC. Med-Com was contacted regarding these patients, and all were deemed to require the COVID-19 test by Med-Com and were transitioned into PUI status per institutional policy (Table).

Discussion

The NCOT-PC project improved and standardized the process of identifying and screening patients with neurologic dysfunction for COVID-19 testing. The screening tool is feasible to use, and it decreased inadvertent unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers.

The NCOT-PC was easy to administer. Educating the staff regarding the new process took only a few minutes and involved a meeting with the nurse manager, NPs, fellows, residents, and attendings. We found that this process works well in tandem with the standard institutional processes in place in terms of Protected Code Stroke pathway, PUI isolation, PPE use, and Med-Com screening for COVID-19 testing. Med-Com was called only if the patient fulfilled the checklist criteria. In addition, no extra cost was attributed to implementing the NCOT-PC, since we utilized imaging that was already done as part of the standard of care for patients with neurologic dysfunction.

The standardization of the process of screening for COVID-19 testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction improved patient selection. Before the NCOT-PC, there was no consistency in terms of who should get tested and the reason for testing patients with neurologic dysfunction. Patients can pass through the ED and arrive in the NSICU with an unclear screening status, which may cause inadvertent patient and health care worker exposure to COVID-19. With the NCOT-PC, we have avoided instances of inadvertent staff or patient exposure in the NSICU.

The NCOT-PC was adopted into the NSICU process after the first week it was piloted. Beyond the NSICU, the application of the NCOT-PC can be extended to any patient presentation that precludes standard screening, such as ED and interhospital transfers for stroke codes, trauma codes, code blue, or myocardial infarction codes. In our department, as we started the process of PCS for stroke codes, we included NCOT-PC for stroke patients with neurologic dysfunction.

The results of our initiative are largely limited by the decision-making process of Med-Com when patients are called in for testing. At the time of our project, there were no specific criteria used for patients with altered mental status, except for the standard screening methods, and it was through clinician-to-clinician discussion that testing decisions were made. Another limitation is the short period of time that the NCOT-PC was applied before adoption.

In summary, the NCOT-PC tool improved the screening process for COVID-19 testing in patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted to the NSICU. It was feasible and prevented unprotected staff and patient exposure to COVID-19. The NCOT-PC functionality was compatible with institutional COVID-19 policies in place, which contributed to its overall sustainability.

The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) were utilized in preparing this manuscript.⁹

Acknowledgment: The authors thank the University of Mississippi Medical Center NSICU staff for their input with implementation of the NCOT-PC. 

Corresponding author: Prashant A. Natteru, MD, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Department of Neurology, 2500 North State St., Jackson, MS 39216; [email protected]. 

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Hospital of Central Connecticut, New Britain, CT (Dr. Caulfield and Dr. Shepard); Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT (Dr. Linder and Dr. Dempsey); and the Hartford HealthCare Research Program, Hartford, CT (Dr. O’Sullivan).

Abstract

• Objective: To assess the utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal swab testing in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI).
• Design and setting: Multicenter, retrospective, electronic chart review conducted within the Hartford HealthCare system.
• Participants: Patients who were treated for LRTIs at the Hospital of Central Connecticut or Hartford Hospital between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019.
• Measurements: The primary outcome was anti-MRSA days of therapy (DOT) in patients who underwent MRSA PCR testing versus those who did not. In a subgroup analysis, we compared anti-MRSA DOT among patients with appropriate versus inappropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR test.
• Results: Of the 319 patients treated for LRTIs, 155 (48.6%) had a MRSA PCR ordered, and appropriate utilization occurred in 94 (60.6%) of these patients. Anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group (n = 155) was shorter than in the group that did not undergo MRSA PCR testing (n = 164), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.68 days [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.80-2.74] vs 1.86 days [IQR, 0.56-3.33], P = 0.458). In the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT was significantly shorter in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization compared to the inappropriate utilization group (1.16 [IQR, 0.44-1.88] vs 2.68 [IQR, 1.75-3.76], P < 0.001)
• Conclusion: Appropriate utilization of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing can reduce DOT in patients with LRTI. Further education is necessary to expand the appropriate use of the MRSA PCR test across our health system.

Keywords: MRSA; LRTI; pneumonia; antimicrobial stewardship; antibiotic resistance.

More than 300,000 patients were hospitalized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the United States in 2017, and at least 10,000 of these cases resulted in mortality.¹ While MRSA infections overall are decreasing, it is crucial to continue to employ antimicrobial stewardship tactics to keep these infections at bay. Recently, strains of S. aureus have become resistant to vancomycin, making this bacterium even more difficult to treat.²

A novel tactic in antimicrobial stewardship involves the use of MRSA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal swab testing to rule out the presence of MRSA in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). If used appropriately, this approach may decrease the number of days patients are treated with anti-MRSA antimicrobials. Waiting for cultures to speciate can take up to 72 hours,³ meaning that patients may be exposed to 3 days of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics. Results of MRSA PCR assay of nasal swab specimens can be available in 1 to 2 hours,⁴ allowing for more rapid de-escalation of therapy. Numerous studies have shown that this test has a negative predictive value (NPV) greater than 95%, indicating that a negative nasal swab result may be useful to guide de-escalation of antibiotic therapy.^5-8 The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing in patients with LRTI throughout the Hartford HealthCare system.

Methods

Design

This study was a multicenter, retrospective, electronic chart review. It was approved by the Hartford HealthCare Institutional Review Board (HHC-2019-0169).

Selection of Participants

Patients were identified through electronic medical record reports based on ICD-10 codes. Records were categorized into 2 groups: patients who received a MRSA PCR nasal swab testing and patients who did not. Patients who received the MRSA PCR were further categorized by appropriate or inappropriate utilization. Appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR was defined as MRSA PCR ordered within 48 hours of a new vancomycin or linezolid order, and anti-MRSA therapy discontinued within 24 hours of a negative result. Inappropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR was defined as MRSA PCR ordered more than 48 hours after a new vancomycin or linezolid order, or continuation of anti-MRSA therapy despite a negative MRSA PCR and no other evidence of a MRSA infection.

Patients were included if they met all of the following criteria: age 18 years or older, with no upper age limit; treated for a LRTI, identified by ICD-10 codes (J13-22, J44, J85); treated with empiric antibiotics active against MRSA, specifically vancomycin or linezolid; and treated at the Hospital of Central Connecticut (HOCC) or Hartford Hospital (HH) between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, inclusive. Patients were excluded if they met 1 or more of the following criteria: age less than 18 years old; admitted for 48 hours or fewer or discharged from the emergency department; not treated at either facility; treated before July 1, 2018, or after June 30, 2019; treated for ventilator-associated pneumonia; received anti-MRSA therapy within 30 days prior to admission; or treated for a concurrent bacterial infection requiring anti-MRSA therapy.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was anti-MRSA days of therapy (DOT) in patients who underwent MRSA PCR testing compared to patients who did not undergo MRSA PCR testing. A subgroup analysis was completed to compare anti-MRSA DOT within patients in the MRSA PCR group. Patients in the subgroup were categorized by appropriate or inappropriate utilization, and anti-MRSA DOT were compared between these groups. Secondary outcomes that were evaluated included length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rate, and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). Thirty-day readmission was defined as admission to HOCC, HH, or any institution within Hartford HealthCare within 30 days of discharge. AKI was defined as an increase in serum creatinine by ≥ 0.3 mg/dL in 48 hours, increase ≥ 1.5 times baseline, or a urine volume < 0.5 mL/kg/hr for 6 hours.

Statistical Analyses

The study was powered for the primary outcome, anti-MRSA DOT, with a clinically meaningful difference of 1 day. Group sample sizes of 240 in the MRSA PCR group and 160 in the no MRSA PCR group would have afforded 92% power to detect that difference, if the null hypothesis was that both group means were 4 days and the alternative hypothesis was that the mean of the MRSA PCR group was 3 days, with estimated group standard deviations of 80% of each mean. This estimate used an alpha level of 0.05 with a 2-sided t-test. Among those who received a MRSA PCR test, a clinically meaningful difference between appropriate and inappropriate utilization was 5%.

Descriptive statistics were provided for all variables as a function of the individual hospital and for the combined data set. Continuous data were summarized with means and standard deviations (SD), or with median and interquartile ranges (IQR), depending on distribution. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies, using percentages. All data were evaluated for normality of distribution. Inferential statistics comprised a Student’s t-test to compare normally distributed, continuous data between groups. Nonparametric distributions were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical comparisons were made using a Fisher’s exact test for 2×2 tables and a Pearson chi-square test for comparisons involving more than 2 groups.

Since anti-MRSA DOT (primary outcome) and LOS (secondary outcome) are often non-normally distributed, they have been transformed (eg, log or square root, again depending on distribution). Whichever native variable or transformation variable was appropriate was used as the outcome measure in a linear regression model to account for the influence of factors (covariates) that show significant univariate differences. Given the relatively small sample size, a maximum of 10 variables were included in the model. All factors were iterated in a forward regression model (most influential first) until no significant changes were observed.

All calculations were performed with SPSS v. 21 (IBM; Armonk, NY) using an a priori alpha level of 0.05, such that all results yielding P < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.

Results

Of the 561 patient records reviewed, 319 patients were included and 242 patients were excluded. Reasons for exclusion included 65 patients admitted for a duration of 48 hours or less or discharged from the emergency department; 61 patients having another infection requiring anti-MRSA therapy; 60 patients not having a diagnosis of a LRTI or not receiving anti-MRSA therapy; 52 patients having received anti-MRSA therapy within 30 days prior to admission; and 4 patients treated outside of the specified date range.

Of the 319 patients included, 155 (48.6%) were in the MRSA PCR group and 164 (51.4%) were in the group that did not undergo MRSA PCR (Table 1). Of the 155 patients with a MRSA PCR ordered, the test was utilized appropriately in 94 (60.6%) patients and inappropriately in 61 (39.4%) patients (Table 2). In the MRSA PCR group, 135 patients had a negative result on PCR assay, with 133 of those patients having negative respiratory cultures, resulting in a NPV of 98.5%. Differences in baseline characteristics between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR groups were observed. The patients in the MRSA PCR group appeared to be significantly more ill than those in the no MRSA PCR group, as indicated by statistically significant differences in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (P = 0.001), positive chest radiographs (P = 0.034), sepsis at time of anti-MRSA initiation (P = 0.013), pulmonary consults placed (P = 0.003), and carbapenem usage (P = 0.047).

Outcomes

Median anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group was shorter than DOT in the no MRSA PCR group, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.68 [IQR, 0.80-2.74] vs 1.86 days [IQR, 0.56-3.33], P = 0.458; Table 3). LOS in the MRSA PCR group was longer than in the no MRSA PCR group (6.0 [IQR, 4.0-10.0] vs 5.0 [IQR, 3.0-7.0] days, P = 0.001). There was no difference in 30-day readmissions that were related to the previous visit or incidence of AKI between groups.

In the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization was shorter than DOT in the MRSA PCR group with inappropriate utilization (1.16 [IQR, 0.44-1.88] vs 2.68 [IQR, 1.75-3.76] days, P < 0.001; Table 4). LOS in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization was shorter than LOS in the inappropriate utilization group (5.0 [IQR, 4.0-7.0] vs 7.0 [IQR, 5.0-12.0] days, P < 0.001). Thirty-day readmissions that were related to the previous visit were significantly higher in patients in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization (13 vs 2, P = 0.030). There was no difference in incidence of AKI between the groups.

A multivariate analysis was completed to determine whether the sicker MRSA PCR population was confounding outcomes, particularly the secondary outcome of LOS, which was noted to be longer in the MRSA PCR group (Table 5). When comparing LOS in the MRSA PCR and the no MRSA PCR patients, the multivariate analysis showed that admission to the ICU and carbapenem use were associated with a longer LOS (P < 0.001 and P = 0.009, respectively). The incidence of admission to the ICU and carbapenem use were higher in the MRSA PCR group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.047). Therefore, longer LOS in the MRSA PCR patients could be a result of the higher prevalence of ICU admissions and infections requiring carbapenem therapy rather than the result of the MRSA PCR itself.

Discussion

A MRSA PCR nasal swab protocol can be used to minimize a patient’s exposure to unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics, thereby preventing antimicrobial resistance. Thus, it is important to assess how our health system is utilizing this antimicrobial stewardship tactic. With the MRSA PCR’s high NPV, providers can be confident that MRSA pneumonia is unlikely in the absence of MRSA colonization. Our study established a NPV of 98.5%, which is similar to other studies, all of which have shown NPVs greater than 95%.^5-8 Despite the high NPV, this study demonstrated that only 51.4% of patients with LRTI had orders for a MRSA PCR. Of the 155 patients with a MRSA PCR, the test was utilized appropriately only 60.6% of the time. A majority of the inappropriately utilized tests were due to MRSA PCR orders placed more than 48 hours after anti-MRSA therapy initiation. To our knowledge, no other studies have assessed the clinical utility of MRSA PCR nasal swabs as an antimicrobial stewardship tool in a diverse health system; therefore, these results are useful to guide future practices at our institution. There is a clear need for provider and pharmacist education to increase the use of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing for patients with LRTI being treated with anti-MRSA therapy. Additionally, clinician education regarding the initial timing of the MRSA PCR order and the proper utilization of the results of the MRSA PCR likely will benefit patient outcomes at our institution.

When evaluating anti-MRSA DOT, this study demonstrated a reduction of only 0.18 days (about 4 hours) of anti-MRSA therapy in the patients who received MRSA PCR testing compared to the patients without a MRSA PCR ordered. Our anti-MRSA DOT reduction was lower than what has been reported in similar studies. For example, Baby et al found that the use of the MRSA PCR was associated with 46.6 fewer hours of unnecessary antimicrobial treatment. Willis et al evaluated a pharmacist-driven protocol that resulted in a reduction of 1.8 days of anti-MRSA therapy, despite a protocol compliance rate of only 55%.^9,10 In our study, the patients in the MRSA PCR group appeared to be significantly more ill than those in the no MRSA PCR group, which may be the reason for the incongruences in our results compared to the current literature. Characteristics such as ICU admissions, positive chest radiographs, sepsis cases, pulmonary consults, and carbapenem usage—all of which are indicative of a sicker population—were more prevalent in the MRSA PCR group. This sicker population could have underestimated the reduction of DOT in the MRSA PCR group compared to the no MRSA PCR group.

After isolating the MRSA PCR patients in the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT was 1.5 days shorter when the test was appropriately utilized, which is more comparable to what has been reported in the literature.^9,10 Only 60.6% of the MRSA PCR patients had their anti-MRSA therapy appropriately managed based on the MRSA PCR. Interestingly, a majority of patients in the inappropriate utilization group had MRSA PCR tests ordered more than 48 hours after beginning anti-MRSA therapy. More prompt and efficient ordering of the MRSA PCR may have resulted in more opportunities for earlier de-escalation of therapy. Due to these factors, the patients in the inappropriate utilization group could have further contributed to the underestimated difference in anti-MRSA DOT between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR patients in the primary outcome. Additionally, there were no notable differences between the appropriate and inappropriate utilization groups, unlike in the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR groups, which is why we were able to draw more robust conclusions in the subgroup analysis. Therefore, the subgroup analysis confirmed that if the results of the MRSA PCR are used appropriately to guide anti-MRSA therapy, patients can potentially avoid 36 hours of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Data on how the utilization of the MRSA PCR nasal swab can affect LOS are limited; however, one study did report a 2.8-day reduction in LOS after implementation of a pharmacist-driven MRSA PCR nasal swab protocol.¹¹ Our study demonstrated that LOS was significantly longer in the MRSA PCR group than in the no MRSA PCR group. This result was likely affected by the aforementioned sicker MRSA PCR population. Our multivariate analysis further confirmed that ICU admissions were associated with a longer LOS, and, given that the MRSA PCR group had a significantly higher ICU population, this likely confounded these results. If our 2 groups had had more evenly distributed characteristics, it is possible that we could have found a shorter LOS in the MRSA PCR group, similar to what is reported in the literature. In the subgroup analysis, LOS was 2 days shorter in the appropriate utilization group compared to the inappropriate utilization group. This further affirms that the results of the MRSA PCR must be used appropriately in order for patient outcomes, like LOS, to benefit.

The effects of the MRSA PCR nasal swab on 30-day readmission rates and incidence of AKI are not well-documented in the literature. One study did report 30-day readmission rates as an outcome, but did not cite any difference after the implementation of a protocol that utilized MRSA PCR nasal swab testing.¹² The outcome of AKI is slightly better represented in the literature, but the results are conflicting. Some studies report no difference after the implementation of a MRSA PCR-based protocol,¹¹ and others report a significant decrease in AKI with the use of the MRSA PCR.⁹ Our study detected no difference in 30-day readmission rates related to the previous admission or in AKI between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR populations. In the subgroup analysis, 30-day readmission rates were significantly higher in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization than in the group with inappropriate utilization; however, our study was not powered to detect a difference in this secondary outcome.

This study had some limitations that may have affected our results. First, this study was a retrospective chart review. Additionally, the baseline characteristics were not well balanced across the different groups. There were sicker patients in the MRSA PCR group, which may have led to an underestimate of the reduction in DOT and LOS in these patients. Finally, we did not include enough patient records to reach power in the MRSA PCR group due to a higher than expected number of patients meeting exclusion criteria. Had we attained sufficient power, there may have been more profound reductions in DOT and LOS.

Conclusion

MRSA infections are a common cause for hospitalization, and there is a growing need for antimicrobial stewardship efforts to limit unnecessary antibiotic usage in order to prevent resistance. As illustrated in our study, appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR can reduce DOT up to 1.5 days. However, our results suggest that there is room for provider and pharmacist education to increase the use of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing in patients with LRTI receiving anti-MRSA therapy. Further emphasis on the appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR within our health care system is essential.

Corresponding author: Casey Dempsey, PharmD, BCIDP, 80 Seymour St., Hartford, CT 06106; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Hospital of Central Connecticut, New Britain, CT (Dr. Caulfield and Dr. Shepard); Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT (Dr. Linder and Dr. Dempsey); and the Hartford HealthCare Research Program, Hartford, CT (Dr. O’Sullivan).

Abstract

• Objective: To assess the utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal swab testing in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI).
• Design and setting: Multicenter, retrospective, electronic chart review conducted within the Hartford HealthCare system.
• Participants: Patients who were treated for LRTIs at the Hospital of Central Connecticut or Hartford Hospital between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019.
• Measurements: The primary outcome was anti-MRSA days of therapy (DOT) in patients who underwent MRSA PCR testing versus those who did not. In a subgroup analysis, we compared anti-MRSA DOT among patients with appropriate versus inappropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR test.
• Results: Of the 319 patients treated for LRTIs, 155 (48.6%) had a MRSA PCR ordered, and appropriate utilization occurred in 94 (60.6%) of these patients. Anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group (n = 155) was shorter than in the group that did not undergo MRSA PCR testing (n = 164), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.68 days [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.80-2.74] vs 1.86 days [IQR, 0.56-3.33], P = 0.458). In the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT was significantly shorter in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization compared to the inappropriate utilization group (1.16 [IQR, 0.44-1.88] vs 2.68 [IQR, 1.75-3.76], P < 0.001)
• Conclusion: Appropriate utilization of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing can reduce DOT in patients with LRTI. Further education is necessary to expand the appropriate use of the MRSA PCR test across our health system.

Keywords: MRSA; LRTI; pneumonia; antimicrobial stewardship; antibiotic resistance.

More than 300,000 patients were hospitalized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the United States in 2017, and at least 10,000 of these cases resulted in mortality.¹ While MRSA infections overall are decreasing, it is crucial to continue to employ antimicrobial stewardship tactics to keep these infections at bay. Recently, strains of S. aureus have become resistant to vancomycin, making this bacterium even more difficult to treat.²

A novel tactic in antimicrobial stewardship involves the use of MRSA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal swab testing to rule out the presence of MRSA in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). If used appropriately, this approach may decrease the number of days patients are treated with anti-MRSA antimicrobials. Waiting for cultures to speciate can take up to 72 hours,³ meaning that patients may be exposed to 3 days of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics. Results of MRSA PCR assay of nasal swab specimens can be available in 1 to 2 hours,⁴ allowing for more rapid de-escalation of therapy. Numerous studies have shown that this test has a negative predictive value (NPV) greater than 95%, indicating that a negative nasal swab result may be useful to guide de-escalation of antibiotic therapy.^5-8 The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing in patients with LRTI throughout the Hartford HealthCare system.

Methods

Design

This study was a multicenter, retrospective, electronic chart review. It was approved by the Hartford HealthCare Institutional Review Board (HHC-2019-0169).

Selection of Participants

Patients were identified through electronic medical record reports based on ICD-10 codes. Records were categorized into 2 groups: patients who received a MRSA PCR nasal swab testing and patients who did not. Patients who received the MRSA PCR were further categorized by appropriate or inappropriate utilization. Appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR was defined as MRSA PCR ordered within 48 hours of a new vancomycin or linezolid order, and anti-MRSA therapy discontinued within 24 hours of a negative result. Inappropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR was defined as MRSA PCR ordered more than 48 hours after a new vancomycin or linezolid order, or continuation of anti-MRSA therapy despite a negative MRSA PCR and no other evidence of a MRSA infection.

Patients were included if they met all of the following criteria: age 18 years or older, with no upper age limit; treated for a LRTI, identified by ICD-10 codes (J13-22, J44, J85); treated with empiric antibiotics active against MRSA, specifically vancomycin or linezolid; and treated at the Hospital of Central Connecticut (HOCC) or Hartford Hospital (HH) between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, inclusive. Patients were excluded if they met 1 or more of the following criteria: age less than 18 years old; admitted for 48 hours or fewer or discharged from the emergency department; not treated at either facility; treated before July 1, 2018, or after June 30, 2019; treated for ventilator-associated pneumonia; received anti-MRSA therapy within 30 days prior to admission; or treated for a concurrent bacterial infection requiring anti-MRSA therapy.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was anti-MRSA days of therapy (DOT) in patients who underwent MRSA PCR testing compared to patients who did not undergo MRSA PCR testing. A subgroup analysis was completed to compare anti-MRSA DOT within patients in the MRSA PCR group. Patients in the subgroup were categorized by appropriate or inappropriate utilization, and anti-MRSA DOT were compared between these groups. Secondary outcomes that were evaluated included length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rate, and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). Thirty-day readmission was defined as admission to HOCC, HH, or any institution within Hartford HealthCare within 30 days of discharge. AKI was defined as an increase in serum creatinine by ≥ 0.3 mg/dL in 48 hours, increase ≥ 1.5 times baseline, or a urine volume < 0.5 mL/kg/hr for 6 hours.

Statistical Analyses

The study was powered for the primary outcome, anti-MRSA DOT, with a clinically meaningful difference of 1 day. Group sample sizes of 240 in the MRSA PCR group and 160 in the no MRSA PCR group would have afforded 92% power to detect that difference, if the null hypothesis was that both group means were 4 days and the alternative hypothesis was that the mean of the MRSA PCR group was 3 days, with estimated group standard deviations of 80% of each mean. This estimate used an alpha level of 0.05 with a 2-sided t-test. Among those who received a MRSA PCR test, a clinically meaningful difference between appropriate and inappropriate utilization was 5%.

Descriptive statistics were provided for all variables as a function of the individual hospital and for the combined data set. Continuous data were summarized with means and standard deviations (SD), or with median and interquartile ranges (IQR), depending on distribution. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies, using percentages. All data were evaluated for normality of distribution. Inferential statistics comprised a Student’s t-test to compare normally distributed, continuous data between groups. Nonparametric distributions were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical comparisons were made using a Fisher’s exact test for 2×2 tables and a Pearson chi-square test for comparisons involving more than 2 groups.

Since anti-MRSA DOT (primary outcome) and LOS (secondary outcome) are often non-normally distributed, they have been transformed (eg, log or square root, again depending on distribution). Whichever native variable or transformation variable was appropriate was used as the outcome measure in a linear regression model to account for the influence of factors (covariates) that show significant univariate differences. Given the relatively small sample size, a maximum of 10 variables were included in the model. All factors were iterated in a forward regression model (most influential first) until no significant changes were observed.

All calculations were performed with SPSS v. 21 (IBM; Armonk, NY) using an a priori alpha level of 0.05, such that all results yielding P < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.

Results

Of the 561 patient records reviewed, 319 patients were included and 242 patients were excluded. Reasons for exclusion included 65 patients admitted for a duration of 48 hours or less or discharged from the emergency department; 61 patients having another infection requiring anti-MRSA therapy; 60 patients not having a diagnosis of a LRTI or not receiving anti-MRSA therapy; 52 patients having received anti-MRSA therapy within 30 days prior to admission; and 4 patients treated outside of the specified date range.

Of the 319 patients included, 155 (48.6%) were in the MRSA PCR group and 164 (51.4%) were in the group that did not undergo MRSA PCR (Table 1). Of the 155 patients with a MRSA PCR ordered, the test was utilized appropriately in 94 (60.6%) patients and inappropriately in 61 (39.4%) patients (Table 2). In the MRSA PCR group, 135 patients had a negative result on PCR assay, with 133 of those patients having negative respiratory cultures, resulting in a NPV of 98.5%. Differences in baseline characteristics between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR groups were observed. The patients in the MRSA PCR group appeared to be significantly more ill than those in the no MRSA PCR group, as indicated by statistically significant differences in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (P = 0.001), positive chest radiographs (P = 0.034), sepsis at time of anti-MRSA initiation (P = 0.013), pulmonary consults placed (P = 0.003), and carbapenem usage (P = 0.047).

Outcomes

Median anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group was shorter than DOT in the no MRSA PCR group, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.68 [IQR, 0.80-2.74] vs 1.86 days [IQR, 0.56-3.33], P = 0.458; Table 3). LOS in the MRSA PCR group was longer than in the no MRSA PCR group (6.0 [IQR, 4.0-10.0] vs 5.0 [IQR, 3.0-7.0] days, P = 0.001). There was no difference in 30-day readmissions that were related to the previous visit or incidence of AKI between groups.

In the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization was shorter than DOT in the MRSA PCR group with inappropriate utilization (1.16 [IQR, 0.44-1.88] vs 2.68 [IQR, 1.75-3.76] days, P < 0.001; Table 4). LOS in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization was shorter than LOS in the inappropriate utilization group (5.0 [IQR, 4.0-7.0] vs 7.0 [IQR, 5.0-12.0] days, P < 0.001). Thirty-day readmissions that were related to the previous visit were significantly higher in patients in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization (13 vs 2, P = 0.030). There was no difference in incidence of AKI between the groups.

A multivariate analysis was completed to determine whether the sicker MRSA PCR population was confounding outcomes, particularly the secondary outcome of LOS, which was noted to be longer in the MRSA PCR group (Table 5). When comparing LOS in the MRSA PCR and the no MRSA PCR patients, the multivariate analysis showed that admission to the ICU and carbapenem use were associated with a longer LOS (P < 0.001 and P = 0.009, respectively). The incidence of admission to the ICU and carbapenem use were higher in the MRSA PCR group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.047). Therefore, longer LOS in the MRSA PCR patients could be a result of the higher prevalence of ICU admissions and infections requiring carbapenem therapy rather than the result of the MRSA PCR itself.

Discussion

A MRSA PCR nasal swab protocol can be used to minimize a patient’s exposure to unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics, thereby preventing antimicrobial resistance. Thus, it is important to assess how our health system is utilizing this antimicrobial stewardship tactic. With the MRSA PCR’s high NPV, providers can be confident that MRSA pneumonia is unlikely in the absence of MRSA colonization. Our study established a NPV of 98.5%, which is similar to other studies, all of which have shown NPVs greater than 95%.^5-8 Despite the high NPV, this study demonstrated that only 51.4% of patients with LRTI had orders for a MRSA PCR. Of the 155 patients with a MRSA PCR, the test was utilized appropriately only 60.6% of the time. A majority of the inappropriately utilized tests were due to MRSA PCR orders placed more than 48 hours after anti-MRSA therapy initiation. To our knowledge, no other studies have assessed the clinical utility of MRSA PCR nasal swabs as an antimicrobial stewardship tool in a diverse health system; therefore, these results are useful to guide future practices at our institution. There is a clear need for provider and pharmacist education to increase the use of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing for patients with LRTI being treated with anti-MRSA therapy. Additionally, clinician education regarding the initial timing of the MRSA PCR order and the proper utilization of the results of the MRSA PCR likely will benefit patient outcomes at our institution.

When evaluating anti-MRSA DOT, this study demonstrated a reduction of only 0.18 days (about 4 hours) of anti-MRSA therapy in the patients who received MRSA PCR testing compared to the patients without a MRSA PCR ordered. Our anti-MRSA DOT reduction was lower than what has been reported in similar studies. For example, Baby et al found that the use of the MRSA PCR was associated with 46.6 fewer hours of unnecessary antimicrobial treatment. Willis et al evaluated a pharmacist-driven protocol that resulted in a reduction of 1.8 days of anti-MRSA therapy, despite a protocol compliance rate of only 55%.^9,10 In our study, the patients in the MRSA PCR group appeared to be significantly more ill than those in the no MRSA PCR group, which may be the reason for the incongruences in our results compared to the current literature. Characteristics such as ICU admissions, positive chest radiographs, sepsis cases, pulmonary consults, and carbapenem usage—all of which are indicative of a sicker population—were more prevalent in the MRSA PCR group. This sicker population could have underestimated the reduction of DOT in the MRSA PCR group compared to the no MRSA PCR group.

After isolating the MRSA PCR patients in the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT was 1.5 days shorter when the test was appropriately utilized, which is more comparable to what has been reported in the literature.^9,10 Only 60.6% of the MRSA PCR patients had their anti-MRSA therapy appropriately managed based on the MRSA PCR. Interestingly, a majority of patients in the inappropriate utilization group had MRSA PCR tests ordered more than 48 hours after beginning anti-MRSA therapy. More prompt and efficient ordering of the MRSA PCR may have resulted in more opportunities for earlier de-escalation of therapy. Due to these factors, the patients in the inappropriate utilization group could have further contributed to the underestimated difference in anti-MRSA DOT between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR patients in the primary outcome. Additionally, there were no notable differences between the appropriate and inappropriate utilization groups, unlike in the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR groups, which is why we were able to draw more robust conclusions in the subgroup analysis. Therefore, the subgroup analysis confirmed that if the results of the MRSA PCR are used appropriately to guide anti-MRSA therapy, patients can potentially avoid 36 hours of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Data on how the utilization of the MRSA PCR nasal swab can affect LOS are limited; however, one study did report a 2.8-day reduction in LOS after implementation of a pharmacist-driven MRSA PCR nasal swab protocol.¹¹ Our study demonstrated that LOS was significantly longer in the MRSA PCR group than in the no MRSA PCR group. This result was likely affected by the aforementioned sicker MRSA PCR population. Our multivariate analysis further confirmed that ICU admissions were associated with a longer LOS, and, given that the MRSA PCR group had a significantly higher ICU population, this likely confounded these results. If our 2 groups had had more evenly distributed characteristics, it is possible that we could have found a shorter LOS in the MRSA PCR group, similar to what is reported in the literature. In the subgroup analysis, LOS was 2 days shorter in the appropriate utilization group compared to the inappropriate utilization group. This further affirms that the results of the MRSA PCR must be used appropriately in order for patient outcomes, like LOS, to benefit.

The effects of the MRSA PCR nasal swab on 30-day readmission rates and incidence of AKI are not well-documented in the literature. One study did report 30-day readmission rates as an outcome, but did not cite any difference after the implementation of a protocol that utilized MRSA PCR nasal swab testing.¹² The outcome of AKI is slightly better represented in the literature, but the results are conflicting. Some studies report no difference after the implementation of a MRSA PCR-based protocol,¹¹ and others report a significant decrease in AKI with the use of the MRSA PCR.⁹ Our study detected no difference in 30-day readmission rates related to the previous admission or in AKI between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR populations. In the subgroup analysis, 30-day readmission rates were significantly higher in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization than in the group with inappropriate utilization; however, our study was not powered to detect a difference in this secondary outcome.

This study had some limitations that may have affected our results. First, this study was a retrospective chart review. Additionally, the baseline characteristics were not well balanced across the different groups. There were sicker patients in the MRSA PCR group, which may have led to an underestimate of the reduction in DOT and LOS in these patients. Finally, we did not include enough patient records to reach power in the MRSA PCR group due to a higher than expected number of patients meeting exclusion criteria. Had we attained sufficient power, there may have been more profound reductions in DOT and LOS.

Conclusion

MRSA infections are a common cause for hospitalization, and there is a growing need for antimicrobial stewardship efforts to limit unnecessary antibiotic usage in order to prevent resistance. As illustrated in our study, appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR can reduce DOT up to 1.5 days. However, our results suggest that there is room for provider and pharmacist education to increase the use of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing in patients with LRTI receiving anti-MRSA therapy. Further emphasis on the appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR within our health care system is essential.

Corresponding author: Casey Dempsey, PharmD, BCIDP, 80 Seymour St., Hartford, CT 06106; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Hospital of Central Connecticut, New Britain, CT (Dr. Caulfield and Dr. Shepard); Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT (Dr. Linder and Dr. Dempsey); and the Hartford HealthCare Research Program, Hartford, CT (Dr. O’Sullivan).

Abstract

• Objective: To assess the utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal swab testing in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI).
• Design and setting: Multicenter, retrospective, electronic chart review conducted within the Hartford HealthCare system.
• Participants: Patients who were treated for LRTIs at the Hospital of Central Connecticut or Hartford Hospital between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019.
• Measurements: The primary outcome was anti-MRSA days of therapy (DOT) in patients who underwent MRSA PCR testing versus those who did not. In a subgroup analysis, we compared anti-MRSA DOT among patients with appropriate versus inappropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR test.
• Results: Of the 319 patients treated for LRTIs, 155 (48.6%) had a MRSA PCR ordered, and appropriate utilization occurred in 94 (60.6%) of these patients. Anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group (n = 155) was shorter than in the group that did not undergo MRSA PCR testing (n = 164), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.68 days [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.80-2.74] vs 1.86 days [IQR, 0.56-3.33], P = 0.458). In the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT was significantly shorter in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization compared to the inappropriate utilization group (1.16 [IQR, 0.44-1.88] vs 2.68 [IQR, 1.75-3.76], P < 0.001)
• Conclusion: Appropriate utilization of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing can reduce DOT in patients with LRTI. Further education is necessary to expand the appropriate use of the MRSA PCR test across our health system.

Keywords: MRSA; LRTI; pneumonia; antimicrobial stewardship; antibiotic resistance.

More than 300,000 patients were hospitalized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the United States in 2017, and at least 10,000 of these cases resulted in mortality.¹ While MRSA infections overall are decreasing, it is crucial to continue to employ antimicrobial stewardship tactics to keep these infections at bay. Recently, strains of S. aureus have become resistant to vancomycin, making this bacterium even more difficult to treat.²

A novel tactic in antimicrobial stewardship involves the use of MRSA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal swab testing to rule out the presence of MRSA in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). If used appropriately, this approach may decrease the number of days patients are treated with anti-MRSA antimicrobials. Waiting for cultures to speciate can take up to 72 hours,³ meaning that patients may be exposed to 3 days of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics. Results of MRSA PCR assay of nasal swab specimens can be available in 1 to 2 hours,⁴ allowing for more rapid de-escalation of therapy. Numerous studies have shown that this test has a negative predictive value (NPV) greater than 95%, indicating that a negative nasal swab result may be useful to guide de-escalation of antibiotic therapy.^5-8 The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing in patients with LRTI throughout the Hartford HealthCare system.

Methods

Design

This study was a multicenter, retrospective, electronic chart review. It was approved by the Hartford HealthCare Institutional Review Board (HHC-2019-0169).

Selection of Participants

Patients were identified through electronic medical record reports based on ICD-10 codes. Records were categorized into 2 groups: patients who received a MRSA PCR nasal swab testing and patients who did not. Patients who received the MRSA PCR were further categorized by appropriate or inappropriate utilization. Appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR was defined as MRSA PCR ordered within 48 hours of a new vancomycin or linezolid order, and anti-MRSA therapy discontinued within 24 hours of a negative result. Inappropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR was defined as MRSA PCR ordered more than 48 hours after a new vancomycin or linezolid order, or continuation of anti-MRSA therapy despite a negative MRSA PCR and no other evidence of a MRSA infection.

Patients were included if they met all of the following criteria: age 18 years or older, with no upper age limit; treated for a LRTI, identified by ICD-10 codes (J13-22, J44, J85); treated with empiric antibiotics active against MRSA, specifically vancomycin or linezolid; and treated at the Hospital of Central Connecticut (HOCC) or Hartford Hospital (HH) between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, inclusive. Patients were excluded if they met 1 or more of the following criteria: age less than 18 years old; admitted for 48 hours or fewer or discharged from the emergency department; not treated at either facility; treated before July 1, 2018, or after June 30, 2019; treated for ventilator-associated pneumonia; received anti-MRSA therapy within 30 days prior to admission; or treated for a concurrent bacterial infection requiring anti-MRSA therapy.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was anti-MRSA days of therapy (DOT) in patients who underwent MRSA PCR testing compared to patients who did not undergo MRSA PCR testing. A subgroup analysis was completed to compare anti-MRSA DOT within patients in the MRSA PCR group. Patients in the subgroup were categorized by appropriate or inappropriate utilization, and anti-MRSA DOT were compared between these groups. Secondary outcomes that were evaluated included length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rate, and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). Thirty-day readmission was defined as admission to HOCC, HH, or any institution within Hartford HealthCare within 30 days of discharge. AKI was defined as an increase in serum creatinine by ≥ 0.3 mg/dL in 48 hours, increase ≥ 1.5 times baseline, or a urine volume < 0.5 mL/kg/hr for 6 hours.

Statistical Analyses

The study was powered for the primary outcome, anti-MRSA DOT, with a clinically meaningful difference of 1 day. Group sample sizes of 240 in the MRSA PCR group and 160 in the no MRSA PCR group would have afforded 92% power to detect that difference, if the null hypothesis was that both group means were 4 days and the alternative hypothesis was that the mean of the MRSA PCR group was 3 days, with estimated group standard deviations of 80% of each mean. This estimate used an alpha level of 0.05 with a 2-sided t-test. Among those who received a MRSA PCR test, a clinically meaningful difference between appropriate and inappropriate utilization was 5%.

Descriptive statistics were provided for all variables as a function of the individual hospital and for the combined data set. Continuous data were summarized with means and standard deviations (SD), or with median and interquartile ranges (IQR), depending on distribution. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies, using percentages. All data were evaluated for normality of distribution. Inferential statistics comprised a Student’s t-test to compare normally distributed, continuous data between groups. Nonparametric distributions were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical comparisons were made using a Fisher’s exact test for 2×2 tables and a Pearson chi-square test for comparisons involving more than 2 groups.

Since anti-MRSA DOT (primary outcome) and LOS (secondary outcome) are often non-normally distributed, they have been transformed (eg, log or square root, again depending on distribution). Whichever native variable or transformation variable was appropriate was used as the outcome measure in a linear regression model to account for the influence of factors (covariates) that show significant univariate differences. Given the relatively small sample size, a maximum of 10 variables were included in the model. All factors were iterated in a forward regression model (most influential first) until no significant changes were observed.

All calculations were performed with SPSS v. 21 (IBM; Armonk, NY) using an a priori alpha level of 0.05, such that all results yielding P < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.

Results

Of the 561 patient records reviewed, 319 patients were included and 242 patients were excluded. Reasons for exclusion included 65 patients admitted for a duration of 48 hours or less or discharged from the emergency department; 61 patients having another infection requiring anti-MRSA therapy; 60 patients not having a diagnosis of a LRTI or not receiving anti-MRSA therapy; 52 patients having received anti-MRSA therapy within 30 days prior to admission; and 4 patients treated outside of the specified date range.

Of the 319 patients included, 155 (48.6%) were in the MRSA PCR group and 164 (51.4%) were in the group that did not undergo MRSA PCR (Table 1). Of the 155 patients with a MRSA PCR ordered, the test was utilized appropriately in 94 (60.6%) patients and inappropriately in 61 (39.4%) patients (Table 2). In the MRSA PCR group, 135 patients had a negative result on PCR assay, with 133 of those patients having negative respiratory cultures, resulting in a NPV of 98.5%. Differences in baseline characteristics between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR groups were observed. The patients in the MRSA PCR group appeared to be significantly more ill than those in the no MRSA PCR group, as indicated by statistically significant differences in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (P = 0.001), positive chest radiographs (P = 0.034), sepsis at time of anti-MRSA initiation (P = 0.013), pulmonary consults placed (P = 0.003), and carbapenem usage (P = 0.047).

Outcomes

Median anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group was shorter than DOT in the no MRSA PCR group, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.68 [IQR, 0.80-2.74] vs 1.86 days [IQR, 0.56-3.33], P = 0.458; Table 3). LOS in the MRSA PCR group was longer than in the no MRSA PCR group (6.0 [IQR, 4.0-10.0] vs 5.0 [IQR, 3.0-7.0] days, P = 0.001). There was no difference in 30-day readmissions that were related to the previous visit or incidence of AKI between groups.

In the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization was shorter than DOT in the MRSA PCR group with inappropriate utilization (1.16 [IQR, 0.44-1.88] vs 2.68 [IQR, 1.75-3.76] days, P < 0.001; Table 4). LOS in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization was shorter than LOS in the inappropriate utilization group (5.0 [IQR, 4.0-7.0] vs 7.0 [IQR, 5.0-12.0] days, P < 0.001). Thirty-day readmissions that were related to the previous visit were significantly higher in patients in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization (13 vs 2, P = 0.030). There was no difference in incidence of AKI between the groups.

A multivariate analysis was completed to determine whether the sicker MRSA PCR population was confounding outcomes, particularly the secondary outcome of LOS, which was noted to be longer in the MRSA PCR group (Table 5). When comparing LOS in the MRSA PCR and the no MRSA PCR patients, the multivariate analysis showed that admission to the ICU and carbapenem use were associated with a longer LOS (P < 0.001 and P = 0.009, respectively). The incidence of admission to the ICU and carbapenem use were higher in the MRSA PCR group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.047). Therefore, longer LOS in the MRSA PCR patients could be a result of the higher prevalence of ICU admissions and infections requiring carbapenem therapy rather than the result of the MRSA PCR itself.

Discussion

A MRSA PCR nasal swab protocol can be used to minimize a patient’s exposure to unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics, thereby preventing antimicrobial resistance. Thus, it is important to assess how our health system is utilizing this antimicrobial stewardship tactic. With the MRSA PCR’s high NPV, providers can be confident that MRSA pneumonia is unlikely in the absence of MRSA colonization. Our study established a NPV of 98.5%, which is similar to other studies, all of which have shown NPVs greater than 95%.^5-8 Despite the high NPV, this study demonstrated that only 51.4% of patients with LRTI had orders for a MRSA PCR. Of the 155 patients with a MRSA PCR, the test was utilized appropriately only 60.6% of the time. A majority of the inappropriately utilized tests were due to MRSA PCR orders placed more than 48 hours after anti-MRSA therapy initiation. To our knowledge, no other studies have assessed the clinical utility of MRSA PCR nasal swabs as an antimicrobial stewardship tool in a diverse health system; therefore, these results are useful to guide future practices at our institution. There is a clear need for provider and pharmacist education to increase the use of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing for patients with LRTI being treated with anti-MRSA therapy. Additionally, clinician education regarding the initial timing of the MRSA PCR order and the proper utilization of the results of the MRSA PCR likely will benefit patient outcomes at our institution.

When evaluating anti-MRSA DOT, this study demonstrated a reduction of only 0.18 days (about 4 hours) of anti-MRSA therapy in the patients who received MRSA PCR testing compared to the patients without a MRSA PCR ordered. Our anti-MRSA DOT reduction was lower than what has been reported in similar studies. For example, Baby et al found that the use of the MRSA PCR was associated with 46.6 fewer hours of unnecessary antimicrobial treatment. Willis et al evaluated a pharmacist-driven protocol that resulted in a reduction of 1.8 days of anti-MRSA therapy, despite a protocol compliance rate of only 55%.^9,10 In our study, the patients in the MRSA PCR group appeared to be significantly more ill than those in the no MRSA PCR group, which may be the reason for the incongruences in our results compared to the current literature. Characteristics such as ICU admissions, positive chest radiographs, sepsis cases, pulmonary consults, and carbapenem usage—all of which are indicative of a sicker population—were more prevalent in the MRSA PCR group. This sicker population could have underestimated the reduction of DOT in the MRSA PCR group compared to the no MRSA PCR group.

After isolating the MRSA PCR patients in the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT was 1.5 days shorter when the test was appropriately utilized, which is more comparable to what has been reported in the literature.^9,10 Only 60.6% of the MRSA PCR patients had their anti-MRSA therapy appropriately managed based on the MRSA PCR. Interestingly, a majority of patients in the inappropriate utilization group had MRSA PCR tests ordered more than 48 hours after beginning anti-MRSA therapy. More prompt and efficient ordering of the MRSA PCR may have resulted in more opportunities for earlier de-escalation of therapy. Due to these factors, the patients in the inappropriate utilization group could have further contributed to the underestimated difference in anti-MRSA DOT between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR patients in the primary outcome. Additionally, there were no notable differences between the appropriate and inappropriate utilization groups, unlike in the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR groups, which is why we were able to draw more robust conclusions in the subgroup analysis. Therefore, the subgroup analysis confirmed that if the results of the MRSA PCR are used appropriately to guide anti-MRSA therapy, patients can potentially avoid 36 hours of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Data on how the utilization of the MRSA PCR nasal swab can affect LOS are limited; however, one study did report a 2.8-day reduction in LOS after implementation of a pharmacist-driven MRSA PCR nasal swab protocol.¹¹ Our study demonstrated that LOS was significantly longer in the MRSA PCR group than in the no MRSA PCR group. This result was likely affected by the aforementioned sicker MRSA PCR population. Our multivariate analysis further confirmed that ICU admissions were associated with a longer LOS, and, given that the MRSA PCR group had a significantly higher ICU population, this likely confounded these results. If our 2 groups had had more evenly distributed characteristics, it is possible that we could have found a shorter LOS in the MRSA PCR group, similar to what is reported in the literature. In the subgroup analysis, LOS was 2 days shorter in the appropriate utilization group compared to the inappropriate utilization group. This further affirms that the results of the MRSA PCR must be used appropriately in order for patient outcomes, like LOS, to benefit.

The effects of the MRSA PCR nasal swab on 30-day readmission rates and incidence of AKI are not well-documented in the literature. One study did report 30-day readmission rates as an outcome, but did not cite any difference after the implementation of a protocol that utilized MRSA PCR nasal swab testing.¹² The outcome of AKI is slightly better represented in the literature, but the results are conflicting. Some studies report no difference after the implementation of a MRSA PCR-based protocol,¹¹ and others report a significant decrease in AKI with the use of the MRSA PCR.⁹ Our study detected no difference in 30-day readmission rates related to the previous admission or in AKI between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR populations. In the subgroup analysis, 30-day readmission rates were significantly higher in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization than in the group with inappropriate utilization; however, our study was not powered to detect a difference in this secondary outcome.

This study had some limitations that may have affected our results. First, this study was a retrospective chart review. Additionally, the baseline characteristics were not well balanced across the different groups. There were sicker patients in the MRSA PCR group, which may have led to an underestimate of the reduction in DOT and LOS in these patients. Finally, we did not include enough patient records to reach power in the MRSA PCR group due to a higher than expected number of patients meeting exclusion criteria. Had we attained sufficient power, there may have been more profound reductions in DOT and LOS.

Conclusion

MRSA infections are a common cause for hospitalization, and there is a growing need for antimicrobial stewardship efforts to limit unnecessary antibiotic usage in order to prevent resistance. As illustrated in our study, appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR can reduce DOT up to 1.5 days. However, our results suggest that there is room for provider and pharmacist education to increase the use of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing in patients with LRTI receiving anti-MRSA therapy. Further emphasis on the appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR within our health care system is essential.

Corresponding author: Casey Dempsey, PharmD, BCIDP, 80 Seymour St., Hartford, CT 06106; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the association between administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, and 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design. Prospective meta-analysis with data from 7 randomized clinical trials conducted in 12 countries.

Setting and participants. This prospective meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials conducted between February 26, 2020, and June 9, 2020, that examined the clinical efficacy of administration of corticosteroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were critically ill. Trials were systematically identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, using the search terms COVID-19, corticosteroids, and steroids. Additional trials were identified by experts from the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Senior investigators of these identified trials were asked to participate in weekly calls to develop a protocol for the prospective meta-analysis.¹ Subsequently, trials that had randomly assigned critically ill patients to receive corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo were invited to participate in this meta-analysis. Data were pooled from patients recruited to the participating trials through June 9, 2020, and aggregated in overall and in predefined subgroups.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days after randomization. Because 5 of the included trials reported mortality at 28 days after randomization, the primary outcome was reported as 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was serious adverse events (SAEs). The authors also gathered data on the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the number of patients lost to follow-up, and outcomes according to intervention group, overall, and in subgroups (ie, patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or vasoactive medication; age ≤ 60 years or > 60 years [the median across trials]; sex [male or female]; and the duration patients were symptomatic [≤ 7 days or > 7 days]). For each trial, the risk of bias was assessed independently by 4 investigators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for the overall effects of corticosteroids on mortality and SAEs and the effect of assignment and allocated interventions. Inconsistency between trial results was evaluated using the I² statistic. The trials were classified according to the corticosteroids used in the intervention group and the dose administered using a priori-defined cutoffs (15 mg/day of dexamethasone, 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone, and 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone). The primary analysis utilized was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for overall mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses with Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity were also performed.

Main results. Seven trials (DEXA-COVID 19, CoDEX, RECOVERY, CAPE COVID, COVID STEROID, REMAP-CAP, and Steroids-SARI) were included in the final meta-analysis. The enrolled patients were from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. The corticosteroids groups included dexamethasone at low (6 mg/day orally or intravenously [IV]) and high (20 mg/day IV) doses; low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day IV or 50 mg every 6 hr IV); and high-dose methylprednisolone (40 mg every 12 hr IV). In total, 1703 patients were randomized, with 678 assigned to the corticosteroids group and 1025 to the usual-care or placebo group. The median age of patients was 60 years (interquartile range, 52-68 years), and 29% were women. The larger number of patients in the usual-care/placebo group was a result of the 1:2 randomization (corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo) in the RECOVERY trial, which contributed 59.1% of patients included in this prospective meta-analysis. The majority of patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization (1559 patients). The administration of adjunctive treatments, such as azithromycin or antiviral agents, varied among the trials. The risk of bias was determined as low for 6 of the 7 mortality results.

A total of 222 of 678 patients in the corticosteroids group died, and 425 of 1025 patients in the usual care or placebo group died. The summary OR was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.82; P < 0.001) based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = 0.053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis, for 28-day all-cause mortality comparing all corticosteroids with usual care or placebo. There was little inconsistency between trial results (I² = 15.6%; P = 0.31). The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < 0.001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths); the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths); and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = 0.87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Moreover, in trials that administered low-dose corticosteroids, the overall fixed-effect OR for 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.78; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the overall fixed-effect OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86) in patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization, and the OR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.88) in patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization.

Six trials (all except the RECOVERY trial) reported SAEs, with 64 events occurring among 354 patients assigned to the corticosteroids group and 80 SAEs occurring among 342 patients assigned to the usual-care or placebo group. There was no suggestion that the risk of SAEs was higher in patients who were administered corticosteroids.

Conclusion. The administration of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those who received usual care or placebo.

Commentary

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive medications that have long been used in intensive care units for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was uncertain at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns that this class of medications may cause an impaired immune response in the setting of a life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence supporting this notion included prior studies showing that corticosteroid therapy was associated with delayed viral clearance of Middle East respiratory syndrome or a higher viral load of SARS-CoV.^2,3 The uncertainty surrounding the therapeutic use of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 led to a simultaneous global effort to conduct randomized controlled trials to urgently examine this important clinical question. The open-label Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, conducted in the UK, was the first large-scale randomized clinical trial that reported the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, it showed that low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/day) administered orally or IV for up to 10 days resulted in a 2.8% absolute reduction in 28-day mortality, with the greatest benefit, an absolute risk reduction of 12.1%, conferred to patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization.⁴ In response to these findings, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommended the use of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who are on mechanical ventilation or who require supplemental oxygen, and recommended against the use of dexamethasone for those not requiring supplemental oxygen.⁵

The meta-analysis discussed in this commentary, conducted by the WHO REACT Working Group, has replicated initial findings from the RECOVERY trial. This prospective meta-analysis pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in 1703 critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar to findings from the RECOVERY trial, corticosteroids were associated with lower all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization, and this benefit was observed both in critically ill patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Interestingly, while the OR estimates were imprecise, the reduction in mortality rates was similar between patients who were administered dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, which may suggest a general drug class effect. In addition, the mortality benefit of corticosteroids appeared similar for those aged ≤ 60 years and those aged > 60 years, between female and male patients, and those who were symptomatic for ≤ 7 days or > 7 days before randomization. Moreover, the administration of corticosteroids did not appear to increase the risk of SAEs. While more data are needed, results from the RECOVERY trial and this prospective meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroids should be an essential pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19, and suggest its potential role as a standard of care for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. First, not all trials systematically identified participated in the meta-analysis. Second, long-term outcomes after hospital discharge were not captured, and thus the effect of corticosteroids on long-term mortality and other adverse outcomes, such as hospital readmission, remain unknown. Third, because children were excluded from study participation, the effect of corticosteroids on pediatric COVID-19 patients is unknown. Fourth, the RECOVERY trial contributed more than 50% of patients in the current analysis, although there was little inconsistency in the effects of corticosteroids on mortality between individual trials. Last, the meta-analysis was unable to establish the optimal dose or duration of corticosteroid intervention in critically ill COVID-19 patients, or determine its efficacy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, all of which are key clinical questions that will need to be addressed with further clinical investigations.

The development of effective treatments for COVID-19 is critical to mitigating the devastating consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several recent COVID-19 clinical trials have shown promise in this endeavor. For instance, the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1) found that intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.⁶ Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that convalescent plasma and aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ may have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.^7,8 Thus, clinical trials designed to investigate combination therapy approaches including corticosteroids, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and others are urgently needed to help identify interventions that most effectively treat COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 reduces overall mortality. This treatment is inexpensive and available in most care settings, including low-resource regions, and provides hope for better outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Katerina Oikonomou, MD, PhD
General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the association between administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, and 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design. Prospective meta-analysis with data from 7 randomized clinical trials conducted in 12 countries.

Setting and participants. This prospective meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials conducted between February 26, 2020, and June 9, 2020, that examined the clinical efficacy of administration of corticosteroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were critically ill. Trials were systematically identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, using the search terms COVID-19, corticosteroids, and steroids. Additional trials were identified by experts from the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Senior investigators of these identified trials were asked to participate in weekly calls to develop a protocol for the prospective meta-analysis.¹ Subsequently, trials that had randomly assigned critically ill patients to receive corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo were invited to participate in this meta-analysis. Data were pooled from patients recruited to the participating trials through June 9, 2020, and aggregated in overall and in predefined subgroups.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days after randomization. Because 5 of the included trials reported mortality at 28 days after randomization, the primary outcome was reported as 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was serious adverse events (SAEs). The authors also gathered data on the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the number of patients lost to follow-up, and outcomes according to intervention group, overall, and in subgroups (ie, patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or vasoactive medication; age ≤ 60 years or > 60 years [the median across trials]; sex [male or female]; and the duration patients were symptomatic [≤ 7 days or > 7 days]). For each trial, the risk of bias was assessed independently by 4 investigators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for the overall effects of corticosteroids on mortality and SAEs and the effect of assignment and allocated interventions. Inconsistency between trial results was evaluated using the I² statistic. The trials were classified according to the corticosteroids used in the intervention group and the dose administered using a priori-defined cutoffs (15 mg/day of dexamethasone, 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone, and 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone). The primary analysis utilized was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for overall mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses with Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity were also performed.

Main results. Seven trials (DEXA-COVID 19, CoDEX, RECOVERY, CAPE COVID, COVID STEROID, REMAP-CAP, and Steroids-SARI) were included in the final meta-analysis. The enrolled patients were from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. The corticosteroids groups included dexamethasone at low (6 mg/day orally or intravenously [IV]) and high (20 mg/day IV) doses; low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day IV or 50 mg every 6 hr IV); and high-dose methylprednisolone (40 mg every 12 hr IV). In total, 1703 patients were randomized, with 678 assigned to the corticosteroids group and 1025 to the usual-care or placebo group. The median age of patients was 60 years (interquartile range, 52-68 years), and 29% were women. The larger number of patients in the usual-care/placebo group was a result of the 1:2 randomization (corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo) in the RECOVERY trial, which contributed 59.1% of patients included in this prospective meta-analysis. The majority of patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization (1559 patients). The administration of adjunctive treatments, such as azithromycin or antiviral agents, varied among the trials. The risk of bias was determined as low for 6 of the 7 mortality results.

A total of 222 of 678 patients in the corticosteroids group died, and 425 of 1025 patients in the usual care or placebo group died. The summary OR was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.82; P < 0.001) based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = 0.053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis, for 28-day all-cause mortality comparing all corticosteroids with usual care or placebo. There was little inconsistency between trial results (I² = 15.6%; P = 0.31). The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < 0.001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths); the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths); and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = 0.87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Moreover, in trials that administered low-dose corticosteroids, the overall fixed-effect OR for 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.78; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the overall fixed-effect OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86) in patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization, and the OR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.88) in patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization.

Six trials (all except the RECOVERY trial) reported SAEs, with 64 events occurring among 354 patients assigned to the corticosteroids group and 80 SAEs occurring among 342 patients assigned to the usual-care or placebo group. There was no suggestion that the risk of SAEs was higher in patients who were administered corticosteroids.

Conclusion. The administration of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those who received usual care or placebo.

Commentary

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive medications that have long been used in intensive care units for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was uncertain at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns that this class of medications may cause an impaired immune response in the setting of a life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence supporting this notion included prior studies showing that corticosteroid therapy was associated with delayed viral clearance of Middle East respiratory syndrome or a higher viral load of SARS-CoV.^2,3 The uncertainty surrounding the therapeutic use of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 led to a simultaneous global effort to conduct randomized controlled trials to urgently examine this important clinical question. The open-label Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, conducted in the UK, was the first large-scale randomized clinical trial that reported the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, it showed that low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/day) administered orally or IV for up to 10 days resulted in a 2.8% absolute reduction in 28-day mortality, with the greatest benefit, an absolute risk reduction of 12.1%, conferred to patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization.⁴ In response to these findings, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommended the use of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who are on mechanical ventilation or who require supplemental oxygen, and recommended against the use of dexamethasone for those not requiring supplemental oxygen.⁵

The meta-analysis discussed in this commentary, conducted by the WHO REACT Working Group, has replicated initial findings from the RECOVERY trial. This prospective meta-analysis pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in 1703 critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar to findings from the RECOVERY trial, corticosteroids were associated with lower all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization, and this benefit was observed both in critically ill patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Interestingly, while the OR estimates were imprecise, the reduction in mortality rates was similar between patients who were administered dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, which may suggest a general drug class effect. In addition, the mortality benefit of corticosteroids appeared similar for those aged ≤ 60 years and those aged > 60 years, between female and male patients, and those who were symptomatic for ≤ 7 days or > 7 days before randomization. Moreover, the administration of corticosteroids did not appear to increase the risk of SAEs. While more data are needed, results from the RECOVERY trial and this prospective meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroids should be an essential pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19, and suggest its potential role as a standard of care for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. First, not all trials systematically identified participated in the meta-analysis. Second, long-term outcomes after hospital discharge were not captured, and thus the effect of corticosteroids on long-term mortality and other adverse outcomes, such as hospital readmission, remain unknown. Third, because children were excluded from study participation, the effect of corticosteroids on pediatric COVID-19 patients is unknown. Fourth, the RECOVERY trial contributed more than 50% of patients in the current analysis, although there was little inconsistency in the effects of corticosteroids on mortality between individual trials. Last, the meta-analysis was unable to establish the optimal dose or duration of corticosteroid intervention in critically ill COVID-19 patients, or determine its efficacy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, all of which are key clinical questions that will need to be addressed with further clinical investigations.

The development of effective treatments for COVID-19 is critical to mitigating the devastating consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several recent COVID-19 clinical trials have shown promise in this endeavor. For instance, the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1) found that intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.⁶ Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that convalescent plasma and aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ may have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.^7,8 Thus, clinical trials designed to investigate combination therapy approaches including corticosteroids, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and others are urgently needed to help identify interventions that most effectively treat COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 reduces overall mortality. This treatment is inexpensive and available in most care settings, including low-resource regions, and provides hope for better outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Katerina Oikonomou, MD, PhD
General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the association between administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, and 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design. Prospective meta-analysis with data from 7 randomized clinical trials conducted in 12 countries.

Setting and participants. This prospective meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials conducted between February 26, 2020, and June 9, 2020, that examined the clinical efficacy of administration of corticosteroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were critically ill. Trials were systematically identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, using the search terms COVID-19, corticosteroids, and steroids. Additional trials were identified by experts from the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Senior investigators of these identified trials were asked to participate in weekly calls to develop a protocol for the prospective meta-analysis.¹ Subsequently, trials that had randomly assigned critically ill patients to receive corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo were invited to participate in this meta-analysis. Data were pooled from patients recruited to the participating trials through June 9, 2020, and aggregated in overall and in predefined subgroups.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days after randomization. Because 5 of the included trials reported mortality at 28 days after randomization, the primary outcome was reported as 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was serious adverse events (SAEs). The authors also gathered data on the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the number of patients lost to follow-up, and outcomes according to intervention group, overall, and in subgroups (ie, patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or vasoactive medication; age ≤ 60 years or > 60 years [the median across trials]; sex [male or female]; and the duration patients were symptomatic [≤ 7 days or > 7 days]). For each trial, the risk of bias was assessed independently by 4 investigators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for the overall effects of corticosteroids on mortality and SAEs and the effect of assignment and allocated interventions. Inconsistency between trial results was evaluated using the I² statistic. The trials were classified according to the corticosteroids used in the intervention group and the dose administered using a priori-defined cutoffs (15 mg/day of dexamethasone, 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone, and 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone). The primary analysis utilized was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for overall mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses with Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity were also performed.

Main results. Seven trials (DEXA-COVID 19, CoDEX, RECOVERY, CAPE COVID, COVID STEROID, REMAP-CAP, and Steroids-SARI) were included in the final meta-analysis. The enrolled patients were from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. The corticosteroids groups included dexamethasone at low (6 mg/day orally or intravenously [IV]) and high (20 mg/day IV) doses; low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day IV or 50 mg every 6 hr IV); and high-dose methylprednisolone (40 mg every 12 hr IV). In total, 1703 patients were randomized, with 678 assigned to the corticosteroids group and 1025 to the usual-care or placebo group. The median age of patients was 60 years (interquartile range, 52-68 years), and 29% were women. The larger number of patients in the usual-care/placebo group was a result of the 1:2 randomization (corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo) in the RECOVERY trial, which contributed 59.1% of patients included in this prospective meta-analysis. The majority of patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization (1559 patients). The administration of adjunctive treatments, such as azithromycin or antiviral agents, varied among the trials. The risk of bias was determined as low for 6 of the 7 mortality results.

A total of 222 of 678 patients in the corticosteroids group died, and 425 of 1025 patients in the usual care or placebo group died. The summary OR was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.82; P < 0.001) based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = 0.053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis, for 28-day all-cause mortality comparing all corticosteroids with usual care or placebo. There was little inconsistency between trial results (I² = 15.6%; P = 0.31). The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < 0.001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths); the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths); and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = 0.87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Moreover, in trials that administered low-dose corticosteroids, the overall fixed-effect OR for 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.78; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the overall fixed-effect OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86) in patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization, and the OR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.88) in patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization.

Six trials (all except the RECOVERY trial) reported SAEs, with 64 events occurring among 354 patients assigned to the corticosteroids group and 80 SAEs occurring among 342 patients assigned to the usual-care or placebo group. There was no suggestion that the risk of SAEs was higher in patients who were administered corticosteroids.

Conclusion. The administration of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those who received usual care or placebo.

Commentary

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive medications that have long been used in intensive care units for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was uncertain at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns that this class of medications may cause an impaired immune response in the setting of a life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence supporting this notion included prior studies showing that corticosteroid therapy was associated with delayed viral clearance of Middle East respiratory syndrome or a higher viral load of SARS-CoV.^2,3 The uncertainty surrounding the therapeutic use of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 led to a simultaneous global effort to conduct randomized controlled trials to urgently examine this important clinical question. The open-label Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, conducted in the UK, was the first large-scale randomized clinical trial that reported the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, it showed that low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/day) administered orally or IV for up to 10 days resulted in a 2.8% absolute reduction in 28-day mortality, with the greatest benefit, an absolute risk reduction of 12.1%, conferred to patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization.⁴ In response to these findings, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommended the use of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who are on mechanical ventilation or who require supplemental oxygen, and recommended against the use of dexamethasone for those not requiring supplemental oxygen.⁵

The meta-analysis discussed in this commentary, conducted by the WHO REACT Working Group, has replicated initial findings from the RECOVERY trial. This prospective meta-analysis pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in 1703 critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar to findings from the RECOVERY trial, corticosteroids were associated with lower all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization, and this benefit was observed both in critically ill patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Interestingly, while the OR estimates were imprecise, the reduction in mortality rates was similar between patients who were administered dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, which may suggest a general drug class effect. In addition, the mortality benefit of corticosteroids appeared similar for those aged ≤ 60 years and those aged > 60 years, between female and male patients, and those who were symptomatic for ≤ 7 days or > 7 days before randomization. Moreover, the administration of corticosteroids did not appear to increase the risk of SAEs. While more data are needed, results from the RECOVERY trial and this prospective meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroids should be an essential pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19, and suggest its potential role as a standard of care for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. First, not all trials systematically identified participated in the meta-analysis. Second, long-term outcomes after hospital discharge were not captured, and thus the effect of corticosteroids on long-term mortality and other adverse outcomes, such as hospital readmission, remain unknown. Third, because children were excluded from study participation, the effect of corticosteroids on pediatric COVID-19 patients is unknown. Fourth, the RECOVERY trial contributed more than 50% of patients in the current analysis, although there was little inconsistency in the effects of corticosteroids on mortality between individual trials. Last, the meta-analysis was unable to establish the optimal dose or duration of corticosteroid intervention in critically ill COVID-19 patients, or determine its efficacy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, all of which are key clinical questions that will need to be addressed with further clinical investigations.

The development of effective treatments for COVID-19 is critical to mitigating the devastating consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several recent COVID-19 clinical trials have shown promise in this endeavor. For instance, the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1) found that intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.⁶ Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that convalescent plasma and aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ may have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.^7,8 Thus, clinical trials designed to investigate combination therapy approaches including corticosteroids, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and others are urgently needed to help identify interventions that most effectively treat COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 reduces overall mortality. This treatment is inexpensive and available in most care settings, including low-resource regions, and provides hope for better outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Katerina Oikonomou, MD, PhD
General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
Fred Ko, MD, MS

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This atypical lesion might warrant a biopsy. However, upon closer examination, you can appreciate a small papule with a whitish center, at the inferior margin of the tumor (6 o’clock), and another flat-topped papule with a white center several centimeters inferior-lateral to the lesion, both consistent with molluscum lesions. Therefore, the tumor is consistent with a giant molluscum contagiosum.

Molluscum contagiosum is a cutaneous viral infection caused by the poxvirus, which commonly affects children. It can spread easily by direct physical contact, fomites, and autoinoculation.¹ It usually presents with skin-colored or pink pearly dome-shaped papules with central umbilication that can occur anywhere on the face or body. The skin lesions can be asymptomatic or pruritic. When the size of the molluscum is 0.5 cm or more in diameter, it is considered a giant molluscum. Atypical size and appearance may be seen in patients with altered or impaired immunity such as those with HIV.^2,3 Giant molluscum has been reported in immunocompetent patients as well.^4,5

The diagnosis of molluscum contagiosum usually is made clinically. Our patient had typically appearing molluscum lesions approximate to the larger lesion of concern. She was overall healthy without any history of impaired immunity so no further work-up was pursued. However, a biopsy of the skin lesion may be considered if the diagnosis is unclear.
 

What’s the treatment plan?

Treatment may not be necessary for molluscum contagiosum because it is often self-limited in immunocompetent children, although it can take many months to years to resolve. Treatment may be considered to reduce autoinoculation or risk of transmission because of close contact to others, to alleviate discomfort, including itching, to reduce cosmetic concerns and to prevent secondary infection.⁶

The most common treatments for molluscum contagiosum are cantharidin or cryotherapy. Other treatment available include topical retinoids, immunomodulators such as cimetidine, or antivirals such as cidofovir.¹ Lesions with or without treatment may exhibit the BOTE (beginning of the end) sign, which is an apparent worsening associated with the body’s immune response to the molluscum virus and generally indicates imminent resolution.
 

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis for giant molluscum contagiosum includes epidermal inclusion cyst, skin tag, pilomatrixoma, and amelanotic melanoma.

Epidermal inclusion cyst typically presents as a firm, mobile nodule under the skin with central punctum, which can enlarge and become inflamed. It can be painful, especially when infected. Definitive treatment is surgical excision because it rarely resolves spontaneously.

Skin tags, also known as acrochordons, are benign skin-colored papules most often found in the skin folds. People with obesity and type 2 diabetes are at higher risk for skin tags. Skin tags may be treated with cryotherapy, surgical excision, or ligation.

Pilomatrixoma is a benign skin tumor derived from hair matrix cells. It is usually a nontender, firm, skin-colored or red-purple subcutaneous nodule that may have calcifications. Treatment is surgical excision.

Amelanotic melanoma is a melanoma with little or no pigment and can present as a skin- or red-colored nodule. While these are quite uncommon, recognition that many pediatric melanomas present as amelanotic lesions makes it important to consider this in the differential diagnosis of growing papules and nodules.⁷ Treatment and prognosis is similar to that of pigmented melanoma, but as it is often clinically challenging to diagnose because of atypical features, it may be detected in more advanced stages.

Our patient underwent cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen to the nodule given the large size of the lesion, with resolution without recurrence.

Dr. Lee is a pediatric dermatology research fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego and Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Neither Dr. Lee nor Dr. Eichenfield had any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Recent Pat Inflamm Allergy Drug Discov. 2017. doi: 10.2174/1872213X11666170518114456.

2. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2013 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jegh.2013.06.002.

3. Trop Doct. 2015 Apr. doi: 10.1177/0049475514568133.

4. J Pak Med Assoc. 2013 Jun;63(6):778-9.

5. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.5826/dpc.0603a15.

6 Molluscum Contagiosum, in “Red Book: 2018 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases,” 31st ed. (Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2018, pp. 565-66).

7. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2012.12.953.

This atypical lesion might warrant a biopsy. However, upon closer examination, you can appreciate a small papule with a whitish center, at the inferior margin of the tumor (6 o’clock), and another flat-topped papule with a white center several centimeters inferior-lateral to the lesion, both consistent with molluscum lesions. Therefore, the tumor is consistent with a giant molluscum contagiosum.

Molluscum contagiosum is a cutaneous viral infection caused by the poxvirus, which commonly affects children. It can spread easily by direct physical contact, fomites, and autoinoculation.¹ It usually presents with skin-colored or pink pearly dome-shaped papules with central umbilication that can occur anywhere on the face or body. The skin lesions can be asymptomatic or pruritic. When the size of the molluscum is 0.5 cm or more in diameter, it is considered a giant molluscum. Atypical size and appearance may be seen in patients with altered or impaired immunity such as those with HIV.^2,3 Giant molluscum has been reported in immunocompetent patients as well.^4,5

The diagnosis of molluscum contagiosum usually is made clinically. Our patient had typically appearing molluscum lesions approximate to the larger lesion of concern. She was overall healthy without any history of impaired immunity so no further work-up was pursued. However, a biopsy of the skin lesion may be considered if the diagnosis is unclear.
 

What’s the treatment plan?

Treatment may not be necessary for molluscum contagiosum because it is often self-limited in immunocompetent children, although it can take many months to years to resolve. Treatment may be considered to reduce autoinoculation or risk of transmission because of close contact to others, to alleviate discomfort, including itching, to reduce cosmetic concerns and to prevent secondary infection.⁶

The most common treatments for molluscum contagiosum are cantharidin or cryotherapy. Other treatment available include topical retinoids, immunomodulators such as cimetidine, or antivirals such as cidofovir.¹ Lesions with or without treatment may exhibit the BOTE (beginning of the end) sign, which is an apparent worsening associated with the body’s immune response to the molluscum virus and generally indicates imminent resolution.
 

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis for giant molluscum contagiosum includes epidermal inclusion cyst, skin tag, pilomatrixoma, and amelanotic melanoma.

Epidermal inclusion cyst typically presents as a firm, mobile nodule under the skin with central punctum, which can enlarge and become inflamed. It can be painful, especially when infected. Definitive treatment is surgical excision because it rarely resolves spontaneously.

Skin tags, also known as acrochordons, are benign skin-colored papules most often found in the skin folds. People with obesity and type 2 diabetes are at higher risk for skin tags. Skin tags may be treated with cryotherapy, surgical excision, or ligation.

Pilomatrixoma is a benign skin tumor derived from hair matrix cells. It is usually a nontender, firm, skin-colored or red-purple subcutaneous nodule that may have calcifications. Treatment is surgical excision.

Amelanotic melanoma is a melanoma with little or no pigment and can present as a skin- or red-colored nodule. While these are quite uncommon, recognition that many pediatric melanomas present as amelanotic lesions makes it important to consider this in the differential diagnosis of growing papules and nodules.⁷ Treatment and prognosis is similar to that of pigmented melanoma, but as it is often clinically challenging to diagnose because of atypical features, it may be detected in more advanced stages.

Our patient underwent cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen to the nodule given the large size of the lesion, with resolution without recurrence.

Dr. Lee is a pediatric dermatology research fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego and Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Neither Dr. Lee nor Dr. Eichenfield had any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Recent Pat Inflamm Allergy Drug Discov. 2017. doi: 10.2174/1872213X11666170518114456.

2. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2013 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jegh.2013.06.002.

3. Trop Doct. 2015 Apr. doi: 10.1177/0049475514568133.

4. J Pak Med Assoc. 2013 Jun;63(6):778-9.

5. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.5826/dpc.0603a15.

6 Molluscum Contagiosum, in “Red Book: 2018 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases,” 31st ed. (Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2018, pp. 565-66).

7. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2012.12.953.

This atypical lesion might warrant a biopsy. However, upon closer examination, you can appreciate a small papule with a whitish center, at the inferior margin of the tumor (6 o’clock), and another flat-topped papule with a white center several centimeters inferior-lateral to the lesion, both consistent with molluscum lesions. Therefore, the tumor is consistent with a giant molluscum contagiosum.

Molluscum contagiosum is a cutaneous viral infection caused by the poxvirus, which commonly affects children. It can spread easily by direct physical contact, fomites, and autoinoculation.¹ It usually presents with skin-colored or pink pearly dome-shaped papules with central umbilication that can occur anywhere on the face or body. The skin lesions can be asymptomatic or pruritic. When the size of the molluscum is 0.5 cm or more in diameter, it is considered a giant molluscum. Atypical size and appearance may be seen in patients with altered or impaired immunity such as those with HIV.^2,3 Giant molluscum has been reported in immunocompetent patients as well.^4,5

The diagnosis of molluscum contagiosum usually is made clinically. Our patient had typically appearing molluscum lesions approximate to the larger lesion of concern. She was overall healthy without any history of impaired immunity so no further work-up was pursued. However, a biopsy of the skin lesion may be considered if the diagnosis is unclear.
 

What’s the treatment plan?

Treatment may not be necessary for molluscum contagiosum because it is often self-limited in immunocompetent children, although it can take many months to years to resolve. Treatment may be considered to reduce autoinoculation or risk of transmission because of close contact to others, to alleviate discomfort, including itching, to reduce cosmetic concerns and to prevent secondary infection.⁶

The most common treatments for molluscum contagiosum are cantharidin or cryotherapy. Other treatment available include topical retinoids, immunomodulators such as cimetidine, or antivirals such as cidofovir.¹ Lesions with or without treatment may exhibit the BOTE (beginning of the end) sign, which is an apparent worsening associated with the body’s immune response to the molluscum virus and generally indicates imminent resolution.
 

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis for giant molluscum contagiosum includes epidermal inclusion cyst, skin tag, pilomatrixoma, and amelanotic melanoma.

Epidermal inclusion cyst typically presents as a firm, mobile nodule under the skin with central punctum, which can enlarge and become inflamed. It can be painful, especially when infected. Definitive treatment is surgical excision because it rarely resolves spontaneously.

Skin tags, also known as acrochordons, are benign skin-colored papules most often found in the skin folds. People with obesity and type 2 diabetes are at higher risk for skin tags. Skin tags may be treated with cryotherapy, surgical excision, or ligation.

Pilomatrixoma is a benign skin tumor derived from hair matrix cells. It is usually a nontender, firm, skin-colored or red-purple subcutaneous nodule that may have calcifications. Treatment is surgical excision.

Amelanotic melanoma is a melanoma with little or no pigment and can present as a skin- or red-colored nodule. While these are quite uncommon, recognition that many pediatric melanomas present as amelanotic lesions makes it important to consider this in the differential diagnosis of growing papules and nodules.⁷ Treatment and prognosis is similar to that of pigmented melanoma, but as it is often clinically challenging to diagnose because of atypical features, it may be detected in more advanced stages.

Our patient underwent cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen to the nodule given the large size of the lesion, with resolution without recurrence.

Dr. Lee is a pediatric dermatology research fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego and Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Neither Dr. Lee nor Dr. Eichenfield had any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Recent Pat Inflamm Allergy Drug Discov. 2017. doi: 10.2174/1872213X11666170518114456.

2. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2013 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jegh.2013.06.002.

3. Trop Doct. 2015 Apr. doi: 10.1177/0049475514568133.

4. J Pak Med Assoc. 2013 Jun;63(6):778-9.

5. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.5826/dpc.0603a15.

6 Molluscum Contagiosum, in “Red Book: 2018 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases,” 31st ed. (Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2018, pp. 565-66).

7. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2012.12.953.

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

[email protected]

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

[email protected]

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

[email protected]

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.