Infectious Diseases

Among Hispanic adolescents, sexual health interventions have a small but significant effect on improving safe sexual behavior, including abstinence, condom use, and number of sex partners, a meta-analysis of 12 studies suggests.

Furthermore, cultural tailoring may contribute to a program’s success, the data indicate.

“It is important that culturally tailored sexual health programs be available to Hispanic communities across the United States,” the study authors stated in Pediatrics.

To examine the effects of sexual health interventions on behavioral outcomes among Hispanic adolescents and factors that may influence the success of an intervention, Reina Evans, a doctoral student in the department of psychology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues systemically reviewed published studies that included Hispanic adolescents in the United States. Included studies evaluated a sexual health intervention using an experimental or quasiexperimental design and assessed a behavioral outcome.

The researchers synthesized effect sizes from 12 studies that included 4,673 Hispanic adolescents. “As the indicator of effect size, the standardized mean difference, Cohen’s d, was used,” they said. Effect size was interpreted as small at 0.20, medium at 0.50, and large at 0.80.

Sexual health interventions improved abstinence (d = 0.15), condom use (d = 0.44), number of sex partners (d = –0.19), and sexual health knowledge (d = 0.40), compared with control conditions.

Eight of the 12 interventions incorporated Hispanic-specific practices and values such as familialism into the intervention materials. Culturally tailored interventions produced greater change in condom use, compared with interventions that were not culturally tailored. One intervention with a large effect on condom use was developed by researchers in collaboration with community members, the authors said. Another program with a large effect on condom use was designed for Hispanic families.

Ten of the 12 studies included males and females, and two included only females. Intervention dose ranged from less than 10 hours of program content to more than 20 hours of content.

Definitions of abstinence and time frames for reporting recent condom use varied across studies, the researchers noted. Data about patient characteristics, such as the percentage of participants born in the United States, and pregnancy outcomes were limited. These domains could be areas of future research.

“Latinx adolescents are disproportionately burdened with unplanned pregnancy and STIs [sexually transmitted infections]. In this meta-analysis, it is shown that sexual health interventions can play a role in combating these health disparities,” Ms. Evans and associates said.

Among Hispanic adolescents, persistent disparities in sexual and reproductive health “remain a national public health priority,” and “strengthening the effects of future ... interventions for Hispanic adolescents is needed,” said Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos is a professor of social work and director and founder of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health at New York University.

“Evans et al. highlighted that reporting on the foreign-born participant proportions was incomplete across studies, thereby excluding this clinical heterogeneity domain from formal moderation analyses,” said Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues. People who develop Hispanic sexual and reproductive health interventions may consider whether this domain or other domains moderate intervention effectiveness.

Although sensitivity analyses focused on several potential sources of bias, “other domains of potential methodologic heterogeneity, such as refusal bias, differential attrition, or information bias, remained unaccounted for,” they said.

“Attention to clinical, methodologic, and statistical heterogeneity across studies can yield insights into factors associated with bolstering intervention effectiveness. Cultural tailoring to increase the effectiveness of condom interventions for Hispanic adolescents is one such intervention effect modifier,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and associates concluded.

The study authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The research was supported by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington, and the Center for Family and Community Engagement, North Carolina State University. The editorialists are supported by the William T. Grant Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Healthcare outside the submitted work and serves as a member of the U.S. Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and as the vice chair of the board of directors of the Latino Commission on AIDS. His coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Evans R et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3572; Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1406.

Among Hispanic adolescents, sexual health interventions have a small but significant effect on improving safe sexual behavior, including abstinence, condom use, and number of sex partners, a meta-analysis of 12 studies suggests.

Furthermore, cultural tailoring may contribute to a program’s success, the data indicate.

“It is important that culturally tailored sexual health programs be available to Hispanic communities across the United States,” the study authors stated in Pediatrics.

To examine the effects of sexual health interventions on behavioral outcomes among Hispanic adolescents and factors that may influence the success of an intervention, Reina Evans, a doctoral student in the department of psychology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues systemically reviewed published studies that included Hispanic adolescents in the United States. Included studies evaluated a sexual health intervention using an experimental or quasiexperimental design and assessed a behavioral outcome.

The researchers synthesized effect sizes from 12 studies that included 4,673 Hispanic adolescents. “As the indicator of effect size, the standardized mean difference, Cohen’s d, was used,” they said. Effect size was interpreted as small at 0.20, medium at 0.50, and large at 0.80.

Sexual health interventions improved abstinence (d = 0.15), condom use (d = 0.44), number of sex partners (d = –0.19), and sexual health knowledge (d = 0.40), compared with control conditions.

Eight of the 12 interventions incorporated Hispanic-specific practices and values such as familialism into the intervention materials. Culturally tailored interventions produced greater change in condom use, compared with interventions that were not culturally tailored. One intervention with a large effect on condom use was developed by researchers in collaboration with community members, the authors said. Another program with a large effect on condom use was designed for Hispanic families.

Ten of the 12 studies included males and females, and two included only females. Intervention dose ranged from less than 10 hours of program content to more than 20 hours of content.

Definitions of abstinence and time frames for reporting recent condom use varied across studies, the researchers noted. Data about patient characteristics, such as the percentage of participants born in the United States, and pregnancy outcomes were limited. These domains could be areas of future research.

“Latinx adolescents are disproportionately burdened with unplanned pregnancy and STIs [sexually transmitted infections]. In this meta-analysis, it is shown that sexual health interventions can play a role in combating these health disparities,” Ms. Evans and associates said.

Among Hispanic adolescents, persistent disparities in sexual and reproductive health “remain a national public health priority,” and “strengthening the effects of future ... interventions for Hispanic adolescents is needed,” said Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos is a professor of social work and director and founder of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health at New York University.

“Evans et al. highlighted that reporting on the foreign-born participant proportions was incomplete across studies, thereby excluding this clinical heterogeneity domain from formal moderation analyses,” said Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues. People who develop Hispanic sexual and reproductive health interventions may consider whether this domain or other domains moderate intervention effectiveness.

Although sensitivity analyses focused on several potential sources of bias, “other domains of potential methodologic heterogeneity, such as refusal bias, differential attrition, or information bias, remained unaccounted for,” they said.

“Attention to clinical, methodologic, and statistical heterogeneity across studies can yield insights into factors associated with bolstering intervention effectiveness. Cultural tailoring to increase the effectiveness of condom interventions for Hispanic adolescents is one such intervention effect modifier,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and associates concluded.

The study authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The research was supported by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington, and the Center for Family and Community Engagement, North Carolina State University. The editorialists are supported by the William T. Grant Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Healthcare outside the submitted work and serves as a member of the U.S. Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and as the vice chair of the board of directors of the Latino Commission on AIDS. His coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Evans R et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3572; Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1406.

Among Hispanic adolescents, sexual health interventions have a small but significant effect on improving safe sexual behavior, including abstinence, condom use, and number of sex partners, a meta-analysis of 12 studies suggests.

Furthermore, cultural tailoring may contribute to a program’s success, the data indicate.

“It is important that culturally tailored sexual health programs be available to Hispanic communities across the United States,” the study authors stated in Pediatrics.

To examine the effects of sexual health interventions on behavioral outcomes among Hispanic adolescents and factors that may influence the success of an intervention, Reina Evans, a doctoral student in the department of psychology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues systemically reviewed published studies that included Hispanic adolescents in the United States. Included studies evaluated a sexual health intervention using an experimental or quasiexperimental design and assessed a behavioral outcome.

The researchers synthesized effect sizes from 12 studies that included 4,673 Hispanic adolescents. “As the indicator of effect size, the standardized mean difference, Cohen’s d, was used,” they said. Effect size was interpreted as small at 0.20, medium at 0.50, and large at 0.80.

Sexual health interventions improved abstinence (d = 0.15), condom use (d = 0.44), number of sex partners (d = –0.19), and sexual health knowledge (d = 0.40), compared with control conditions.

Eight of the 12 interventions incorporated Hispanic-specific practices and values such as familialism into the intervention materials. Culturally tailored interventions produced greater change in condom use, compared with interventions that were not culturally tailored. One intervention with a large effect on condom use was developed by researchers in collaboration with community members, the authors said. Another program with a large effect on condom use was designed for Hispanic families.

Ten of the 12 studies included males and females, and two included only females. Intervention dose ranged from less than 10 hours of program content to more than 20 hours of content.

Definitions of abstinence and time frames for reporting recent condom use varied across studies, the researchers noted. Data about patient characteristics, such as the percentage of participants born in the United States, and pregnancy outcomes were limited. These domains could be areas of future research.

“Latinx adolescents are disproportionately burdened with unplanned pregnancy and STIs [sexually transmitted infections]. In this meta-analysis, it is shown that sexual health interventions can play a role in combating these health disparities,” Ms. Evans and associates said.

Among Hispanic adolescents, persistent disparities in sexual and reproductive health “remain a national public health priority,” and “strengthening the effects of future ... interventions for Hispanic adolescents is needed,” said Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos is a professor of social work and director and founder of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health at New York University.

“Evans et al. highlighted that reporting on the foreign-born participant proportions was incomplete across studies, thereby excluding this clinical heterogeneity domain from formal moderation analyses,” said Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues. People who develop Hispanic sexual and reproductive health interventions may consider whether this domain or other domains moderate intervention effectiveness.

Although sensitivity analyses focused on several potential sources of bias, “other domains of potential methodologic heterogeneity, such as refusal bias, differential attrition, or information bias, remained unaccounted for,” they said.

“Attention to clinical, methodologic, and statistical heterogeneity across studies can yield insights into factors associated with bolstering intervention effectiveness. Cultural tailoring to increase the effectiveness of condom interventions for Hispanic adolescents is one such intervention effect modifier,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and associates concluded.

The study authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The research was supported by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington, and the Center for Family and Community Engagement, North Carolina State University. The editorialists are supported by the William T. Grant Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Healthcare outside the submitted work and serves as a member of the U.S. Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and as the vice chair of the board of directors of the Latino Commission on AIDS. His coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Evans R et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3572; Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1406.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) does not seem to make patients any more likely to contract SARS-COV-2 or develop COVID-19, but a rapid review commissioned by the American Gastroenterological Association acknowledges that determination is based on limited evidence and IBD patients should nonetheless maintain remission to reduce their risk of relapse or hospitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The AGA has published a clinical practice update based on that rapid review online in Gastroenterology (2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.012).

Because of the widespread use of immunosuppressive or immune-modifying drugs, “It is understandable why patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis have specific concerns and potential for increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” wrote David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, of the University of Chicago and colleagues in the expert commentary.

They noted that, while association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 RNA in stool samples isn’t clear, given the reports of GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients – ranging from 10% (JAMA. 2020:323:1061-9) to half of patients (Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115:766-73) – “the clinical implications of this are quite important.” In IBD patients, changes in digestive symptoms without accompanying fever or respiratory symptoms can be monitored for symptoms that could merit testing for the virus as well as “trigger additional treatment adjustments.”

In accordance with the IOIBD (International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease) consensus, the update noted that IBD patients should continue going to infusion centers for therapies, provided that the centers use a COVID-19 screening protocol.

Patients with IBD who contract COVID-19 seem more likely to be hospitalized for one or the other disease, but that’s based on data from the international SECURE-IBD registry that had 164 patients as of the writing of the update. The update provides guidance for three scenarios for IBD patients during the pandemic:

• Patients not infected with SARS-CoV-2 should maintain their IBD therapies to sustain remission and avoid relapses. “Aside from the obvious negative consequences of a relapse, relapsing IBD will strain available medical resources, may require steroid therapy or necessitate hospitalization, outcomes that are all much worse than the known risks of existing IBD therapies,” Dr. Rubin and colleagues noted.
• Patients who are infected but have no symptoms of COVID-19 should have their dosing of prednisone adjusted to less than 20 mg/day or switched to budesonide; suspend thiopurines, methotrexate, and tofacitinib; and delay dosing of monoclonal antibodies (anti–tumor necrosis factor [anti-TNF] drugs, ustekinumab, or vedolizumab) for 2 weeks while their symptoms for COVID-19 are monitored. “Restarting therapy after 2 weeks if the patient has not developed manifestations of COVID-19 is reasonable,” wrote Dr. Rubin and colleagues. Emerging serial testing should indicate antibody status, but the effectiveness of stool testing for SARS-CoV-2 in these cases “remains to be seen.”
• In the patient with confirmed COVID-19, adjustment of IBD therapy “is appropriate, based on the understanding of the immune activity of the therapy and whether that therapy may worsen outcomes with COVID-19,” the update stated. Therapy adjustment should focus on reducing immune suppression during the active viral infection. Some studies are evaluating anticytokine-based therapies as COVID-19 treatments, so continued anti-TNF therapies might prevent acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan failure, Dr. Rubin and colleagues wrote. “However, in the absence of those data, guidance is currently based on deciding whether to hold or to continue specific IBD therapies.”

The update considers most IBD therapies, specifically aminosalicylates, topical rectal therapy, dietary management, and antibiotics “safe and may be continued,” and oral budesonide can be continued if it’s needed for ongoing IBD control. However, corticosteroids “should be avoided and discontinued quickly.”

Likewise, during the acute stage of COVID-19, thiopurines, methotrexate, and tofacitinib should be discontinued, and anti-TNF drugs and ustekinumab should be stopped during viral illness. Holding vedolizumab during viral illness is also appropriate, according to the update, although the IOIBD group was uncertain if doing so was necessary.

If the IBD patient has digestive symptoms with COVID-19, ongoing supportive care of the COVID-19 is “reasonable,” but investigating the causes of the digestive symptoms “is critically important.” That should include ruling out enteric infections and confirming active inflammation with nonendoscopic testing. Endoscopy should be relegated to only urgent and emergent cases.

Management of IBD in COVID-19 patients also depends on disease severity. Safer therapies are indicated for mild disease, but withholding IBD therapy in moderate to severe cases may not be practical. “In this setting, the risks and benefits of escalating IBD therapy must be carefully weighed against the severity of the COVID-19,” Dr. Rubin and colleagues noted.

In hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and poor prognoses, “IBD therapy will likely take a back seat,” the update stated, although COVID-19 therapies should take the concomitant IBD into account. In patients with milder cases of COVID-19, IBD management should focus on acute manifestations, but intravenous steroid therapy shouldn’t exceed 3 days. The update urged providers to submit cases of IBD and confirmed COVID-19 to the SECURE-IBD registry at COVIDIBD.org.

Dr. Rubin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Syneos, Gilead Sciences, Takeda, and many other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors disclosed relationships with those companies and Medimmune, Novus Therapeutics, Osiris Therapeutics, RedHill Biopharma, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB Pharma, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Rubin DT, et al. Gastroenterology. 2020:  doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.012

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) does not seem to make patients any more likely to contract SARS-COV-2 or develop COVID-19, but a rapid review commissioned by the American Gastroenterological Association acknowledges that determination is based on limited evidence and IBD patients should nonetheless maintain remission to reduce their risk of relapse or hospitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The AGA has published a clinical practice update based on that rapid review online in Gastroenterology (2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.012).

Because of the widespread use of immunosuppressive or immune-modifying drugs, “It is understandable why patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis have specific concerns and potential for increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” wrote David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, of the University of Chicago and colleagues in the expert commentary.

They noted that, while association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 RNA in stool samples isn’t clear, given the reports of GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients – ranging from 10% (JAMA. 2020:323:1061-9) to half of patients (Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115:766-73) – “the clinical implications of this are quite important.” In IBD patients, changes in digestive symptoms without accompanying fever or respiratory symptoms can be monitored for symptoms that could merit testing for the virus as well as “trigger additional treatment adjustments.”

In accordance with the IOIBD (International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease) consensus, the update noted that IBD patients should continue going to infusion centers for therapies, provided that the centers use a COVID-19 screening protocol.

Patients with IBD who contract COVID-19 seem more likely to be hospitalized for one or the other disease, but that’s based on data from the international SECURE-IBD registry that had 164 patients as of the writing of the update. The update provides guidance for three scenarios for IBD patients during the pandemic:

• Patients not infected with SARS-CoV-2 should maintain their IBD therapies to sustain remission and avoid relapses. “Aside from the obvious negative consequences of a relapse, relapsing IBD will strain available medical resources, may require steroid therapy or necessitate hospitalization, outcomes that are all much worse than the known risks of existing IBD therapies,” Dr. Rubin and colleagues noted.
• Patients who are infected but have no symptoms of COVID-19 should have their dosing of prednisone adjusted to less than 20 mg/day or switched to budesonide; suspend thiopurines, methotrexate, and tofacitinib; and delay dosing of monoclonal antibodies (anti–tumor necrosis factor [anti-TNF] drugs, ustekinumab, or vedolizumab) for 2 weeks while their symptoms for COVID-19 are monitored. “Restarting therapy after 2 weeks if the patient has not developed manifestations of COVID-19 is reasonable,” wrote Dr. Rubin and colleagues. Emerging serial testing should indicate antibody status, but the effectiveness of stool testing for SARS-CoV-2 in these cases “remains to be seen.”
• In the patient with confirmed COVID-19, adjustment of IBD therapy “is appropriate, based on the understanding of the immune activity of the therapy and whether that therapy may worsen outcomes with COVID-19,” the update stated. Therapy adjustment should focus on reducing immune suppression during the active viral infection. Some studies are evaluating anticytokine-based therapies as COVID-19 treatments, so continued anti-TNF therapies might prevent acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan failure, Dr. Rubin and colleagues wrote. “However, in the absence of those data, guidance is currently based on deciding whether to hold or to continue specific IBD therapies.”

The update considers most IBD therapies, specifically aminosalicylates, topical rectal therapy, dietary management, and antibiotics “safe and may be continued,” and oral budesonide can be continued if it’s needed for ongoing IBD control. However, corticosteroids “should be avoided and discontinued quickly.”

Likewise, during the acute stage of COVID-19, thiopurines, methotrexate, and tofacitinib should be discontinued, and anti-TNF drugs and ustekinumab should be stopped during viral illness. Holding vedolizumab during viral illness is also appropriate, according to the update, although the IOIBD group was uncertain if doing so was necessary.

If the IBD patient has digestive symptoms with COVID-19, ongoing supportive care of the COVID-19 is “reasonable,” but investigating the causes of the digestive symptoms “is critically important.” That should include ruling out enteric infections and confirming active inflammation with nonendoscopic testing. Endoscopy should be relegated to only urgent and emergent cases.

Management of IBD in COVID-19 patients also depends on disease severity. Safer therapies are indicated for mild disease, but withholding IBD therapy in moderate to severe cases may not be practical. “In this setting, the risks and benefits of escalating IBD therapy must be carefully weighed against the severity of the COVID-19,” Dr. Rubin and colleagues noted.

In hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and poor prognoses, “IBD therapy will likely take a back seat,” the update stated, although COVID-19 therapies should take the concomitant IBD into account. In patients with milder cases of COVID-19, IBD management should focus on acute manifestations, but intravenous steroid therapy shouldn’t exceed 3 days. The update urged providers to submit cases of IBD and confirmed COVID-19 to the SECURE-IBD registry at COVIDIBD.org.

Dr. Rubin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Syneos, Gilead Sciences, Takeda, and many other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors disclosed relationships with those companies and Medimmune, Novus Therapeutics, Osiris Therapeutics, RedHill Biopharma, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB Pharma, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Rubin DT, et al. Gastroenterology. 2020:  doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.012

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) does not seem to make patients any more likely to contract SARS-COV-2 or develop COVID-19, but a rapid review commissioned by the American Gastroenterological Association acknowledges that determination is based on limited evidence and IBD patients should nonetheless maintain remission to reduce their risk of relapse or hospitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The AGA has published a clinical practice update based on that rapid review online in Gastroenterology (2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.012).

Because of the widespread use of immunosuppressive or immune-modifying drugs, “It is understandable why patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis have specific concerns and potential for increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” wrote David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, of the University of Chicago and colleagues in the expert commentary.

They noted that, while association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 RNA in stool samples isn’t clear, given the reports of GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients – ranging from 10% (JAMA. 2020:323:1061-9) to half of patients (Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115:766-73) – “the clinical implications of this are quite important.” In IBD patients, changes in digestive symptoms without accompanying fever or respiratory symptoms can be monitored for symptoms that could merit testing for the virus as well as “trigger additional treatment adjustments.”

In accordance with the IOIBD (International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease) consensus, the update noted that IBD patients should continue going to infusion centers for therapies, provided that the centers use a COVID-19 screening protocol.

Patients with IBD who contract COVID-19 seem more likely to be hospitalized for one or the other disease, but that’s based on data from the international SECURE-IBD registry that had 164 patients as of the writing of the update. The update provides guidance for three scenarios for IBD patients during the pandemic:

• Patients not infected with SARS-CoV-2 should maintain their IBD therapies to sustain remission and avoid relapses. “Aside from the obvious negative consequences of a relapse, relapsing IBD will strain available medical resources, may require steroid therapy or necessitate hospitalization, outcomes that are all much worse than the known risks of existing IBD therapies,” Dr. Rubin and colleagues noted.
• Patients who are infected but have no symptoms of COVID-19 should have their dosing of prednisone adjusted to less than 20 mg/day or switched to budesonide; suspend thiopurines, methotrexate, and tofacitinib; and delay dosing of monoclonal antibodies (anti–tumor necrosis factor [anti-TNF] drugs, ustekinumab, or vedolizumab) for 2 weeks while their symptoms for COVID-19 are monitored. “Restarting therapy after 2 weeks if the patient has not developed manifestations of COVID-19 is reasonable,” wrote Dr. Rubin and colleagues. Emerging serial testing should indicate antibody status, but the effectiveness of stool testing for SARS-CoV-2 in these cases “remains to be seen.”
• In the patient with confirmed COVID-19, adjustment of IBD therapy “is appropriate, based on the understanding of the immune activity of the therapy and whether that therapy may worsen outcomes with COVID-19,” the update stated. Therapy adjustment should focus on reducing immune suppression during the active viral infection. Some studies are evaluating anticytokine-based therapies as COVID-19 treatments, so continued anti-TNF therapies might prevent acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan failure, Dr. Rubin and colleagues wrote. “However, in the absence of those data, guidance is currently based on deciding whether to hold or to continue specific IBD therapies.”

The update considers most IBD therapies, specifically aminosalicylates, topical rectal therapy, dietary management, and antibiotics “safe and may be continued,” and oral budesonide can be continued if it’s needed for ongoing IBD control. However, corticosteroids “should be avoided and discontinued quickly.”

Likewise, during the acute stage of COVID-19, thiopurines, methotrexate, and tofacitinib should be discontinued, and anti-TNF drugs and ustekinumab should be stopped during viral illness. Holding vedolizumab during viral illness is also appropriate, according to the update, although the IOIBD group was uncertain if doing so was necessary.

If the IBD patient has digestive symptoms with COVID-19, ongoing supportive care of the COVID-19 is “reasonable,” but investigating the causes of the digestive symptoms “is critically important.” That should include ruling out enteric infections and confirming active inflammation with nonendoscopic testing. Endoscopy should be relegated to only urgent and emergent cases.

Management of IBD in COVID-19 patients also depends on disease severity. Safer therapies are indicated for mild disease, but withholding IBD therapy in moderate to severe cases may not be practical. “In this setting, the risks and benefits of escalating IBD therapy must be carefully weighed against the severity of the COVID-19,” Dr. Rubin and colleagues noted.

In hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and poor prognoses, “IBD therapy will likely take a back seat,” the update stated, although COVID-19 therapies should take the concomitant IBD into account. In patients with milder cases of COVID-19, IBD management should focus on acute manifestations, but intravenous steroid therapy shouldn’t exceed 3 days. The update urged providers to submit cases of IBD and confirmed COVID-19 to the SECURE-IBD registry at COVIDIBD.org.

Dr. Rubin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Syneos, Gilead Sciences, Takeda, and many other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors disclosed relationships with those companies and Medimmune, Novus Therapeutics, Osiris Therapeutics, RedHill Biopharma, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB Pharma, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Rubin DT, et al. Gastroenterology. 2020:  doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.012

A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”

Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.

Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.

But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”

Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”

The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.

Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.

Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.

Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct." 

This article was updated 6/10/20.

A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”

Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.

Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.

But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”

Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”

The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.

Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.

Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.

Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct." 

This article was updated 6/10/20.

A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”

Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.

Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.

But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”

Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”

The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.

Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.

Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.

Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct." 

This article was updated 6/10/20.

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.

“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.

Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.

“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.

Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:

• Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
• Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
• A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
• More resources and attention to structural reform

“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
 

Prepandemic experience

When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.

Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”

Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”

Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.

Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Stone

“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.

An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).

Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.

The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.

Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.

CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)

However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.

Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”

Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.

“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
 

Moving forward

IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”

Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.

Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.

“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.

“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.

As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.

The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.

Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.

However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”

In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.

At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.

Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”


 

The barriers

Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.

Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.

Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”

Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”

Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.

Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”

Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)

“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”

A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”

For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.

“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.

Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.

“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.

Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:

• Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
• Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
• A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
• More resources and attention to structural reform

“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
 

Prepandemic experience

When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.

Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”

Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”

Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.

Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Stone

“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.

An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).

Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.

The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.

Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.

CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)

However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.

Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”

Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.

“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
 

Moving forward

IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”

Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.

Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.

“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.

“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.

As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.

The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.

Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.

However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”

In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.

At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.

Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”


 

The barriers

Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.

Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.

Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”

Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”

Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.

Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”

Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)

“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”

A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”

For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.

“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.

Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.

“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.

Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:

• Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
• Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
• A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
• More resources and attention to structural reform

“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
 

Prepandemic experience

When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.

Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”

Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”

Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.

Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Stone

“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.

An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).

Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.

The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.

Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.

CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)

However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.

Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”

Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.

“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
 

Moving forward

IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”

Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.

Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.

“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.

“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.

As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.

The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.

Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.

However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”

In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.

At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.

Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”


 

The barriers

Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.

Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.

Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”

Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”

Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.

Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”

Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)

“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”

A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”

For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”

I am writing this commentary to bring to readers’ attention a medical and ethical complexity related to human sitters for presumably suicidal, COVID-19–positive hospitalized patients.

To shape and bundle the ethics issues addressed here into a single question, I offer the following: Should policies and practices requiring that patients in presumed need of a sitter because of assessed suicidality change when the patient is COVID-19–positive? Although the analysis might be similar when a sitter is monitoring a Patient Under Investigation (PUI), here I focus only on COVID-19–positive patients. Similarly, there are other reasons for sitters, of course, such as to prevent elopement, or, if a patient is in restraints, to prevent the patient from pulling out lines or tubes. Again, discussion of some of these ethical complications is beyond the scope of this piece. Just considering the matter of potential suicidality and sitters is complex enough. And so, to start, I sought out existing sources for guidance.

In looking for such sources, I first turned to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services before COVID-19. CMS has required that there be a sitter for a patient who is suicidal and that the sitter remain in the room so that the sitter can intervene expeditiously if the patient tries to hurt himself or herself. There has been no change in this guidance since the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, there is no substantive guidance for protecting sitters from contagion other than PPE. Given this, it begs the question: Shouldn’t the CMS guidance be changed to allow for hospitals to study different approaches to contagion reduction for sitters?

In my hospital, I already have begun discussing the potential risks of harm and potential benefits to our suicidal patients of having a sitter directly outside the patient’s room. I also have considered whether to have one sitter watching several room cameras at once, commonly referred to as “telehealth strategies.”

To be sure, sitting for hours in the room of a COVID-19–positive patient is onerous. The sitter is required to be in full PPE (N-95 mask, gown, and gloves), which is hot and uncomfortable. Current practice is resource intensive in other ways. It requires changing out the sitter every 2 hours, which uses substantial amounts of PPE and multiple sitters.

Regardless, however, there are really no data upon which to base any sound ethics judgment about what should or should not be tried. We just have no information on how to attempt to balance potential risks and prospects for the benefit of whom and when. And, given that good clinical ethics always begin with the facts, I write this piece to see whether readers have thought about these issues before – and whether any of clinicians have started collecting the valuable data needed to begin making sound ethical judgments about how to care for our presumably suicidal COVID-19–positive patients and the sitters who watch over them.
 

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures and can be reached at [email protected].

This column is an outcome of a discussion that occurred during Psych/Ethics rounds on June 5, and does not represent any official statements of Medstar Washington Hospital Center or any entity of the MedStar Corp. Dr. Ritchie would like to thank Evan G. DeRenzo, PhD, of the John J. Lynch Center for Ethics, for her thoughtful review of a previous draft of this commentary.

I am writing this commentary to bring to readers’ attention a medical and ethical complexity related to human sitters for presumably suicidal, COVID-19–positive hospitalized patients.

To shape and bundle the ethics issues addressed here into a single question, I offer the following: Should policies and practices requiring that patients in presumed need of a sitter because of assessed suicidality change when the patient is COVID-19–positive? Although the analysis might be similar when a sitter is monitoring a Patient Under Investigation (PUI), here I focus only on COVID-19–positive patients. Similarly, there are other reasons for sitters, of course, such as to prevent elopement, or, if a patient is in restraints, to prevent the patient from pulling out lines or tubes. Again, discussion of some of these ethical complications is beyond the scope of this piece. Just considering the matter of potential suicidality and sitters is complex enough. And so, to start, I sought out existing sources for guidance.

In looking for such sources, I first turned to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services before COVID-19. CMS has required that there be a sitter for a patient who is suicidal and that the sitter remain in the room so that the sitter can intervene expeditiously if the patient tries to hurt himself or herself. There has been no change in this guidance since the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, there is no substantive guidance for protecting sitters from contagion other than PPE. Given this, it begs the question: Shouldn’t the CMS guidance be changed to allow for hospitals to study different approaches to contagion reduction for sitters?

In my hospital, I already have begun discussing the potential risks of harm and potential benefits to our suicidal patients of having a sitter directly outside the patient’s room. I also have considered whether to have one sitter watching several room cameras at once, commonly referred to as “telehealth strategies.”

To be sure, sitting for hours in the room of a COVID-19–positive patient is onerous. The sitter is required to be in full PPE (N-95 mask, gown, and gloves), which is hot and uncomfortable. Current practice is resource intensive in other ways. It requires changing out the sitter every 2 hours, which uses substantial amounts of PPE and multiple sitters.

Regardless, however, there are really no data upon which to base any sound ethics judgment about what should or should not be tried. We just have no information on how to attempt to balance potential risks and prospects for the benefit of whom and when. And, given that good clinical ethics always begin with the facts, I write this piece to see whether readers have thought about these issues before – and whether any of clinicians have started collecting the valuable data needed to begin making sound ethical judgments about how to care for our presumably suicidal COVID-19–positive patients and the sitters who watch over them.
 

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures and can be reached at [email protected].

This column is an outcome of a discussion that occurred during Psych/Ethics rounds on June 5, and does not represent any official statements of Medstar Washington Hospital Center or any entity of the MedStar Corp. Dr. Ritchie would like to thank Evan G. DeRenzo, PhD, of the John J. Lynch Center for Ethics, for her thoughtful review of a previous draft of this commentary.

I am writing this commentary to bring to readers’ attention a medical and ethical complexity related to human sitters for presumably suicidal, COVID-19–positive hospitalized patients.

To shape and bundle the ethics issues addressed here into a single question, I offer the following: Should policies and practices requiring that patients in presumed need of a sitter because of assessed suicidality change when the patient is COVID-19–positive? Although the analysis might be similar when a sitter is monitoring a Patient Under Investigation (PUI), here I focus only on COVID-19–positive patients. Similarly, there are other reasons for sitters, of course, such as to prevent elopement, or, if a patient is in restraints, to prevent the patient from pulling out lines or tubes. Again, discussion of some of these ethical complications is beyond the scope of this piece. Just considering the matter of potential suicidality and sitters is complex enough. And so, to start, I sought out existing sources for guidance.

In looking for such sources, I first turned to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services before COVID-19. CMS has required that there be a sitter for a patient who is suicidal and that the sitter remain in the room so that the sitter can intervene expeditiously if the patient tries to hurt himself or herself. There has been no change in this guidance since the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, there is no substantive guidance for protecting sitters from contagion other than PPE. Given this, it begs the question: Shouldn’t the CMS guidance be changed to allow for hospitals to study different approaches to contagion reduction for sitters?

In my hospital, I already have begun discussing the potential risks of harm and potential benefits to our suicidal patients of having a sitter directly outside the patient’s room. I also have considered whether to have one sitter watching several room cameras at once, commonly referred to as “telehealth strategies.”

To be sure, sitting for hours in the room of a COVID-19–positive patient is onerous. The sitter is required to be in full PPE (N-95 mask, gown, and gloves), which is hot and uncomfortable. Current practice is resource intensive in other ways. It requires changing out the sitter every 2 hours, which uses substantial amounts of PPE and multiple sitters.

Regardless, however, there are really no data upon which to base any sound ethics judgment about what should or should not be tried. We just have no information on how to attempt to balance potential risks and prospects for the benefit of whom and when. And, given that good clinical ethics always begin with the facts, I write this piece to see whether readers have thought about these issues before – and whether any of clinicians have started collecting the valuable data needed to begin making sound ethical judgments about how to care for our presumably suicidal COVID-19–positive patients and the sitters who watch over them.
 

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures and can be reached at [email protected].

This column is an outcome of a discussion that occurred during Psych/Ethics rounds on June 5, and does not represent any official statements of Medstar Washington Hospital Center or any entity of the MedStar Corp. Dr. Ritchie would like to thank Evan G. DeRenzo, PhD, of the John J. Lynch Center for Ethics, for her thoughtful review of a previous draft of this commentary.

Pediatric patients hospitalized with more severe COVID-19 disease had higher levels of several inflammatory markers than did those with less severe disease, according to data from 50 patients at a single tertiary care center.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“Risk factors for severe disease in pediatric populations have not been clearly identified and the high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in NYC offers an opportunity to describe severe pediatric disease in more detail,” wrote Philip Zachariah, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and colleagues.

In a retrospective case series published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 50 patients: 41 classified as severe and 9 classified as nonsevere. Among the patients, 27 were male and 25 were Hispanic. The patient population had a median of 2 days from symptom onset to hospital admission. The most common symptoms were fever (80%) and respiratory symptoms (64%). Seventy-six percent of patients had a median length of stay of 3 days (range 1-30 days).

At hospital admission, children with severe disease had significantly higher levels of several inflammatory markers compared with those without severe disease, notably C-reactive protein (median 8.978 mg/dL vs. 0.64 mg/dL) and procalcitonin (median 0.31 ng/mL vs. 0.17 ng/mL, (P < .001 for both). High mean peak levels of C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin 6, ferritin, and D-dimer were seen among the nine children (16%) who required mechanical ventilation, Dr. Zachariah and associates said.

None of the 14 infants and 1 of the 8 immunocompromised children in the study had severe disease, the researchers wrote.

Bacterial coinfections detected while patients were hospitalized were bacteremia in 6%, suspected bacterial pneumonia in 18%, urinary tract infections in 10%, skin and soft tissue infections in 6%, and streptococcus pharyngitis in 2%, Dr. Zachariah and associates reported.

Overall, 61% of the children had comorbidities identified in previous COVID-19 studies, of which obesity was the most common (22%); other comorbidities included asthma, sickle cell disease, cardiac disease, and diabetes. Obesity also was significantly associated with the need for mechanical ventilation in children aged 2 years and older (67%). A total of 16 patients required respiratory support, 9 of these were placed on mechanical ventilation; 6 of these 9 children were obese.

Fifteen patients (30%) who met criteria for increased oxygen requirements and respiratory distress received hydroxychloroquine, but the small sample size did not allow for assessment of treatment efficacy, the researchers said.

“Expanding our knowledge of COVID-19 [disease] in children will potentially permit early recognition of SARS-CoV-2 infection, understanding of the natural history of disease, and potential complications, said Stephen I. Pelton, MD, professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. This review of 50 SARS-CoV-2 infected children (less than 21 years of age) “provides insight into the short period of symptoms prior to hospitalization, challenges the concept that infants less than 1 year are at greatest risk of severe disease (as from the experience in China), and suggests rapid recovery in many children, as median length of stay was 3 days.

“The review revealed two findings that were surprising to me. First, the median length of stay of 3 days. As nearly 20% of the children required mechanical ventilation, it suggests many of the children were discharged quickly after evaluation, suggesting that we need to identify markers of severity to predict those children likely to have progressive disease and require respiratory support,” Dr. Pelton noted.

“The second observation suggests high rates of bacterial infection (bacteremia, pneumonia, UTI, and skin and soft tissue infection). I do not think this has been widely reported in adults, and may represent a difference between child and adult disease. More studies such as this will be required to identify how common coinfection with bacteria is,” he said.

“The take-home message is that although most children with COVID-19 have a mild or even asymptomatic course, some become severely ill requiring ventilator support and potentially ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation]. Potential predictors of severity include high C-reactive protein, obesity, and older age [adolescence], said Dr. Pelton, who was not involved in the study.

What additional research is needed? Dr. Pelton said that better markers of severe disease are needed, as well as an understanding of why obesity is a risk factor for severe disease in both children and adults. Are these prediabetic patients? he asked.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and high proportion of Hispanic patients, which may limit generalizability, and some symptoms and comorbidities may have been missed because of the retrospective nature of the study, the researchers noted. However, the results support the need for hospitals to remain vigilant to the variable presentations of COVID-19 infections in children.

“Therapeutic considerations need to [include] the risk of toxicity, control of antiviral replication, and early recognition and management of immune dysregulation,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zachariah had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Dr. Pelton said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zachariah P et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 June 3. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.2430.

Pediatric patients hospitalized with more severe COVID-19 disease had higher levels of several inflammatory markers than did those with less severe disease, according to data from 50 patients at a single tertiary care center.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“Risk factors for severe disease in pediatric populations have not been clearly identified and the high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in NYC offers an opportunity to describe severe pediatric disease in more detail,” wrote Philip Zachariah, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and colleagues.

In a retrospective case series published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 50 patients: 41 classified as severe and 9 classified as nonsevere. Among the patients, 27 were male and 25 were Hispanic. The patient population had a median of 2 days from symptom onset to hospital admission. The most common symptoms were fever (80%) and respiratory symptoms (64%). Seventy-six percent of patients had a median length of stay of 3 days (range 1-30 days).

At hospital admission, children with severe disease had significantly higher levels of several inflammatory markers compared with those without severe disease, notably C-reactive protein (median 8.978 mg/dL vs. 0.64 mg/dL) and procalcitonin (median 0.31 ng/mL vs. 0.17 ng/mL, (P < .001 for both). High mean peak levels of C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin 6, ferritin, and D-dimer were seen among the nine children (16%) who required mechanical ventilation, Dr. Zachariah and associates said.

None of the 14 infants and 1 of the 8 immunocompromised children in the study had severe disease, the researchers wrote.

Bacterial coinfections detected while patients were hospitalized were bacteremia in 6%, suspected bacterial pneumonia in 18%, urinary tract infections in 10%, skin and soft tissue infections in 6%, and streptococcus pharyngitis in 2%, Dr. Zachariah and associates reported.

Overall, 61% of the children had comorbidities identified in previous COVID-19 studies, of which obesity was the most common (22%); other comorbidities included asthma, sickle cell disease, cardiac disease, and diabetes. Obesity also was significantly associated with the need for mechanical ventilation in children aged 2 years and older (67%). A total of 16 patients required respiratory support, 9 of these were placed on mechanical ventilation; 6 of these 9 children were obese.

Fifteen patients (30%) who met criteria for increased oxygen requirements and respiratory distress received hydroxychloroquine, but the small sample size did not allow for assessment of treatment efficacy, the researchers said.

“Expanding our knowledge of COVID-19 [disease] in children will potentially permit early recognition of SARS-CoV-2 infection, understanding of the natural history of disease, and potential complications, said Stephen I. Pelton, MD, professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. This review of 50 SARS-CoV-2 infected children (less than 21 years of age) “provides insight into the short period of symptoms prior to hospitalization, challenges the concept that infants less than 1 year are at greatest risk of severe disease (as from the experience in China), and suggests rapid recovery in many children, as median length of stay was 3 days.

“The review revealed two findings that were surprising to me. First, the median length of stay of 3 days. As nearly 20% of the children required mechanical ventilation, it suggests many of the children were discharged quickly after evaluation, suggesting that we need to identify markers of severity to predict those children likely to have progressive disease and require respiratory support,” Dr. Pelton noted.

“The second observation suggests high rates of bacterial infection (bacteremia, pneumonia, UTI, and skin and soft tissue infection). I do not think this has been widely reported in adults, and may represent a difference between child and adult disease. More studies such as this will be required to identify how common coinfection with bacteria is,” he said.

“The take-home message is that although most children with COVID-19 have a mild or even asymptomatic course, some become severely ill requiring ventilator support and potentially ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation]. Potential predictors of severity include high C-reactive protein, obesity, and older age [adolescence], said Dr. Pelton, who was not involved in the study.

What additional research is needed? Dr. Pelton said that better markers of severe disease are needed, as well as an understanding of why obesity is a risk factor for severe disease in both children and adults. Are these prediabetic patients? he asked.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and high proportion of Hispanic patients, which may limit generalizability, and some symptoms and comorbidities may have been missed because of the retrospective nature of the study, the researchers noted. However, the results support the need for hospitals to remain vigilant to the variable presentations of COVID-19 infections in children.

“Therapeutic considerations need to [include] the risk of toxicity, control of antiviral replication, and early recognition and management of immune dysregulation,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zachariah had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Dr. Pelton said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zachariah P et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 June 3. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.2430.

Pediatric patients hospitalized with more severe COVID-19 disease had higher levels of several inflammatory markers than did those with less severe disease, according to data from 50 patients at a single tertiary care center.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“Risk factors for severe disease in pediatric populations have not been clearly identified and the high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in NYC offers an opportunity to describe severe pediatric disease in more detail,” wrote Philip Zachariah, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and colleagues.

In a retrospective case series published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 50 patients: 41 classified as severe and 9 classified as nonsevere. Among the patients, 27 were male and 25 were Hispanic. The patient population had a median of 2 days from symptom onset to hospital admission. The most common symptoms were fever (80%) and respiratory symptoms (64%). Seventy-six percent of patients had a median length of stay of 3 days (range 1-30 days).

At hospital admission, children with severe disease had significantly higher levels of several inflammatory markers compared with those without severe disease, notably C-reactive protein (median 8.978 mg/dL vs. 0.64 mg/dL) and procalcitonin (median 0.31 ng/mL vs. 0.17 ng/mL, (P < .001 for both). High mean peak levels of C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin 6, ferritin, and D-dimer were seen among the nine children (16%) who required mechanical ventilation, Dr. Zachariah and associates said.

None of the 14 infants and 1 of the 8 immunocompromised children in the study had severe disease, the researchers wrote.

Bacterial coinfections detected while patients were hospitalized were bacteremia in 6%, suspected bacterial pneumonia in 18%, urinary tract infections in 10%, skin and soft tissue infections in 6%, and streptococcus pharyngitis in 2%, Dr. Zachariah and associates reported.

Overall, 61% of the children had comorbidities identified in previous COVID-19 studies, of which obesity was the most common (22%); other comorbidities included asthma, sickle cell disease, cardiac disease, and diabetes. Obesity also was significantly associated with the need for mechanical ventilation in children aged 2 years and older (67%). A total of 16 patients required respiratory support, 9 of these were placed on mechanical ventilation; 6 of these 9 children were obese.

Fifteen patients (30%) who met criteria for increased oxygen requirements and respiratory distress received hydroxychloroquine, but the small sample size did not allow for assessment of treatment efficacy, the researchers said.

“Expanding our knowledge of COVID-19 [disease] in children will potentially permit early recognition of SARS-CoV-2 infection, understanding of the natural history of disease, and potential complications, said Stephen I. Pelton, MD, professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. This review of 50 SARS-CoV-2 infected children (less than 21 years of age) “provides insight into the short period of symptoms prior to hospitalization, challenges the concept that infants less than 1 year are at greatest risk of severe disease (as from the experience in China), and suggests rapid recovery in many children, as median length of stay was 3 days.

“The review revealed two findings that were surprising to me. First, the median length of stay of 3 days. As nearly 20% of the children required mechanical ventilation, it suggests many of the children were discharged quickly after evaluation, suggesting that we need to identify markers of severity to predict those children likely to have progressive disease and require respiratory support,” Dr. Pelton noted.

“The second observation suggests high rates of bacterial infection (bacteremia, pneumonia, UTI, and skin and soft tissue infection). I do not think this has been widely reported in adults, and may represent a difference between child and adult disease. More studies such as this will be required to identify how common coinfection with bacteria is,” he said.

“The take-home message is that although most children with COVID-19 have a mild or even asymptomatic course, some become severely ill requiring ventilator support and potentially ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation]. Potential predictors of severity include high C-reactive protein, obesity, and older age [adolescence], said Dr. Pelton, who was not involved in the study.

What additional research is needed? Dr. Pelton said that better markers of severe disease are needed, as well as an understanding of why obesity is a risk factor for severe disease in both children and adults. Are these prediabetic patients? he asked.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and high proportion of Hispanic patients, which may limit generalizability, and some symptoms and comorbidities may have been missed because of the retrospective nature of the study, the researchers noted. However, the results support the need for hospitals to remain vigilant to the variable presentations of COVID-19 infections in children.

“Therapeutic considerations need to [include] the risk of toxicity, control of antiviral replication, and early recognition and management of immune dysregulation,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zachariah had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Dr. Pelton said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zachariah P et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 June 3. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.2430.

High-dose oral famotidine might improve cardinal symptoms of COVID-19 infection, according to the findings of a small outpatient case series and a subsequent retrospective study.

After developing COVID-19 symptoms, the 10 patients in the case series began self-medicating with 60-240 mg famotidine daily over a median of 11 days. “All patients reported marked improvements of disease-related symptoms after starting famotidine,” first author Tobias Janowitz, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, N.Y., and associates wrote in Gut.

Improvements began within 24-48 hours of starting on the histamine-2 receptor antagonist. By 14 days after treatment initiation, all patients reported near-normalization of both respiratory and systemic symptoms, the researchers reported.

The patients were 23-71 years old. Seven tested positive for COVID-19, two had antibodies to COVID-19, and one had a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 without laboratory confirmation. Over a median of 11 days (range, 5-21 days), six patients self-administered 80 mg famotidine three times daily and four self-administered lower amounts – from 60 to 150 mg of famotidine daily, divided into two or three doses. Patients started on famotidine between 2 and 26 days after symptom onset.

Through phone interviews and questionnaires, the researchers ascertained changes in cough, dyspnea, fatigue, headache, anosmia, and general unwellness by using a modified four-point Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scale. Improvements were seen across all symptom categories, and respiratory symptoms improved faster than systemic symptoms. Apart from two cases of persistent anosmia, symptoms resolved completely within 14 days of starting famotidine.

Seven patients reported no side effects of famotidine; one reported grade 1 dizziness and infrequent perceptions of tachycardia; one reported grade 1 dizziness, dry skin, and insomnia; and one reported grade 1 gastrointestinal symptoms and temporary forgetfulness. “Other than forgetfulness, all of these side effects are listed in the prescription information for famotidine, and all side effects resolved on discontinuation of famotidine,” the investigators wrote.

While the findings are intriguing, Dr. Janowitz and associates cautioned against overinterpretation of them. Another expert agreed: “This is a preliminary study based on a hypothesized antiviral effect. It’s important to know that it doesn’t really prove it works,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, Baltimore, and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, during an interview with MDedge.

These patients might have improved anyway, without self-administering famotidine, said Dr. Adalja, who was not involved in the study.

Furthermore, the mechanism by which famotidine might act on COVID-19 remains unclear. The drug “could have a viral target, for example, one of the viral proteases, or a host target, resulting, for example, in modulation of the immunological response to the virus,” Dr. Janowitz and associates wrote.

Dr. Adalja noted that many compounds show effects against COVID-19 that are not well understood. He called for randomized trials to evaluate the biological plausibility of famotidine use, and its potential efficacy.

“This is a cheap, over-the-counter drug, but no drug is without side effects,” he added. “We need to know whether it works.”

Based on the case series findings, researchers conducted another retrospective study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. Those who were incidentally taking famotidine before or at hospitalization had a significantly reduced risk of intubation or death, with a hazard ratio of 0.43 (Gastroenterology. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053)

The National Institutes of Health provided partial support. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Janowitz T et al. Gut. 2020 Jun 4. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321852.

High-dose oral famotidine might improve cardinal symptoms of COVID-19 infection, according to the findings of a small outpatient case series and a subsequent retrospective study.

After developing COVID-19 symptoms, the 10 patients in the case series began self-medicating with 60-240 mg famotidine daily over a median of 11 days. “All patients reported marked improvements of disease-related symptoms after starting famotidine,” first author Tobias Janowitz, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, N.Y., and associates wrote in Gut.

Improvements began within 24-48 hours of starting on the histamine-2 receptor antagonist. By 14 days after treatment initiation, all patients reported near-normalization of both respiratory and systemic symptoms, the researchers reported.

The patients were 23-71 years old. Seven tested positive for COVID-19, two had antibodies to COVID-19, and one had a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 without laboratory confirmation. Over a median of 11 days (range, 5-21 days), six patients self-administered 80 mg famotidine three times daily and four self-administered lower amounts – from 60 to 150 mg of famotidine daily, divided into two or three doses. Patients started on famotidine between 2 and 26 days after symptom onset.

Through phone interviews and questionnaires, the researchers ascertained changes in cough, dyspnea, fatigue, headache, anosmia, and general unwellness by using a modified four-point Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scale. Improvements were seen across all symptom categories, and respiratory symptoms improved faster than systemic symptoms. Apart from two cases of persistent anosmia, symptoms resolved completely within 14 days of starting famotidine.

Seven patients reported no side effects of famotidine; one reported grade 1 dizziness and infrequent perceptions of tachycardia; one reported grade 1 dizziness, dry skin, and insomnia; and one reported grade 1 gastrointestinal symptoms and temporary forgetfulness. “Other than forgetfulness, all of these side effects are listed in the prescription information for famotidine, and all side effects resolved on discontinuation of famotidine,” the investigators wrote.

While the findings are intriguing, Dr. Janowitz and associates cautioned against overinterpretation of them. Another expert agreed: “This is a preliminary study based on a hypothesized antiviral effect. It’s important to know that it doesn’t really prove it works,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, Baltimore, and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, during an interview with MDedge.

These patients might have improved anyway, without self-administering famotidine, said Dr. Adalja, who was not involved in the study.

Furthermore, the mechanism by which famotidine might act on COVID-19 remains unclear. The drug “could have a viral target, for example, one of the viral proteases, or a host target, resulting, for example, in modulation of the immunological response to the virus,” Dr. Janowitz and associates wrote.

Dr. Adalja noted that many compounds show effects against COVID-19 that are not well understood. He called for randomized trials to evaluate the biological plausibility of famotidine use, and its potential efficacy.

“This is a cheap, over-the-counter drug, but no drug is without side effects,” he added. “We need to know whether it works.”

Based on the case series findings, researchers conducted another retrospective study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. Those who were incidentally taking famotidine before or at hospitalization had a significantly reduced risk of intubation or death, with a hazard ratio of 0.43 (Gastroenterology. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053)

The National Institutes of Health provided partial support. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Janowitz T et al. Gut. 2020 Jun 4. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321852.

High-dose oral famotidine might improve cardinal symptoms of COVID-19 infection, according to the findings of a small outpatient case series and a subsequent retrospective study.

After developing COVID-19 symptoms, the 10 patients in the case series began self-medicating with 60-240 mg famotidine daily over a median of 11 days. “All patients reported marked improvements of disease-related symptoms after starting famotidine,” first author Tobias Janowitz, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, N.Y., and associates wrote in Gut.

Improvements began within 24-48 hours of starting on the histamine-2 receptor antagonist. By 14 days after treatment initiation, all patients reported near-normalization of both respiratory and systemic symptoms, the researchers reported.

The patients were 23-71 years old. Seven tested positive for COVID-19, two had antibodies to COVID-19, and one had a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 without laboratory confirmation. Over a median of 11 days (range, 5-21 days), six patients self-administered 80 mg famotidine three times daily and four self-administered lower amounts – from 60 to 150 mg of famotidine daily, divided into two or three doses. Patients started on famotidine between 2 and 26 days after symptom onset.

Through phone interviews and questionnaires, the researchers ascertained changes in cough, dyspnea, fatigue, headache, anosmia, and general unwellness by using a modified four-point Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scale. Improvements were seen across all symptom categories, and respiratory symptoms improved faster than systemic symptoms. Apart from two cases of persistent anosmia, symptoms resolved completely within 14 days of starting famotidine.

Seven patients reported no side effects of famotidine; one reported grade 1 dizziness and infrequent perceptions of tachycardia; one reported grade 1 dizziness, dry skin, and insomnia; and one reported grade 1 gastrointestinal symptoms and temporary forgetfulness. “Other than forgetfulness, all of these side effects are listed in the prescription information for famotidine, and all side effects resolved on discontinuation of famotidine,” the investigators wrote.

While the findings are intriguing, Dr. Janowitz and associates cautioned against overinterpretation of them. Another expert agreed: “This is a preliminary study based on a hypothesized antiviral effect. It’s important to know that it doesn’t really prove it works,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, Baltimore, and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, during an interview with MDedge.

These patients might have improved anyway, without self-administering famotidine, said Dr. Adalja, who was not involved in the study.

Furthermore, the mechanism by which famotidine might act on COVID-19 remains unclear. The drug “could have a viral target, for example, one of the viral proteases, or a host target, resulting, for example, in modulation of the immunological response to the virus,” Dr. Janowitz and associates wrote.

Dr. Adalja noted that many compounds show effects against COVID-19 that are not well understood. He called for randomized trials to evaluate the biological plausibility of famotidine use, and its potential efficacy.

“This is a cheap, over-the-counter drug, but no drug is without side effects,” he added. “We need to know whether it works.”

Based on the case series findings, researchers conducted another retrospective study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. Those who were incidentally taking famotidine before or at hospitalization had a significantly reduced risk of intubation or death, with a hazard ratio of 0.43 (Gastroenterology. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053)

The National Institutes of Health provided partial support. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Janowitz T et al. Gut. 2020 Jun 4. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321852.

An official with the World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that it appears to be “rare” that an asymptomatic individual can pass SARS-CoV-2 to someone else.

“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, said June 8 at a news briefing from the agency’s Geneva headquarters.

This announcement came on the heels of the publication of an analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which suggested that as many as 40-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic. In this paper, the authors, Daniel P. Oran, AM, and Eric J. Topol, MD, of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif stated: “The likelihood that approximately 40%-45% of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 will remain asymptomatic suggests that the virus might have greater potential than previously estimated to spread silently and deeply through human populations.”

"The early data that we have assembled on the prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection suggest that this is a significant factor in the rapid progression of the COVID-19 pandemic," the authors concluded.

Dr. Van Kerkhove also made comments suggesting otherwise on Twitter, citing a new summary by WHO: “@WHO recently published a summary of transmission of #COVID19, incl. symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission.”

She also tweeted the following lines from the WHO summary: “Comprehensive studies on transmission from asymptomatic individuals are difficult to conduct, but the available evidence from contact tracing reported by Member States suggests that asymptomatically-infected individuals are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms.” 

In an additional post, Dr. Van Kerkhove added: “In these data, it is important to breakdown truly asymptomatic vs pre-symptomatic vs mildly symptomatic... also to note that the [percentage] reported or estimated to be ‘asymptomatic’ is not the same as the [percentage] that are asymptomatic that actually transmit.”

In the paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Mr. Oran and Dr. Topol analyzed data of asymptomatic individuals from 16 cohorts between April 19 and May 26, 2020 – a wide-ranging group consisting of residents of cities, health care workers, individuals in homeless shelters, obstetric patients, residents of a nursing home, crew members of aircraft carriers, passengers on cruise ships, and inmates in correctional facilities. Each cohort had varying rates of asymptomatic or presymptomatic cases..

When residents of Iceland were tested, 43 of 100 individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 did not show symptoms. In Vo’, Italy, 30 of 73 people (41.1%) with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results did not have symptoms in a first round of testing, and 13 of 29 (44.8%) had no symptoms in a second round of testing. Over half of residents of San Francisco’s Mission District who received testing (39 of 74; 52.7%) did not have symptoms, while slightly less than half of Indiana residents tested showed no symptoms (35 of 78; 44.8%).

A majority of 41 individuals (65.9%) who were mostly health care workers at Rutgers University reported no symptoms of COVID-19 at the time of testing. Data from homeless shelters in Boston (129 of 147; 87.7%) and Los Angeles (27 of 43; 62.7%) also showed a high rate of individuals without symptoms. Among 33 obstetric patients in New York City who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 29 women (87.9%) were asymptomatic during a median 2-day length of stay. In a Washington state nursing facility, 12 of 23 individuals (52.1%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 without showing symptoms in a first round of testing, with another 15 of 24 residents (62.5%) not showing symptoms in a second round of testing. Of these residents, 24 individuals (88.9%) later went on to show symptoms of COVID-19.

SOURCE: Oran DP, Topol EJ. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jun 3. doi: 10.7326/M20-3012.

This article was updated 6/8/20.

An official with the World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that it appears to be “rare” that an asymptomatic individual can pass SARS-CoV-2 to someone else.

“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, said June 8 at a news briefing from the agency’s Geneva headquarters.

This announcement came on the heels of the publication of an analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which suggested that as many as 40-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic. In this paper, the authors, Daniel P. Oran, AM, and Eric J. Topol, MD, of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif stated: “The likelihood that approximately 40%-45% of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 will remain asymptomatic suggests that the virus might have greater potential than previously estimated to spread silently and deeply through human populations.”

"The early data that we have assembled on the prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection suggest that this is a significant factor in the rapid progression of the COVID-19 pandemic," the authors concluded.

Dr. Van Kerkhove also made comments suggesting otherwise on Twitter, citing a new summary by WHO: “@WHO recently published a summary of transmission of #COVID19, incl. symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission.”

She also tweeted the following lines from the WHO summary: “Comprehensive studies on transmission from asymptomatic individuals are difficult to conduct, but the available evidence from contact tracing reported by Member States suggests that asymptomatically-infected individuals are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms.” 

In an additional post, Dr. Van Kerkhove added: “In these data, it is important to breakdown truly asymptomatic vs pre-symptomatic vs mildly symptomatic... also to note that the [percentage] reported or estimated to be ‘asymptomatic’ is not the same as the [percentage] that are asymptomatic that actually transmit.”

In the paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Mr. Oran and Dr. Topol analyzed data of asymptomatic individuals from 16 cohorts between April 19 and May 26, 2020 – a wide-ranging group consisting of residents of cities, health care workers, individuals in homeless shelters, obstetric patients, residents of a nursing home, crew members of aircraft carriers, passengers on cruise ships, and inmates in correctional facilities. Each cohort had varying rates of asymptomatic or presymptomatic cases..

When residents of Iceland were tested, 43 of 100 individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 did not show symptoms. In Vo’, Italy, 30 of 73 people (41.1%) with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results did not have symptoms in a first round of testing, and 13 of 29 (44.8%) had no symptoms in a second round of testing. Over half of residents of San Francisco’s Mission District who received testing (39 of 74; 52.7%) did not have symptoms, while slightly less than half of Indiana residents tested showed no symptoms (35 of 78; 44.8%).

A majority of 41 individuals (65.9%) who were mostly health care workers at Rutgers University reported no symptoms of COVID-19 at the time of testing. Data from homeless shelters in Boston (129 of 147; 87.7%) and Los Angeles (27 of 43; 62.7%) also showed a high rate of individuals without symptoms. Among 33 obstetric patients in New York City who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 29 women (87.9%) were asymptomatic during a median 2-day length of stay. In a Washington state nursing facility, 12 of 23 individuals (52.1%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 without showing symptoms in a first round of testing, with another 15 of 24 residents (62.5%) not showing symptoms in a second round of testing. Of these residents, 24 individuals (88.9%) later went on to show symptoms of COVID-19.

SOURCE: Oran DP, Topol EJ. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jun 3. doi: 10.7326/M20-3012.

This article was updated 6/8/20.

An official with the World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that it appears to be “rare” that an asymptomatic individual can pass SARS-CoV-2 to someone else.

“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, said June 8 at a news briefing from the agency’s Geneva headquarters.

This announcement came on the heels of the publication of an analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which suggested that as many as 40-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic. In this paper, the authors, Daniel P. Oran, AM, and Eric J. Topol, MD, of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif stated: “The likelihood that approximately 40%-45% of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 will remain asymptomatic suggests that the virus might have greater potential than previously estimated to spread silently and deeply through human populations.”

"The early data that we have assembled on the prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection suggest that this is a significant factor in the rapid progression of the COVID-19 pandemic," the authors concluded.

Dr. Van Kerkhove also made comments suggesting otherwise on Twitter, citing a new summary by WHO: “@WHO recently published a summary of transmission of #COVID19, incl. symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission.”

She also tweeted the following lines from the WHO summary: “Comprehensive studies on transmission from asymptomatic individuals are difficult to conduct, but the available evidence from contact tracing reported by Member States suggests that asymptomatically-infected individuals are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms.” 

In an additional post, Dr. Van Kerkhove added: “In these data, it is important to breakdown truly asymptomatic vs pre-symptomatic vs mildly symptomatic... also to note that the [percentage] reported or estimated to be ‘asymptomatic’ is not the same as the [percentage] that are asymptomatic that actually transmit.”

In the paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Mr. Oran and Dr. Topol analyzed data of asymptomatic individuals from 16 cohorts between April 19 and May 26, 2020 – a wide-ranging group consisting of residents of cities, health care workers, individuals in homeless shelters, obstetric patients, residents of a nursing home, crew members of aircraft carriers, passengers on cruise ships, and inmates in correctional facilities. Each cohort had varying rates of asymptomatic or presymptomatic cases..

When residents of Iceland were tested, 43 of 100 individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 did not show symptoms. In Vo’, Italy, 30 of 73 people (41.1%) with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results did not have symptoms in a first round of testing, and 13 of 29 (44.8%) had no symptoms in a second round of testing. Over half of residents of San Francisco’s Mission District who received testing (39 of 74; 52.7%) did not have symptoms, while slightly less than half of Indiana residents tested showed no symptoms (35 of 78; 44.8%).

A majority of 41 individuals (65.9%) who were mostly health care workers at Rutgers University reported no symptoms of COVID-19 at the time of testing. Data from homeless shelters in Boston (129 of 147; 87.7%) and Los Angeles (27 of 43; 62.7%) also showed a high rate of individuals without symptoms. Among 33 obstetric patients in New York City who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 29 women (87.9%) were asymptomatic during a median 2-day length of stay. In a Washington state nursing facility, 12 of 23 individuals (52.1%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 without showing symptoms in a first round of testing, with another 15 of 24 residents (62.5%) not showing symptoms in a second round of testing. Of these residents, 24 individuals (88.9%) later went on to show symptoms of COVID-19.

SOURCE: Oran DP, Topol EJ. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jun 3. doi: 10.7326/M20-3012.

This article was updated 6/8/20.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors had the highest risk of developing herpes zoster among newer disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data released from the German biologics registry.

These are believed to be the first European data on the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors and showed that the crude incidence rate of herpes zoster per 1,000 patient-years was 24.9 with JAK inhibitors, compared with just 5.8 for controls taking conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs.

The risk of herpes zoster was also increased with other biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs that were assessed, with crude rates per 1,000 patient-years of 10.4 for monoclonal tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), 10.5 for B-cell targeted therapies, 9.4 for T-cell costimulation modulators, 9.0 for soluble TNF receptors, and 8.5 for interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors.

Overall, JAK inhibitor treatment was associated with a fivefold higher risk of herpes zoster (hazard ratio, 5.0; P < .0001), compared with the control csDMARD population after adjustment using an inverse probability weights (IPW) method.

“The general risk of herpes zoster is [twofold] higher in patients with rheumatoid arthritis when you compare it with the general population,” said Anja Strangfeld, MD of the German Research Center, Berlin, and one of the three RABBIT [Rheumatoide Arthritis: Biobachtung der Biologika-Therapie] principal investigators.

“If you think of all the treatments that RA patients get, then the risk is further increased with bDMARD and [JAK inhibitor] treatments,” she added in an interview. While the risk was highest with JAK inhibitors, “we also saw that monoclonal TNF antibodies as well as all the other biologic DMARD treatments have a higher risk of herpes zoster in RA patients, compared to csDMARD therapy,” Dr. Strangfeld said.

Adjusted IPW HR for the other RA treatments showed an increased herpes zoster risk for all but the soluble TNF receptor agents, at 1.6 for IL-6 inhibitors (P = .0045) and monoclonal TNFi antibodies (P = .0003), and 1.7 for B-cell targeted therapies (P = .00026) and T-cell costimulation modulators (P = .0048).

Dr. Strangfeld presented these data during the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. The analysis included 12,470 patients with RA enrolled in RABBIT from 2007 onward and who had been treated with monoclonal TNF inhibitor antibodies, cell-targeted therapies, and tsDMARDs such as JAK inhibitors. In all, at the data cutoff at the end of April 2019, 452 cases of herpes zoster were recorded in 433 patients, of which 52 cases were serious.

“The reactivation of the varicella zoster virus causing the herpes zoster is triggered by a decline of cellular immunity. This can be due to aging or immune suppression of any kind,” Dr. Strangfeld said in her presentation.

“The Cox regression [analysis] revealed that higher age and intake of glucocorticoids were associated with an increased risk of herpes zoster,” she reported, with a dose dependent increase with glucocorticoids. IPW HR for age per 10 years was 1.3 (P < .0001) and 1.9 (P = .0022) for higher doses of glucocorticoids (>10 vs. 0 mg/day).

Commenting on the study, rheumatologist and epidemiologist Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, said: “This is a very interesting study. The results are confident and precise. The frequency of herpes zoster infection [based on crude incidence rate estimates] is very high. However, we must focus on the [multivariable with IPW] analysis after taking into account baseline risk.”

Dr. Carmona, who is the chair of the congress’s Abstract Selection Committee and is the scientific director of the Instituto de Salud Musculoesquelética in Madrid, added: “Having a disease with high levels of activity or a disease refractory to treatments [both of which were very likely used in creating the IPW] levels off the risk a bit. Also, because RA by itself, glucocorticoids, and age all increase the risk. Still, jakinibs [JAK inhibitors] stand out as the treatment related to higher risk of herpes zoster infection.”

Dr. Strangfeld and fellow RABBIT investigators have previously looked at the risk of herpes zoster in patients treated with anti–TNF-alpha agents (JAMA. 2009;301[7]:737-44). They found that monoclonal anti–TNF-alpha agents may be associated with increased risk of herpes zoster, which is now confirmed by the current analysis. The reason for looking at herpes zoster risk again is that since that first analysis, many more therapies have become available for RA during the past 10 years, notably the tsDMARDs.

Herpes zoster may not always be a serious event, Dr. Strangfeld said in the interview, “but it diminishes your quality of life; it can also be associated with pain and may be followed by postherpetic neuralgia, which is very painful.” With new herpes zoster vaccinations available, it is now possible to vaccinate patients more easily. “This is advisable for all kinds of treatments,” she said.

“What we found was quite in agreement with the data that we know from the U.S., from the observational studies, for example from the Corrona database,” Dr. Strangfeld stated. The key finding is that the risk of herpes zoster is increased to some level, almost regardless of which drug is chosen, she said. “This gives a clear message that systematic herpes zoster vaccination should be done in patients with RA,” she suggested.

The German biologics registry RABBIT is supported by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Hexal, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld has received speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Carmona had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Strangfeld A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:150. Abstract OP0238.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors had the highest risk of developing herpes zoster among newer disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data released from the German biologics registry.

These are believed to be the first European data on the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors and showed that the crude incidence rate of herpes zoster per 1,000 patient-years was 24.9 with JAK inhibitors, compared with just 5.8 for controls taking conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs.

The risk of herpes zoster was also increased with other biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs that were assessed, with crude rates per 1,000 patient-years of 10.4 for monoclonal tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), 10.5 for B-cell targeted therapies, 9.4 for T-cell costimulation modulators, 9.0 for soluble TNF receptors, and 8.5 for interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors.

Overall, JAK inhibitor treatment was associated with a fivefold higher risk of herpes zoster (hazard ratio, 5.0; P < .0001), compared with the control csDMARD population after adjustment using an inverse probability weights (IPW) method.

“The general risk of herpes zoster is [twofold] higher in patients with rheumatoid arthritis when you compare it with the general population,” said Anja Strangfeld, MD of the German Research Center, Berlin, and one of the three RABBIT [Rheumatoide Arthritis: Biobachtung der Biologika-Therapie] principal investigators.

“If you think of all the treatments that RA patients get, then the risk is further increased with bDMARD and [JAK inhibitor] treatments,” she added in an interview. While the risk was highest with JAK inhibitors, “we also saw that monoclonal TNF antibodies as well as all the other biologic DMARD treatments have a higher risk of herpes zoster in RA patients, compared to csDMARD therapy,” Dr. Strangfeld said.

Adjusted IPW HR for the other RA treatments showed an increased herpes zoster risk for all but the soluble TNF receptor agents, at 1.6 for IL-6 inhibitors (P = .0045) and monoclonal TNFi antibodies (P = .0003), and 1.7 for B-cell targeted therapies (P = .00026) and T-cell costimulation modulators (P = .0048).

Dr. Strangfeld presented these data during the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. The analysis included 12,470 patients with RA enrolled in RABBIT from 2007 onward and who had been treated with monoclonal TNF inhibitor antibodies, cell-targeted therapies, and tsDMARDs such as JAK inhibitors. In all, at the data cutoff at the end of April 2019, 452 cases of herpes zoster were recorded in 433 patients, of which 52 cases were serious.

“The reactivation of the varicella zoster virus causing the herpes zoster is triggered by a decline of cellular immunity. This can be due to aging or immune suppression of any kind,” Dr. Strangfeld said in her presentation.

“The Cox regression [analysis] revealed that higher age and intake of glucocorticoids were associated with an increased risk of herpes zoster,” she reported, with a dose dependent increase with glucocorticoids. IPW HR for age per 10 years was 1.3 (P < .0001) and 1.9 (P = .0022) for higher doses of glucocorticoids (>10 vs. 0 mg/day).

Commenting on the study, rheumatologist and epidemiologist Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, said: “This is a very interesting study. The results are confident and precise. The frequency of herpes zoster infection [based on crude incidence rate estimates] is very high. However, we must focus on the [multivariable with IPW] analysis after taking into account baseline risk.”

Dr. Carmona, who is the chair of the congress’s Abstract Selection Committee and is the scientific director of the Instituto de Salud Musculoesquelética in Madrid, added: “Having a disease with high levels of activity or a disease refractory to treatments [both of which were very likely used in creating the IPW] levels off the risk a bit. Also, because RA by itself, glucocorticoids, and age all increase the risk. Still, jakinibs [JAK inhibitors] stand out as the treatment related to higher risk of herpes zoster infection.”

Dr. Strangfeld and fellow RABBIT investigators have previously looked at the risk of herpes zoster in patients treated with anti–TNF-alpha agents (JAMA. 2009;301[7]:737-44). They found that monoclonal anti–TNF-alpha agents may be associated with increased risk of herpes zoster, which is now confirmed by the current analysis. The reason for looking at herpes zoster risk again is that since that first analysis, many more therapies have become available for RA during the past 10 years, notably the tsDMARDs.

Herpes zoster may not always be a serious event, Dr. Strangfeld said in the interview, “but it diminishes your quality of life; it can also be associated with pain and may be followed by postherpetic neuralgia, which is very painful.” With new herpes zoster vaccinations available, it is now possible to vaccinate patients more easily. “This is advisable for all kinds of treatments,” she said.

“What we found was quite in agreement with the data that we know from the U.S., from the observational studies, for example from the Corrona database,” Dr. Strangfeld stated. The key finding is that the risk of herpes zoster is increased to some level, almost regardless of which drug is chosen, she said. “This gives a clear message that systematic herpes zoster vaccination should be done in patients with RA,” she suggested.

The German biologics registry RABBIT is supported by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Hexal, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld has received speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Carmona had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Strangfeld A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:150. Abstract OP0238.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors had the highest risk of developing herpes zoster among newer disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data released from the German biologics registry.

These are believed to be the first European data on the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors and showed that the crude incidence rate of herpes zoster per 1,000 patient-years was 24.9 with JAK inhibitors, compared with just 5.8 for controls taking conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs.

The risk of herpes zoster was also increased with other biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs that were assessed, with crude rates per 1,000 patient-years of 10.4 for monoclonal tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), 10.5 for B-cell targeted therapies, 9.4 for T-cell costimulation modulators, 9.0 for soluble TNF receptors, and 8.5 for interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors.

Overall, JAK inhibitor treatment was associated with a fivefold higher risk of herpes zoster (hazard ratio, 5.0; P < .0001), compared with the control csDMARD population after adjustment using an inverse probability weights (IPW) method.

“The general risk of herpes zoster is [twofold] higher in patients with rheumatoid arthritis when you compare it with the general population,” said Anja Strangfeld, MD of the German Research Center, Berlin, and one of the three RABBIT [Rheumatoide Arthritis: Biobachtung der Biologika-Therapie] principal investigators.

“If you think of all the treatments that RA patients get, then the risk is further increased with bDMARD and [JAK inhibitor] treatments,” she added in an interview. While the risk was highest with JAK inhibitors, “we also saw that monoclonal TNF antibodies as well as all the other biologic DMARD treatments have a higher risk of herpes zoster in RA patients, compared to csDMARD therapy,” Dr. Strangfeld said.

Adjusted IPW HR for the other RA treatments showed an increased herpes zoster risk for all but the soluble TNF receptor agents, at 1.6 for IL-6 inhibitors (P = .0045) and monoclonal TNFi antibodies (P = .0003), and 1.7 for B-cell targeted therapies (P = .00026) and T-cell costimulation modulators (P = .0048).

Dr. Strangfeld presented these data during the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. The analysis included 12,470 patients with RA enrolled in RABBIT from 2007 onward and who had been treated with monoclonal TNF inhibitor antibodies, cell-targeted therapies, and tsDMARDs such as JAK inhibitors. In all, at the data cutoff at the end of April 2019, 452 cases of herpes zoster were recorded in 433 patients, of which 52 cases were serious.

“The reactivation of the varicella zoster virus causing the herpes zoster is triggered by a decline of cellular immunity. This can be due to aging or immune suppression of any kind,” Dr. Strangfeld said in her presentation.

“The Cox regression [analysis] revealed that higher age and intake of glucocorticoids were associated with an increased risk of herpes zoster,” she reported, with a dose dependent increase with glucocorticoids. IPW HR for age per 10 years was 1.3 (P < .0001) and 1.9 (P = .0022) for higher doses of glucocorticoids (>10 vs. 0 mg/day).

Commenting on the study, rheumatologist and epidemiologist Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, said: “This is a very interesting study. The results are confident and precise. The frequency of herpes zoster infection [based on crude incidence rate estimates] is very high. However, we must focus on the [multivariable with IPW] analysis after taking into account baseline risk.”

Dr. Carmona, who is the chair of the congress’s Abstract Selection Committee and is the scientific director of the Instituto de Salud Musculoesquelética in Madrid, added: “Having a disease with high levels of activity or a disease refractory to treatments [both of which were very likely used in creating the IPW] levels off the risk a bit. Also, because RA by itself, glucocorticoids, and age all increase the risk. Still, jakinibs [JAK inhibitors] stand out as the treatment related to higher risk of herpes zoster infection.”

Dr. Strangfeld and fellow RABBIT investigators have previously looked at the risk of herpes zoster in patients treated with anti–TNF-alpha agents (JAMA. 2009;301[7]:737-44). They found that monoclonal anti–TNF-alpha agents may be associated with increased risk of herpes zoster, which is now confirmed by the current analysis. The reason for looking at herpes zoster risk again is that since that first analysis, many more therapies have become available for RA during the past 10 years, notably the tsDMARDs.

Herpes zoster may not always be a serious event, Dr. Strangfeld said in the interview, “but it diminishes your quality of life; it can also be associated with pain and may be followed by postherpetic neuralgia, which is very painful.” With new herpes zoster vaccinations available, it is now possible to vaccinate patients more easily. “This is advisable for all kinds of treatments,” she said.

“What we found was quite in agreement with the data that we know from the U.S., from the observational studies, for example from the Corrona database,” Dr. Strangfeld stated. The key finding is that the risk of herpes zoster is increased to some level, almost regardless of which drug is chosen, she said. “This gives a clear message that systematic herpes zoster vaccination should be done in patients with RA,” she suggested.

The German biologics registry RABBIT is supported by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Hexal, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld has received speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Carmona had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Strangfeld A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:150. Abstract OP0238.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Recarbrio (imipenem-cilastatin and relebactam) for the treatment of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in people aged 18 years and older.

Approval for Recarbrio was based on results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial of 535 hospitalized adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia who received either Recarbrio or piperacillin-tazobactam. After 28 days, 16% of patients who received Recarbrio and 21% of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam had died.

The most common adverse events associated with Recarbrio are increased alanine aminotransferase/ aspartate aminotransferase, anemia, diarrhea, hypokalemia, and hyponatremia. Recarbrio was previously approved by the FDA to treat patients with complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections who have limited or no alternative treatment options, according to an FDA press release.

“As a public health agency, the FDA addresses the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections by facilitating the development of safe and effective new treatments. These efforts provide more options to fight serious bacterial infections and get new, safe and effective therapies to patients as soon as possible,” said Sumathi Nambiar, MD, MPH, director of the division of anti-infectives within the office of infectious disease at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Recarbrio (imipenem-cilastatin and relebactam) for the treatment of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in people aged 18 years and older.

Approval for Recarbrio was based on results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial of 535 hospitalized adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia who received either Recarbrio or piperacillin-tazobactam. After 28 days, 16% of patients who received Recarbrio and 21% of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam had died.

The most common adverse events associated with Recarbrio are increased alanine aminotransferase/ aspartate aminotransferase, anemia, diarrhea, hypokalemia, and hyponatremia. Recarbrio was previously approved by the FDA to treat patients with complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections who have limited or no alternative treatment options, according to an FDA press release.

“As a public health agency, the FDA addresses the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections by facilitating the development of safe and effective new treatments. These efforts provide more options to fight serious bacterial infections and get new, safe and effective therapies to patients as soon as possible,” said Sumathi Nambiar, MD, MPH, director of the division of anti-infectives within the office of infectious disease at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Recarbrio (imipenem-cilastatin and relebactam) for the treatment of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in people aged 18 years and older.

Approval for Recarbrio was based on results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial of 535 hospitalized adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia who received either Recarbrio or piperacillin-tazobactam. After 28 days, 16% of patients who received Recarbrio and 21% of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam had died.

The most common adverse events associated with Recarbrio are increased alanine aminotransferase/ aspartate aminotransferase, anemia, diarrhea, hypokalemia, and hyponatremia. Recarbrio was previously approved by the FDA to treat patients with complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections who have limited or no alternative treatment options, according to an FDA press release.

“As a public health agency, the FDA addresses the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections by facilitating the development of safe and effective new treatments. These efforts provide more options to fight serious bacterial infections and get new, safe and effective therapies to patients as soon as possible,” said Sumathi Nambiar, MD, MPH, director of the division of anti-infectives within the office of infectious disease at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

[email protected]