Pulmonology

The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.

The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.

Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.

The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.

Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.

The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”

The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.

“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”

In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.

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






 

The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.

The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.

Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.

The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.

Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.

The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”

The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.

“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”

In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.

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






 

The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.

The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.

Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.

The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.

Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.

The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”

The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.

“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”

In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.

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






 

Wearing a mask at home, even when everyone is feeling fine, might reduce the risk of frontline healthcare workers transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infection to their families, a recent study from China suggests. But the benefits might not outweigh the costs, according to several physicians interviewed.

“My gut reaction is that home mask use for healthcare workers would place an inordinately high burden on those healthcare workers and their families,” said Jeanne Noble, MD, an emergency care physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “Wearing a mask for a 10-hour shift already represents significant physical discomfort, causing sores across the nose and behind the ears. The emotional toll of the physical distance that comes with mask use, with limited facial expression, is also quite real.”

The suggested benefit of home mask use comes from research published online May 28 in BMJ Global Health. To assess predictors of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Yu Wang, MD, of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 124 families in Beijing in which there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 as of February 21. The researchers surveyed family members by telephone about household hygiene and behaviors during the pandemic to examine risk factors for transmission.

During the 2 weeks following onset of the primary case, secondary transmission occurred in 41 families. Overall, 77 of 335 family members developed COVID-19.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis found that in households in which family members wore masks at home before the first person became ill, there was less likelihood of transmission of disease to a family member, compared with families in which no one wore a mask prior to illness onset.

“Facemasks were 79% effective and disinfection was 77% effective in preventing transmission,” the researchers report, “whilst close frequent contact in the household increased the risk of transmission 18 times, and diarrhea in the index patient increased the risk by four times.

However, wearing masks after symptom onset was not protective, according to the analysis. The findings support “universal face mask use, and also provides guidance on risk reduction for families living with someone in quarantine or isolation, and families of health workers, who may face ongoing risk,” the authors write.

Still, other precautions may be more important, experts say.

“I think by far the best way for healthcare professionals to protect their families is to carefully employ appropriate infection prevention measures at work,” said Mark E. Rupp, MD, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. “The combination of administrative interventions, engineering improvements, and personal protective equipment is very effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in the workplace.”

Many physicians already wear masks at home, and this study “only reemphasized the importance of doing so,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, who recently reviewed studies about masks and COVID-19.

Home mask use provides “one more layer of protection that might help mitigate the risk of transmission to family members,” Tirupathi said. But it does not obviate the need to follow other preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper hygiene.

But Rupp, whose advice on how healthcare workers can protect their families was recently highlighted by the American Medical Association, isn’t convinced. He said he won’t be adding home mask use to his list of recommendations. “It would be intrusive, cumbersome, and impractical to wear a mask in the home setting,” Rupp said in an interview.

However, when out in the community, all family members must protect one another by practicing social distancing, wearing masks, and practicing proper hand hygiene. “I also think that it is a good idea to have some masks on hand in case anyone does develop symptoms in the household and to wear them if a family member falls ill ― at least until testing can confirm COVID-19,” Rupp said. “If a family member does fall ill, masks for the ill person as well as the well persons would be indicated along with other home quarantine measures.”

For her part, Noble, who has provided guidance about proper mask use, said that targeted use of masks at home, such as around older visiting relatives or other more vulnerable family members, may be more realistic than continuous in-home use.

When a household member becomes ill, recommendations for preventing disease spread include having a sick family member sleep in a separate bedroom, using a separate bathroom, and wearing a mask when within 6 feet of other household members. They also should avoid sharing meals. “For a household member who is a medical provider, to follow these self-isolation precautions while at home for months on end would have a significant emotional toll,” Noble said in an email. “With no end in sight for the pandemic, perpetual mask use in both the private and public sphere strikes me as overwhelming ― I write this near the end of my 10-hour shift wearing both an N95 and surgical mask and counting the minutes before I can take them off!”

A limitation of the study was its reliance on telephone interviews, which are subject to recall bias, the authors note.

The study was funded by the Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wearing a mask at home, even when everyone is feeling fine, might reduce the risk of frontline healthcare workers transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infection to their families, a recent study from China suggests. But the benefits might not outweigh the costs, according to several physicians interviewed.

“My gut reaction is that home mask use for healthcare workers would place an inordinately high burden on those healthcare workers and their families,” said Jeanne Noble, MD, an emergency care physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “Wearing a mask for a 10-hour shift already represents significant physical discomfort, causing sores across the nose and behind the ears. The emotional toll of the physical distance that comes with mask use, with limited facial expression, is also quite real.”

The suggested benefit of home mask use comes from research published online May 28 in BMJ Global Health. To assess predictors of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Yu Wang, MD, of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 124 families in Beijing in which there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 as of February 21. The researchers surveyed family members by telephone about household hygiene and behaviors during the pandemic to examine risk factors for transmission.

During the 2 weeks following onset of the primary case, secondary transmission occurred in 41 families. Overall, 77 of 335 family members developed COVID-19.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis found that in households in which family members wore masks at home before the first person became ill, there was less likelihood of transmission of disease to a family member, compared with families in which no one wore a mask prior to illness onset.

“Facemasks were 79% effective and disinfection was 77% effective in preventing transmission,” the researchers report, “whilst close frequent contact in the household increased the risk of transmission 18 times, and diarrhea in the index patient increased the risk by four times.

However, wearing masks after symptom onset was not protective, according to the analysis. The findings support “universal face mask use, and also provides guidance on risk reduction for families living with someone in quarantine or isolation, and families of health workers, who may face ongoing risk,” the authors write.

Still, other precautions may be more important, experts say.

“I think by far the best way for healthcare professionals to protect their families is to carefully employ appropriate infection prevention measures at work,” said Mark E. Rupp, MD, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. “The combination of administrative interventions, engineering improvements, and personal protective equipment is very effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in the workplace.”

Many physicians already wear masks at home, and this study “only reemphasized the importance of doing so,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, who recently reviewed studies about masks and COVID-19.

Home mask use provides “one more layer of protection that might help mitigate the risk of transmission to family members,” Tirupathi said. But it does not obviate the need to follow other preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper hygiene.

But Rupp, whose advice on how healthcare workers can protect their families was recently highlighted by the American Medical Association, isn’t convinced. He said he won’t be adding home mask use to his list of recommendations. “It would be intrusive, cumbersome, and impractical to wear a mask in the home setting,” Rupp said in an interview.

However, when out in the community, all family members must protect one another by practicing social distancing, wearing masks, and practicing proper hand hygiene. “I also think that it is a good idea to have some masks on hand in case anyone does develop symptoms in the household and to wear them if a family member falls ill ― at least until testing can confirm COVID-19,” Rupp said. “If a family member does fall ill, masks for the ill person as well as the well persons would be indicated along with other home quarantine measures.”

For her part, Noble, who has provided guidance about proper mask use, said that targeted use of masks at home, such as around older visiting relatives or other more vulnerable family members, may be more realistic than continuous in-home use.

When a household member becomes ill, recommendations for preventing disease spread include having a sick family member sleep in a separate bedroom, using a separate bathroom, and wearing a mask when within 6 feet of other household members. They also should avoid sharing meals. “For a household member who is a medical provider, to follow these self-isolation precautions while at home for months on end would have a significant emotional toll,” Noble said in an email. “With no end in sight for the pandemic, perpetual mask use in both the private and public sphere strikes me as overwhelming ― I write this near the end of my 10-hour shift wearing both an N95 and surgical mask and counting the minutes before I can take them off!”

A limitation of the study was its reliance on telephone interviews, which are subject to recall bias, the authors note.

The study was funded by the Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wearing a mask at home, even when everyone is feeling fine, might reduce the risk of frontline healthcare workers transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infection to their families, a recent study from China suggests. But the benefits might not outweigh the costs, according to several physicians interviewed.

“My gut reaction is that home mask use for healthcare workers would place an inordinately high burden on those healthcare workers and their families,” said Jeanne Noble, MD, an emergency care physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “Wearing a mask for a 10-hour shift already represents significant physical discomfort, causing sores across the nose and behind the ears. The emotional toll of the physical distance that comes with mask use, with limited facial expression, is also quite real.”

The suggested benefit of home mask use comes from research published online May 28 in BMJ Global Health. To assess predictors of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Yu Wang, MD, of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 124 families in Beijing in which there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 as of February 21. The researchers surveyed family members by telephone about household hygiene and behaviors during the pandemic to examine risk factors for transmission.

During the 2 weeks following onset of the primary case, secondary transmission occurred in 41 families. Overall, 77 of 335 family members developed COVID-19.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis found that in households in which family members wore masks at home before the first person became ill, there was less likelihood of transmission of disease to a family member, compared with families in which no one wore a mask prior to illness onset.

“Facemasks were 79% effective and disinfection was 77% effective in preventing transmission,” the researchers report, “whilst close frequent contact in the household increased the risk of transmission 18 times, and diarrhea in the index patient increased the risk by four times.

However, wearing masks after symptom onset was not protective, according to the analysis. The findings support “universal face mask use, and also provides guidance on risk reduction for families living with someone in quarantine or isolation, and families of health workers, who may face ongoing risk,” the authors write.

Still, other precautions may be more important, experts say.

“I think by far the best way for healthcare professionals to protect their families is to carefully employ appropriate infection prevention measures at work,” said Mark E. Rupp, MD, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. “The combination of administrative interventions, engineering improvements, and personal protective equipment is very effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in the workplace.”

Many physicians already wear masks at home, and this study “only reemphasized the importance of doing so,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, who recently reviewed studies about masks and COVID-19.

Home mask use provides “one more layer of protection that might help mitigate the risk of transmission to family members,” Tirupathi said. But it does not obviate the need to follow other preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper hygiene.

But Rupp, whose advice on how healthcare workers can protect their families was recently highlighted by the American Medical Association, isn’t convinced. He said he won’t be adding home mask use to his list of recommendations. “It would be intrusive, cumbersome, and impractical to wear a mask in the home setting,” Rupp said in an interview.

However, when out in the community, all family members must protect one another by practicing social distancing, wearing masks, and practicing proper hand hygiene. “I also think that it is a good idea to have some masks on hand in case anyone does develop symptoms in the household and to wear them if a family member falls ill ― at least until testing can confirm COVID-19,” Rupp said. “If a family member does fall ill, masks for the ill person as well as the well persons would be indicated along with other home quarantine measures.”

For her part, Noble, who has provided guidance about proper mask use, said that targeted use of masks at home, such as around older visiting relatives or other more vulnerable family members, may be more realistic than continuous in-home use.

When a household member becomes ill, recommendations for preventing disease spread include having a sick family member sleep in a separate bedroom, using a separate bathroom, and wearing a mask when within 6 feet of other household members. They also should avoid sharing meals. “For a household member who is a medical provider, to follow these self-isolation precautions while at home for months on end would have a significant emotional toll,” Noble said in an email. “With no end in sight for the pandemic, perpetual mask use in both the private and public sphere strikes me as overwhelming ― I write this near the end of my 10-hour shift wearing both an N95 and surgical mask and counting the minutes before I can take them off!”

A limitation of the study was its reliance on telephone interviews, which are subject to recall bias, the authors note.

The study was funded by the Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment is significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, according to a Finnish population-based study published in JAMA. The findings may lead to changes in clinical practice, particularly for infants who may be born full term.

After adjustment for variables such as maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, any lifetime mental disorder diagnosis, and gestational age at birth, exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, with a hazard ratio of 1.33. Among children born at term, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.47. Among preterm children, the hazard ratio was not significant.

“Although benefits of this therapy outweigh risks in the most vulnerable infants, this may not be true for all infants,” wrote Sara B. DeMauro, MD, an attending neonatologist and program director of the neonatal follow-up program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an editorial also published in JAMA. “Recommendations to administer this therapy to broader populations of pregnant women may need to be reexamined until sufficient safety data, particularly among more mature infants, are available.”

Corticosteroid treatment to accelerate fetal maturation is standard care before 34 weeks’ gestation when there is a likelihood of delivery within 7 days, and studies have found that providing this therapy reduces the risk for respiratory problems when administered beyond 34 weeks. In 2016, updates to U.S. guidelines allowed for the use of corticosteroid treatment between 34 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days when women are at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days and have not received a previous course of antenatal corticosteroids.

The data from Finland indicate that “a significant number of very preterm children who might have benefited from this treatment did not receive it,” Dr. DeMauro wrote. At the same time, “45% of steroid-exposed infants were delivered at term. In these infants, minor short-term benefit may have been outweighed by significant longer-term risks. These data elucidate both the continuing struggle to accurately predict preterm birth and the incomplete uptake of an effective therapy that is beneficial when administered to the correct patients.”
 

Pause expanded use?

“Since the recommendations came out to expand the use of corticosteroids for preterm labor up until 37 weeks gestational age, my practice has incorporated these guidelines,” said Santina Wheat, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “We have incorporated the guidelines though with the understanding that the benefits outweigh the risk. This article indicates that we may have been wrong in that understanding.” Although the association does not establish that the treatment causes mental and behavioral disorders, it “raises the question of whether we should halt this practice until additional information can be gathered,” noted Dr. Wheat, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

When administered before delivery of a very premature infant, corticosteroid therapy accelerates fetal lung maturation and helps prevent neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome, and brain injury. Investigators demonstrated the benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in 1972, and the treatment – “one of the most important advances in perinatal care” – became widely used in the 1990s, Dr. DeMauro said.

To examine whether treatment exposure is associated with a risk of childhood mental and behavioral disorders and whether the risk is similar in infants born at term and preterm, Katri Räikkönen, PhD, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective study of more than 670,000 children.

The researchers identified all singleton pregnancies ending in a live birth in Finland during Jan. 1, 2006–Dec.31, 2017. In addition, they identified all consecutive maternal sibling pairs born at term, including sibling pairs discordant for maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment exposure and sibling pairs concordant for treatment exposure or nonexposure. The investigators identified diagnoses of childhood mental and behavioral disorders using the Finnish Care Register for Health Care using ICD-10 codes on hospital inpatient and outpatient treatments by physicians in specialized medical care.
 

A range of disorders

In all, 670,097 infants with a median follow-up duration of 5.8 years were included in the analysis, and 14,868 (2.22%) were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. Of the treatment-exposed children, about 45% were born at term. Of the nonexposed children, approximately 97% were born at term. Cumulative incidence rates for any mental and behavioral disorder were significantly higher for treatment-exposed children, compared with nonexposed children, in the entire cohort (12.01% vs. 6.45%; P less than .001) and in term-born children (8.89% vs. 6.31%; P less than .001).

In preterm children, the incidence rate of any mental and behavioral disorder was significantly higher among those with treatment exposure (14.59% vs. 10.71%; P less than .001). Associations persisted when the investigators focused on 241,621 sibling pairs, “suggesting that unmeasured familial confounding did not explain these associations,” the authors said.

“[In] the entire cohort and term-born children, treatment exposure ... was significantly associated with psychological development disorders; attention-deficit/hyperactivity or conduct disorders; mixed disorders of conduct and emotions, emotional disorders, disorders of social functioning or tic disorders; other behavioral or emotional disorders; and sleep disorders,” Dr. Räikkönen and colleagues reported. Among preterm-born, treatment-exposed children, the adjusted hazard ratio was significantly lower for intellectual disability and higher for sleep disorders.

Dr. DeMauro noted potential confounders in this observational study, including abnormal pregnancy events that lead clinicians to administer steroids. Such events “predispose the exposed children to adverse cognitive outcomes,” suggests some research. “Alternately, after a pregnancy at high risk for preterm delivery, families may perceive their children as vulnerable and therefore may be more likely to seek care and earlier diagnosis of mental or behavioral disorders,” Dr. DeMauro said.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, European Commission, Foundation for Pediatric Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. The investigators and Dr. DeMauro had no conflict of interest disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Räikkönen K et al. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1924-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3937.

Exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment is significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, according to a Finnish population-based study published in JAMA. The findings may lead to changes in clinical practice, particularly for infants who may be born full term.

After adjustment for variables such as maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, any lifetime mental disorder diagnosis, and gestational age at birth, exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, with a hazard ratio of 1.33. Among children born at term, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.47. Among preterm children, the hazard ratio was not significant.

“Although benefits of this therapy outweigh risks in the most vulnerable infants, this may not be true for all infants,” wrote Sara B. DeMauro, MD, an attending neonatologist and program director of the neonatal follow-up program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an editorial also published in JAMA. “Recommendations to administer this therapy to broader populations of pregnant women may need to be reexamined until sufficient safety data, particularly among more mature infants, are available.”

Corticosteroid treatment to accelerate fetal maturation is standard care before 34 weeks’ gestation when there is a likelihood of delivery within 7 days, and studies have found that providing this therapy reduces the risk for respiratory problems when administered beyond 34 weeks. In 2016, updates to U.S. guidelines allowed for the use of corticosteroid treatment between 34 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days when women are at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days and have not received a previous course of antenatal corticosteroids.

The data from Finland indicate that “a significant number of very preterm children who might have benefited from this treatment did not receive it,” Dr. DeMauro wrote. At the same time, “45% of steroid-exposed infants were delivered at term. In these infants, minor short-term benefit may have been outweighed by significant longer-term risks. These data elucidate both the continuing struggle to accurately predict preterm birth and the incomplete uptake of an effective therapy that is beneficial when administered to the correct patients.”
 

Pause expanded use?

“Since the recommendations came out to expand the use of corticosteroids for preterm labor up until 37 weeks gestational age, my practice has incorporated these guidelines,” said Santina Wheat, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “We have incorporated the guidelines though with the understanding that the benefits outweigh the risk. This article indicates that we may have been wrong in that understanding.” Although the association does not establish that the treatment causes mental and behavioral disorders, it “raises the question of whether we should halt this practice until additional information can be gathered,” noted Dr. Wheat, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

When administered before delivery of a very premature infant, corticosteroid therapy accelerates fetal lung maturation and helps prevent neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome, and brain injury. Investigators demonstrated the benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in 1972, and the treatment – “one of the most important advances in perinatal care” – became widely used in the 1990s, Dr. DeMauro said.

To examine whether treatment exposure is associated with a risk of childhood mental and behavioral disorders and whether the risk is similar in infants born at term and preterm, Katri Räikkönen, PhD, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective study of more than 670,000 children.

The researchers identified all singleton pregnancies ending in a live birth in Finland during Jan. 1, 2006–Dec.31, 2017. In addition, they identified all consecutive maternal sibling pairs born at term, including sibling pairs discordant for maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment exposure and sibling pairs concordant for treatment exposure or nonexposure. The investigators identified diagnoses of childhood mental and behavioral disorders using the Finnish Care Register for Health Care using ICD-10 codes on hospital inpatient and outpatient treatments by physicians in specialized medical care.
 

A range of disorders

In all, 670,097 infants with a median follow-up duration of 5.8 years were included in the analysis, and 14,868 (2.22%) were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. Of the treatment-exposed children, about 45% were born at term. Of the nonexposed children, approximately 97% were born at term. Cumulative incidence rates for any mental and behavioral disorder were significantly higher for treatment-exposed children, compared with nonexposed children, in the entire cohort (12.01% vs. 6.45%; P less than .001) and in term-born children (8.89% vs. 6.31%; P less than .001).

In preterm children, the incidence rate of any mental and behavioral disorder was significantly higher among those with treatment exposure (14.59% vs. 10.71%; P less than .001). Associations persisted when the investigators focused on 241,621 sibling pairs, “suggesting that unmeasured familial confounding did not explain these associations,” the authors said.

“[In] the entire cohort and term-born children, treatment exposure ... was significantly associated with psychological development disorders; attention-deficit/hyperactivity or conduct disorders; mixed disorders of conduct and emotions, emotional disorders, disorders of social functioning or tic disorders; other behavioral or emotional disorders; and sleep disorders,” Dr. Räikkönen and colleagues reported. Among preterm-born, treatment-exposed children, the adjusted hazard ratio was significantly lower for intellectual disability and higher for sleep disorders.

Dr. DeMauro noted potential confounders in this observational study, including abnormal pregnancy events that lead clinicians to administer steroids. Such events “predispose the exposed children to adverse cognitive outcomes,” suggests some research. “Alternately, after a pregnancy at high risk for preterm delivery, families may perceive their children as vulnerable and therefore may be more likely to seek care and earlier diagnosis of mental or behavioral disorders,” Dr. DeMauro said.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, European Commission, Foundation for Pediatric Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. The investigators and Dr. DeMauro had no conflict of interest disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Räikkönen K et al. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1924-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3937.

Exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment is significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, according to a Finnish population-based study published in JAMA. The findings may lead to changes in clinical practice, particularly for infants who may be born full term.

After adjustment for variables such as maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, any lifetime mental disorder diagnosis, and gestational age at birth, exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, with a hazard ratio of 1.33. Among children born at term, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.47. Among preterm children, the hazard ratio was not significant.

“Although benefits of this therapy outweigh risks in the most vulnerable infants, this may not be true for all infants,” wrote Sara B. DeMauro, MD, an attending neonatologist and program director of the neonatal follow-up program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an editorial also published in JAMA. “Recommendations to administer this therapy to broader populations of pregnant women may need to be reexamined until sufficient safety data, particularly among more mature infants, are available.”

Corticosteroid treatment to accelerate fetal maturation is standard care before 34 weeks’ gestation when there is a likelihood of delivery within 7 days, and studies have found that providing this therapy reduces the risk for respiratory problems when administered beyond 34 weeks. In 2016, updates to U.S. guidelines allowed for the use of corticosteroid treatment between 34 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days when women are at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days and have not received a previous course of antenatal corticosteroids.

The data from Finland indicate that “a significant number of very preterm children who might have benefited from this treatment did not receive it,” Dr. DeMauro wrote. At the same time, “45% of steroid-exposed infants were delivered at term. In these infants, minor short-term benefit may have been outweighed by significant longer-term risks. These data elucidate both the continuing struggle to accurately predict preterm birth and the incomplete uptake of an effective therapy that is beneficial when administered to the correct patients.”
 

Pause expanded use?

“Since the recommendations came out to expand the use of corticosteroids for preterm labor up until 37 weeks gestational age, my practice has incorporated these guidelines,” said Santina Wheat, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “We have incorporated the guidelines though with the understanding that the benefits outweigh the risk. This article indicates that we may have been wrong in that understanding.” Although the association does not establish that the treatment causes mental and behavioral disorders, it “raises the question of whether we should halt this practice until additional information can be gathered,” noted Dr. Wheat, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

When administered before delivery of a very premature infant, corticosteroid therapy accelerates fetal lung maturation and helps prevent neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome, and brain injury. Investigators demonstrated the benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in 1972, and the treatment – “one of the most important advances in perinatal care” – became widely used in the 1990s, Dr. DeMauro said.

To examine whether treatment exposure is associated with a risk of childhood mental and behavioral disorders and whether the risk is similar in infants born at term and preterm, Katri Räikkönen, PhD, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective study of more than 670,000 children.

The researchers identified all singleton pregnancies ending in a live birth in Finland during Jan. 1, 2006–Dec.31, 2017. In addition, they identified all consecutive maternal sibling pairs born at term, including sibling pairs discordant for maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment exposure and sibling pairs concordant for treatment exposure or nonexposure. The investigators identified diagnoses of childhood mental and behavioral disorders using the Finnish Care Register for Health Care using ICD-10 codes on hospital inpatient and outpatient treatments by physicians in specialized medical care.
 

A range of disorders

In all, 670,097 infants with a median follow-up duration of 5.8 years were included in the analysis, and 14,868 (2.22%) were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. Of the treatment-exposed children, about 45% were born at term. Of the nonexposed children, approximately 97% were born at term. Cumulative incidence rates for any mental and behavioral disorder were significantly higher for treatment-exposed children, compared with nonexposed children, in the entire cohort (12.01% vs. 6.45%; P less than .001) and in term-born children (8.89% vs. 6.31%; P less than .001).

In preterm children, the incidence rate of any mental and behavioral disorder was significantly higher among those with treatment exposure (14.59% vs. 10.71%; P less than .001). Associations persisted when the investigators focused on 241,621 sibling pairs, “suggesting that unmeasured familial confounding did not explain these associations,” the authors said.

“[In] the entire cohort and term-born children, treatment exposure ... was significantly associated with psychological development disorders; attention-deficit/hyperactivity or conduct disorders; mixed disorders of conduct and emotions, emotional disorders, disorders of social functioning or tic disorders; other behavioral or emotional disorders; and sleep disorders,” Dr. Räikkönen and colleagues reported. Among preterm-born, treatment-exposed children, the adjusted hazard ratio was significantly lower for intellectual disability and higher for sleep disorders.

Dr. DeMauro noted potential confounders in this observational study, including abnormal pregnancy events that lead clinicians to administer steroids. Such events “predispose the exposed children to adverse cognitive outcomes,” suggests some research. “Alternately, after a pregnancy at high risk for preterm delivery, families may perceive their children as vulnerable and therefore may be more likely to seek care and earlier diagnosis of mental or behavioral disorders,” Dr. DeMauro said.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, European Commission, Foundation for Pediatric Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. The investigators and Dr. DeMauro had no conflict of interest disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Räikkönen K et al. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1924-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3937.

For well over a decade the elevated risk of pneumonia from inhaled corticosteroids for moderate to very severe COPD has been well documented, although the pneumonia risks from different types of ICSs have not been well understood.

Researchers from Taiwan have taken a step in to investigate this question with a nationwide cohort study that reported inhalers with budesonide and beclomethasone may have a lower pneumonia risk than that of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol inhalers (CHEST. 2020;157:117-29).

The study is the first to include beclomethasone-containing inhalers in a comparison of ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) fixed combinations to evaluate pneumonia risk, along with dose and drug properties, wrote Ting-Yu Chang, MS, of the Graduate Institute of Clinical Pharmacology at the College of Medicine, National Taiwan University in Taipei, and colleagues.

The study evaluated 42,393 people with COPD in the National Health Insurance Research Database who got at least two continuous prescriptions for three different types of inhalers:

• Budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR).
• Beclomethasone/formoterol (BEC/FOR).
• Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FLU/SAL).

The study included patients aged 40 years and older who used a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or dry-powder inhaler (DPI) between January 2011 and June 2015.

Patient experience with adverse events (AEs) was a factor in risk stratification, Mr. Chang and colleagues noted. “For the comparison between the BEC/FOR MDI and FLU/SAL MDI, the lower risk associated with the BEC/FOR MDI was more prominent in patients without severe AE in the past year,” they wrote.

The study found that BUD/FOR DPI users had a 17% lower risk of severe pneumonia and a 12% lower risk of severe AEs than that of FLU/SAL DPI users. The risk difference in pneumonia remained significant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose, but the spread for AEs didn’t.

BEC/FOR MDI users were 31% less likely to get severe pneumonia and 18% less likely to have severe AEs than were FLU/SAL MDI users, but that difference declined and became nonsignificant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose.

The study also found that a high average daily dose (> 500 mcg/d) of FLU/SAL MDI carried a 66% greater risk of severe pneumonia, compared with that of low-dose users. Also, medium-dose BEC/FOR MDI users (FLU equivalent 299-499 mcg/d) had a 38% greater risk of severe pneumonia than low-dose (< 200 mcg/d) users.

The variable pneumonia risks may be linked to each ICS’s pharmacokinetics, specifically their distinct lipophilic properties, Mr. Chang and colleagues wrote. Fluticasone propionate is known to be more lipophilic than budesonide, and while beclomethasone is more lipophilic than both, as a prodrug it rapidly converts to lower lipophilicity upon contact with bronchial secretions. “In general, a lipophilic ICS has a longer retention time within the airway or lung tissue to exert local immunosuppression and reduce inflammation,” Mr. Chang and colleagues stated.

The Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology provided partial support for the study. Mr. Chang and colleagues have no relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Chang TY et al. CHEST. 2020;157:117-29.

For well over a decade the elevated risk of pneumonia from inhaled corticosteroids for moderate to very severe COPD has been well documented, although the pneumonia risks from different types of ICSs have not been well understood.

Researchers from Taiwan have taken a step in to investigate this question with a nationwide cohort study that reported inhalers with budesonide and beclomethasone may have a lower pneumonia risk than that of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol inhalers (CHEST. 2020;157:117-29).

The study is the first to include beclomethasone-containing inhalers in a comparison of ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) fixed combinations to evaluate pneumonia risk, along with dose and drug properties, wrote Ting-Yu Chang, MS, of the Graduate Institute of Clinical Pharmacology at the College of Medicine, National Taiwan University in Taipei, and colleagues.

The study evaluated 42,393 people with COPD in the National Health Insurance Research Database who got at least two continuous prescriptions for three different types of inhalers:

• Budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR).
• Beclomethasone/formoterol (BEC/FOR).
• Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FLU/SAL).

The study included patients aged 40 years and older who used a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or dry-powder inhaler (DPI) between January 2011 and June 2015.

Patient experience with adverse events (AEs) was a factor in risk stratification, Mr. Chang and colleagues noted. “For the comparison between the BEC/FOR MDI and FLU/SAL MDI, the lower risk associated with the BEC/FOR MDI was more prominent in patients without severe AE in the past year,” they wrote.

The study found that BUD/FOR DPI users had a 17% lower risk of severe pneumonia and a 12% lower risk of severe AEs than that of FLU/SAL DPI users. The risk difference in pneumonia remained significant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose, but the spread for AEs didn’t.

BEC/FOR MDI users were 31% less likely to get severe pneumonia and 18% less likely to have severe AEs than were FLU/SAL MDI users, but that difference declined and became nonsignificant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose.

The study also found that a high average daily dose (> 500 mcg/d) of FLU/SAL MDI carried a 66% greater risk of severe pneumonia, compared with that of low-dose users. Also, medium-dose BEC/FOR MDI users (FLU equivalent 299-499 mcg/d) had a 38% greater risk of severe pneumonia than low-dose (< 200 mcg/d) users.

The variable pneumonia risks may be linked to each ICS’s pharmacokinetics, specifically their distinct lipophilic properties, Mr. Chang and colleagues wrote. Fluticasone propionate is known to be more lipophilic than budesonide, and while beclomethasone is more lipophilic than both, as a prodrug it rapidly converts to lower lipophilicity upon contact with bronchial secretions. “In general, a lipophilic ICS has a longer retention time within the airway or lung tissue to exert local immunosuppression and reduce inflammation,” Mr. Chang and colleagues stated.

The Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology provided partial support for the study. Mr. Chang and colleagues have no relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Chang TY et al. CHEST. 2020;157:117-29.

For well over a decade the elevated risk of pneumonia from inhaled corticosteroids for moderate to very severe COPD has been well documented, although the pneumonia risks from different types of ICSs have not been well understood.

Researchers from Taiwan have taken a step in to investigate this question with a nationwide cohort study that reported inhalers with budesonide and beclomethasone may have a lower pneumonia risk than that of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol inhalers (CHEST. 2020;157:117-29).

The study is the first to include beclomethasone-containing inhalers in a comparison of ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) fixed combinations to evaluate pneumonia risk, along with dose and drug properties, wrote Ting-Yu Chang, MS, of the Graduate Institute of Clinical Pharmacology at the College of Medicine, National Taiwan University in Taipei, and colleagues.

The study evaluated 42,393 people with COPD in the National Health Insurance Research Database who got at least two continuous prescriptions for three different types of inhalers:

• Budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR).
• Beclomethasone/formoterol (BEC/FOR).
• Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FLU/SAL).

The study included patients aged 40 years and older who used a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or dry-powder inhaler (DPI) between January 2011 and June 2015.

Patient experience with adverse events (AEs) was a factor in risk stratification, Mr. Chang and colleagues noted. “For the comparison between the BEC/FOR MDI and FLU/SAL MDI, the lower risk associated with the BEC/FOR MDI was more prominent in patients without severe AE in the past year,” they wrote.

The study found that BUD/FOR DPI users had a 17% lower risk of severe pneumonia and a 12% lower risk of severe AEs than that of FLU/SAL DPI users. The risk difference in pneumonia remained significant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose, but the spread for AEs didn’t.

BEC/FOR MDI users were 31% less likely to get severe pneumonia and 18% less likely to have severe AEs than were FLU/SAL MDI users, but that difference declined and became nonsignificant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose.

The study also found that a high average daily dose (> 500 mcg/d) of FLU/SAL MDI carried a 66% greater risk of severe pneumonia, compared with that of low-dose users. Also, medium-dose BEC/FOR MDI users (FLU equivalent 299-499 mcg/d) had a 38% greater risk of severe pneumonia than low-dose (< 200 mcg/d) users.

The variable pneumonia risks may be linked to each ICS’s pharmacokinetics, specifically their distinct lipophilic properties, Mr. Chang and colleagues wrote. Fluticasone propionate is known to be more lipophilic than budesonide, and while beclomethasone is more lipophilic than both, as a prodrug it rapidly converts to lower lipophilicity upon contact with bronchial secretions. “In general, a lipophilic ICS has a longer retention time within the airway or lung tissue to exert local immunosuppression and reduce inflammation,” Mr. Chang and colleagues stated.

The Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology provided partial support for the study. Mr. Chang and colleagues have no relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Chang TY et al. CHEST. 2020;157:117-29.

Among patients with COPD, the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia confers a nearly 30% increased risk of hospitalization, results from a pooled analysis of four studies showed.

“Mechanistic studies are still warranted to better elucidate how IgG and other immunoglobulins, in particular IgA, may contribute to the local airway host defense,” researchers led by Fernando Sergio Leitao Filho, MD, PhD, wrote in a study published in Chest (2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058). “Nevertheless, our results raise the possibility that, in select COPD patients, IgG replacement therapy may be effective in reducing the risk of COPD hospitalizations. Given the growing rate of COPD hospitalization in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is a pressing need for a large well-designed trial to test this hypothesis.”

In an effort to evaluate the effect of IgG levels on the cumulative incidence of COPD hospitalizations, Dr. Leitao Filho, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues drew from 2,259 patients who participated in four different trials: Azithromycin for Prevention of Exacerbations of COPD (MACRO), Simvastatin for the Prevention of Exacerbations in Moderate and Severe COPD (STATCOPE), the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT), and COPD Activity: Serotonin Transporter, Cytokines and Depression (CASCADE). The mean baseline age of study participants was 66 years, and 641 (28.4%) had hypogammaglobulinemia, which was defined as having a serum IgG levels of less than 7.0 g/L, while the remainder had normal IgG levels.

The pooled meta-analysis, which is believed to be the largest of its kind, revealed that the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia was associated with an incidence of COPD hospitalizations that was 1.29-fold higher than that observed among participants who had normal IgG levels (P = .01). The incidence was even higher among patients with prior COPD admissions (pooled subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.58; P < .01), yet the risk of COPD admissions was similar between IgG groups in patients with no prior hospitalizations (pooled SHR, 1.15; P = .34). Patients with hypogammaglobulinemia also showed significantly higher rates of COPD hospitalizations per person-year, compared with their counterparts who had normal IgG levels (0.48 vs. 0.29, respectively; P < .001.)

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that they measured serum IgG levels only at baseline “when participants were clinically stable; thus, the variability of IgG levels in a given individual over time and during the course of an AECOPD [severe acute exacerbation of COPD] is uncertain. Secondly, clinical data on corticosteroid use (formulations, dose, and length of use) were not readily available. However, systemic steroid use (one or more courses due to AECOPD prior to study entry) was accounted for in our analyses.”

The MACRO, STATCOPE, LOTT trials, and the CASCADE cohort were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and Department of Health & Human Services. The current study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and BC Lung Association. The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Leitao Filho SF et al. Chest. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058.

Among patients with COPD, the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia confers a nearly 30% increased risk of hospitalization, results from a pooled analysis of four studies showed.

“Mechanistic studies are still warranted to better elucidate how IgG and other immunoglobulins, in particular IgA, may contribute to the local airway host defense,” researchers led by Fernando Sergio Leitao Filho, MD, PhD, wrote in a study published in Chest (2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058). “Nevertheless, our results raise the possibility that, in select COPD patients, IgG replacement therapy may be effective in reducing the risk of COPD hospitalizations. Given the growing rate of COPD hospitalization in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is a pressing need for a large well-designed trial to test this hypothesis.”

In an effort to evaluate the effect of IgG levels on the cumulative incidence of COPD hospitalizations, Dr. Leitao Filho, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues drew from 2,259 patients who participated in four different trials: Azithromycin for Prevention of Exacerbations of COPD (MACRO), Simvastatin for the Prevention of Exacerbations in Moderate and Severe COPD (STATCOPE), the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT), and COPD Activity: Serotonin Transporter, Cytokines and Depression (CASCADE). The mean baseline age of study participants was 66 years, and 641 (28.4%) had hypogammaglobulinemia, which was defined as having a serum IgG levels of less than 7.0 g/L, while the remainder had normal IgG levels.

The pooled meta-analysis, which is believed to be the largest of its kind, revealed that the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia was associated with an incidence of COPD hospitalizations that was 1.29-fold higher than that observed among participants who had normal IgG levels (P = .01). The incidence was even higher among patients with prior COPD admissions (pooled subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.58; P < .01), yet the risk of COPD admissions was similar between IgG groups in patients with no prior hospitalizations (pooled SHR, 1.15; P = .34). Patients with hypogammaglobulinemia also showed significantly higher rates of COPD hospitalizations per person-year, compared with their counterparts who had normal IgG levels (0.48 vs. 0.29, respectively; P < .001.)

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that they measured serum IgG levels only at baseline “when participants were clinically stable; thus, the variability of IgG levels in a given individual over time and during the course of an AECOPD [severe acute exacerbation of COPD] is uncertain. Secondly, clinical data on corticosteroid use (formulations, dose, and length of use) were not readily available. However, systemic steroid use (one or more courses due to AECOPD prior to study entry) was accounted for in our analyses.”

The MACRO, STATCOPE, LOTT trials, and the CASCADE cohort were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and Department of Health & Human Services. The current study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and BC Lung Association. The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Leitao Filho SF et al. Chest. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058.

Among patients with COPD, the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia confers a nearly 30% increased risk of hospitalization, results from a pooled analysis of four studies showed.

“Mechanistic studies are still warranted to better elucidate how IgG and other immunoglobulins, in particular IgA, may contribute to the local airway host defense,” researchers led by Fernando Sergio Leitao Filho, MD, PhD, wrote in a study published in Chest (2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058). “Nevertheless, our results raise the possibility that, in select COPD patients, IgG replacement therapy may be effective in reducing the risk of COPD hospitalizations. Given the growing rate of COPD hospitalization in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is a pressing need for a large well-designed trial to test this hypothesis.”

In an effort to evaluate the effect of IgG levels on the cumulative incidence of COPD hospitalizations, Dr. Leitao Filho, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues drew from 2,259 patients who participated in four different trials: Azithromycin for Prevention of Exacerbations of COPD (MACRO), Simvastatin for the Prevention of Exacerbations in Moderate and Severe COPD (STATCOPE), the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT), and COPD Activity: Serotonin Transporter, Cytokines and Depression (CASCADE). The mean baseline age of study participants was 66 years, and 641 (28.4%) had hypogammaglobulinemia, which was defined as having a serum IgG levels of less than 7.0 g/L, while the remainder had normal IgG levels.

The pooled meta-analysis, which is believed to be the largest of its kind, revealed that the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia was associated with an incidence of COPD hospitalizations that was 1.29-fold higher than that observed among participants who had normal IgG levels (P = .01). The incidence was even higher among patients with prior COPD admissions (pooled subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.58; P < .01), yet the risk of COPD admissions was similar between IgG groups in patients with no prior hospitalizations (pooled SHR, 1.15; P = .34). Patients with hypogammaglobulinemia also showed significantly higher rates of COPD hospitalizations per person-year, compared with their counterparts who had normal IgG levels (0.48 vs. 0.29, respectively; P < .001.)

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that they measured serum IgG levels only at baseline “when participants were clinically stable; thus, the variability of IgG levels in a given individual over time and during the course of an AECOPD [severe acute exacerbation of COPD] is uncertain. Secondly, clinical data on corticosteroid use (formulations, dose, and length of use) were not readily available. However, systemic steroid use (one or more courses due to AECOPD prior to study entry) was accounted for in our analyses.”

The MACRO, STATCOPE, LOTT trials, and the CASCADE cohort were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and Department of Health & Human Services. The current study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and BC Lung Association. The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Leitao Filho SF et al. Chest. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058.

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.

“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.

It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.

“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”

Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.

The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.

The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.

The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.

Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.

“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.

It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.

“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”

Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.

The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.

The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.

The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.

Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.

“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.

It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.

“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”

Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.

The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.

The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.

The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.

Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.

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

Not only does the use of e-cigarettes not help cigarette smokers who are unmotivated to quit, it has the opposite effect, according to results from a new study.

6okean/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“In our study, people vaping in addition to smoking actually started smoking more,” said study lead investigator Nancy Anoruo, MD, from the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester.

This is “completely contradictory to what the e-cigarette manufacturers are telling us,” she told this news organization.

In their study, Dr. Anoruo and her colleagues looked at whether people were more likely to quit if they smoked e-cigarettes in addition to conventional cigarettes. The research is a substudy of the ongoing Take a Break project, funded by the National Institutes of Health, which is assessing whether a smoking-cessation motivation app helps smokers quit.

In a cohort of 405 smokers who were unmotivated to quit, 248 were defined as dual smokers after responding “yes” to “ever having used” e-cigarettes, and 157 were defined as traditional smokers who only smoked combustible cigarettes. The majority of participants, 82%, were white; 8.8% were black; and 49% were women.

More dual smokers than traditional smokers were younger than 40 years (27% vs. 16%; (P = .02), Dr. Anoruo reported during her virtual presentation at the American Thoracic Society 2020 International Conference.

The dual smokers reported smoking an average of 16 cigarettes a day, compared with 14 a day for the traditional smokers.

All the smokers were encouraged to consider a 3-week period of abstinence from combustible cigarettes. At the end of that period, the researchers compared outcomes reported by participants.
 

Abstinence challenge

Average abstinence intervals were shorter for dual smokers than for traditional smokers (0.93 vs. 1.8 days; P = .01). And dual smokers reported having a harder time quitting completely (6.3% vs. 13.0%; P = .02).

At 6-month follow-up, dual smokers were smoking more cigarettes than traditional smokers (daily average, 12.0 vs. 9.4; P = .04). And the reduction in cigarette use from baseline was smaller for dual smokers than for traditional smokers (21% vs. 33%; P = .04).

“E-cigarettes are not a special magic bullet to get people to quit smoking,” said Dr. Anoruo.

In this study, smoking cessation was defined as abstinence from combustible cigarettes, but that did not mean participants were abstinent from nicotine.

“If, at the end, they stopped smoking traditional cigarettes, we considered that successful smoking cessation,” Dr. Anoruo explained. This definition is in line with the school of thought that e-cigarettes are a harm-reduction tool.

“But we now know that e-cigarettes are not necessarily safe,” she added.

Still, it might be the lesser evil. “You end up taking in less dangerous chemicals, so we consider it quitting if you get off regular cigarettes,” she said.

“We would like to study the psychology of cigarette smokers to find out if they see e-cigarettes as a smoking-cessation aid,” Dr. Anoruo said, and to see if “their belief is driven by the advertising they see about e-cigarette use.”
 

A meager reduction

Similar results were shown last month in a study by Megan Piper, PhD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison and her colleagues, who reported that dual e-cigarette and combustible cigarette use “did not appear to be an effective path to cessation of combustible cigarettes.”

After 1 year, dual smokers smoked three cigarettes less each day than traditional smokers, which is “a meager reduction,” Dr. Piper said in a news release.

“Typically, you can’t have one foot in both camps. Most can’t be vaping and smoking and hope to quit smoking,” she added. “That sustained pattern is not going to help most people quit.”

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

Not only does the use of e-cigarettes not help cigarette smokers who are unmotivated to quit, it has the opposite effect, according to results from a new study.

6okean/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“In our study, people vaping in addition to smoking actually started smoking more,” said study lead investigator Nancy Anoruo, MD, from the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester.

This is “completely contradictory to what the e-cigarette manufacturers are telling us,” she told this news organization.

In their study, Dr. Anoruo and her colleagues looked at whether people were more likely to quit if they smoked e-cigarettes in addition to conventional cigarettes. The research is a substudy of the ongoing Take a Break project, funded by the National Institutes of Health, which is assessing whether a smoking-cessation motivation app helps smokers quit.

In a cohort of 405 smokers who were unmotivated to quit, 248 were defined as dual smokers after responding “yes” to “ever having used” e-cigarettes, and 157 were defined as traditional smokers who only smoked combustible cigarettes. The majority of participants, 82%, were white; 8.8% were black; and 49% were women.

More dual smokers than traditional smokers were younger than 40 years (27% vs. 16%; (P = .02), Dr. Anoruo reported during her virtual presentation at the American Thoracic Society 2020 International Conference.

The dual smokers reported smoking an average of 16 cigarettes a day, compared with 14 a day for the traditional smokers.

All the smokers were encouraged to consider a 3-week period of abstinence from combustible cigarettes. At the end of that period, the researchers compared outcomes reported by participants.
 

Abstinence challenge

Average abstinence intervals were shorter for dual smokers than for traditional smokers (0.93 vs. 1.8 days; P = .01). And dual smokers reported having a harder time quitting completely (6.3% vs. 13.0%; P = .02).

At 6-month follow-up, dual smokers were smoking more cigarettes than traditional smokers (daily average, 12.0 vs. 9.4; P = .04). And the reduction in cigarette use from baseline was smaller for dual smokers than for traditional smokers (21% vs. 33%; P = .04).

“E-cigarettes are not a special magic bullet to get people to quit smoking,” said Dr. Anoruo.

In this study, smoking cessation was defined as abstinence from combustible cigarettes, but that did not mean participants were abstinent from nicotine.

“If, at the end, they stopped smoking traditional cigarettes, we considered that successful smoking cessation,” Dr. Anoruo explained. This definition is in line with the school of thought that e-cigarettes are a harm-reduction tool.

“But we now know that e-cigarettes are not necessarily safe,” she added.

Still, it might be the lesser evil. “You end up taking in less dangerous chemicals, so we consider it quitting if you get off regular cigarettes,” she said.

“We would like to study the psychology of cigarette smokers to find out if they see e-cigarettes as a smoking-cessation aid,” Dr. Anoruo said, and to see if “their belief is driven by the advertising they see about e-cigarette use.”
 

A meager reduction

Similar results were shown last month in a study by Megan Piper, PhD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison and her colleagues, who reported that dual e-cigarette and combustible cigarette use “did not appear to be an effective path to cessation of combustible cigarettes.”

After 1 year, dual smokers smoked three cigarettes less each day than traditional smokers, which is “a meager reduction,” Dr. Piper said in a news release.

“Typically, you can’t have one foot in both camps. Most can’t be vaping and smoking and hope to quit smoking,” she added. “That sustained pattern is not going to help most people quit.”

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

Not only does the use of e-cigarettes not help cigarette smokers who are unmotivated to quit, it has the opposite effect, according to results from a new study.

6okean/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“In our study, people vaping in addition to smoking actually started smoking more,” said study lead investigator Nancy Anoruo, MD, from the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester.

This is “completely contradictory to what the e-cigarette manufacturers are telling us,” she told this news organization.

In their study, Dr. Anoruo and her colleagues looked at whether people were more likely to quit if they smoked e-cigarettes in addition to conventional cigarettes. The research is a substudy of the ongoing Take a Break project, funded by the National Institutes of Health, which is assessing whether a smoking-cessation motivation app helps smokers quit.

In a cohort of 405 smokers who were unmotivated to quit, 248 were defined as dual smokers after responding “yes” to “ever having used” e-cigarettes, and 157 were defined as traditional smokers who only smoked combustible cigarettes. The majority of participants, 82%, were white; 8.8% were black; and 49% were women.

More dual smokers than traditional smokers were younger than 40 years (27% vs. 16%; (P = .02), Dr. Anoruo reported during her virtual presentation at the American Thoracic Society 2020 International Conference.

The dual smokers reported smoking an average of 16 cigarettes a day, compared with 14 a day for the traditional smokers.

All the smokers were encouraged to consider a 3-week period of abstinence from combustible cigarettes. At the end of that period, the researchers compared outcomes reported by participants.
 

Abstinence challenge

Average abstinence intervals were shorter for dual smokers than for traditional smokers (0.93 vs. 1.8 days; P = .01). And dual smokers reported having a harder time quitting completely (6.3% vs. 13.0%; P = .02).

At 6-month follow-up, dual smokers were smoking more cigarettes than traditional smokers (daily average, 12.0 vs. 9.4; P = .04). And the reduction in cigarette use from baseline was smaller for dual smokers than for traditional smokers (21% vs. 33%; P = .04).

“E-cigarettes are not a special magic bullet to get people to quit smoking,” said Dr. Anoruo.

In this study, smoking cessation was defined as abstinence from combustible cigarettes, but that did not mean participants were abstinent from nicotine.

“If, at the end, they stopped smoking traditional cigarettes, we considered that successful smoking cessation,” Dr. Anoruo explained. This definition is in line with the school of thought that e-cigarettes are a harm-reduction tool.

“But we now know that e-cigarettes are not necessarily safe,” she added.

Still, it might be the lesser evil. “You end up taking in less dangerous chemicals, so we consider it quitting if you get off regular cigarettes,” she said.

“We would like to study the psychology of cigarette smokers to find out if they see e-cigarettes as a smoking-cessation aid,” Dr. Anoruo said, and to see if “their belief is driven by the advertising they see about e-cigarette use.”
 

A meager reduction

Similar results were shown last month in a study by Megan Piper, PhD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison and her colleagues, who reported that dual e-cigarette and combustible cigarette use “did not appear to be an effective path to cessation of combustible cigarettes.”

After 1 year, dual smokers smoked three cigarettes less each day than traditional smokers, which is “a meager reduction,” Dr. Piper said in a news release.

“Typically, you can’t have one foot in both camps. Most can’t be vaping and smoking and hope to quit smoking,” she added. “That sustained pattern is not going to help most people quit.”

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

Background: Multidrug-resistant TB is more difficult to treat than is drug-susceptible TB. The 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, based on very-low-quality and conditional evidence, consists of an intensive treatment phase of 8 months and total treatment duration of 20 months. Although cohort studies have shown promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant TB who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the WHO, data from phase 3 randomized trials were lacking.

Bottom line: Short medication regimen (9-11 months) is noninferior to the traditional WHO-­recommended long regimen (20 months) for treating rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.

Citation: Nunn AJ et al. A trial of a shorter regimen for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28; 380:1201-13.

Dr. Kamath is an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Background: Multidrug-resistant TB is more difficult to treat than is drug-susceptible TB. The 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, based on very-low-quality and conditional evidence, consists of an intensive treatment phase of 8 months and total treatment duration of 20 months. Although cohort studies have shown promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant TB who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the WHO, data from phase 3 randomized trials were lacking.

Bottom line: Short medication regimen (9-11 months) is noninferior to the traditional WHO-­recommended long regimen (20 months) for treating rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.

Citation: Nunn AJ et al. A trial of a shorter regimen for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28; 380:1201-13.

Dr. Kamath is an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Background: Multidrug-resistant TB is more difficult to treat than is drug-susceptible TB. The 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, based on very-low-quality and conditional evidence, consists of an intensive treatment phase of 8 months and total treatment duration of 20 months. Although cohort studies have shown promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant TB who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the WHO, data from phase 3 randomized trials were lacking.

Bottom line: Short medication regimen (9-11 months) is noninferior to the traditional WHO-­recommended long regimen (20 months) for treating rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.

Citation: Nunn AJ et al. A trial of a shorter regimen for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28; 380:1201-13.

Dr. Kamath is an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Three main reasons have been put forth for using corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19, but only one – the hope of preventing lung fibrosis in patients with unresolved acute respiratory distress syndrome – is reasonable to employ now outside of formal randomized trials, Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, asserted at a webinar on COVID-19 sponsored by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

The most commonly invoked rationale for giving steroids in patients with severe COVID-19 is to modulate the destructive inflammatory immune response that occurs with advancing disease. Another justification cited for giving steroids is to treat suspected adrenal insufficiency in those with refractory shock. Of note, both practices are endorsed in the recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines on management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 (Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46[5]:854-87).

But those recommendations – numbers 22 and 42 out of a total of 50 recommendations included in the guidelines – should never have been made, according to Dr. Pickkers, professor of experimental intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
 

Dueling guidelines

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, which were developed by a panel comprising 36 experts in 12 countries, are quite frank in conceding that the guidance in favor of corticosteroids are weak recommendations based on low-quality evidence.

The guidelines recommend against using corticosteroids to try to modulate the immune system in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but do recommend steroids in those with COVID-19 and ARDS. However, the guidelines also note that, because of the very low quality of the evidence, some experts on the panel preferred not to issue a pro-steroids recommendation at all until higher-quality evidence becomes available. Dr. Pickkers said he believes that the minority view should have prevailed. Moreover, current COVID-19 guidance from the World Health Organization is at odds with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations; the WHO advises against corticosteroids unless the treatment is indicated for a reason other than immunomodulation, he noted.

The evidence in favor of steroids in an effort to blunt the immune response in COVID patients with ARDS is based largely upon a single small, retrospective, non–peer-reviewed report that 5-7 days of treatment with 1-2 mg/kg per day of methylprednisolone was associated with shortened fever duration and need for supplemental oxygen.

The evidence against steroids for immunomodulation comes mainly from earlier studies of the SARS and MERS novel coronaviruses. For example, in a multicenter study of 309 patients with the MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) virus, those who received corticosteroids received no benefit and experienced delayed viral clearance (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Mar 15;197[6]:757-67).

“The thing is, virtually all COVID-19 patients in the ICU fulfill the criteria for ARDS, so following the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines would have far-reaching consequences,” Dr. Pickkers said.

Those consequences include a theoretic potential for serious harm arising from dampening the immune response at a point in the course of COVID-19 when the virus is still present, which could result in slowed viral clearance and prolonged viral shedding. Moreover so far no one has been able to identify a sweet spot in the disease course where the viral load has waned and the immune response is sufficiently early that intervention with corticosteroids might have an optimal benefit/risk ratio, he continued.

“My opinion is that at this moment there is no benefit at all for corticosteroids for immunomodulation in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Pickkers said. “My personal recommendation, in contrast to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation, is not to use this therapy outside of a study.”

He added that randomized, controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are ongoing in Europe and the United States, including the large RECOVERY study of dexamethasone in the United Kingdom.

As for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation to use corticosteroids to treat refractory shock in COVID-19, Dr. Pickkers dismissed this guidance as largely irrelevant. That’s because few patients with COVID-19 who need mechanical ventilation have refractory shock as evidenced by the need for a high infusion rate of norepinephrine. Anyway, he noted, that Surviving Sepsis recommendation is based upon extrapolation from evidence of benefit in bacterial septic shock patients, which he deemed to be of questionable relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Attacking the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS

First off, Dr. Pickkers conceded, there is no evidence that treatment with corticosteroids to prevent lung fibrosis in COVID-19 patients with nonresolving ARDS is an effective strategy; the pandemic is simply too new at this point for the appropriate studies to have been done. But this much is known: Postmortem pathologic studies show fibroplastic proliferation is present in the lungs of COVID-19 patients, as in those who die of ARDS of other causes. Also, COVID-19 patients typically aren’t admitted to the ICU until day 11 or 12 after developing their first symptoms, so by the time they display indications that their ARDS is not resolving, the virus has typically left the scene; thus, there is little risk at that point that corticosteroids will promote viral proliferation. Additionally, studies in critically ill patients with nonresolving ARDS of other causes show clinically meaningful benefits for corticosteroid therapy.

Dr. Pickkers cited as “must reading” an analysis of five randomized trials of corticosteroid therapy in a total of 518 patients with acute lung injury ARDS of non–COVID-19 origin. The analysis by investigators at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, concluded that treatment resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Moreover, in the 400 patients whose steroid therapy commenced before day 14 of ARDS, there was a statistically significant 22% reduction in risk of death, compared with patients in whom corticosteroids were started later (Intensive Care Med. 2008 Jan;34[1]:61-9).

Session cochair Jan De Waele, MD, PhD, struck a cautious note, remarking, “It’s my perception that we’re using the evidence that we’ve gathered in other conditions and are now trying to apply it in COVID-19. But quality data on patients with COVID-19 itself is pretty scare, and it’s really hard to say whether this disease behaves similarly to bacterial septic shock or to other viral infections.”

“We need more information about the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19, although I think a lot of people are using it at this moment,” added Dr. De Waele, a surgical intensivist at Ghent (Belgium) University.

That being said, he asked Dr. Pickkers when he considers using corticosteroids to prevent pulmonary fibrosis.

Dr. Pickkers said that when he notices that a COVID-19 patient’s lung compliance is worsening, that stiff lung is a clue that fibrosis is occurring and is having clinical consequences. “We also measure blood procollagen, a not very sensitive but moderately specific marker of fibroproliferation. If we see an increase in this biomarker and the lung mechanics are changing, then we do treat these patients with corticosteroids,” Dr. Pickkers replied.

He and his colleagues try to start steroids before day 14 of ARDS, and they continue treatment for longer than 7 days in order to prevent a rebound inflammatory response upon treatment discontinuation. They also avoid using neuromuscular agents and engage in meticulous infection surveillance in order to minimize potential complications of corticosteroid therapy in the ICU.

Dr. Pickkers reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

Three main reasons have been put forth for using corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19, but only one – the hope of preventing lung fibrosis in patients with unresolved acute respiratory distress syndrome – is reasonable to employ now outside of formal randomized trials, Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, asserted at a webinar on COVID-19 sponsored by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

The most commonly invoked rationale for giving steroids in patients with severe COVID-19 is to modulate the destructive inflammatory immune response that occurs with advancing disease. Another justification cited for giving steroids is to treat suspected adrenal insufficiency in those with refractory shock. Of note, both practices are endorsed in the recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines on management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 (Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46[5]:854-87).

But those recommendations – numbers 22 and 42 out of a total of 50 recommendations included in the guidelines – should never have been made, according to Dr. Pickkers, professor of experimental intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
 

Dueling guidelines

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, which were developed by a panel comprising 36 experts in 12 countries, are quite frank in conceding that the guidance in favor of corticosteroids are weak recommendations based on low-quality evidence.

The guidelines recommend against using corticosteroids to try to modulate the immune system in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but do recommend steroids in those with COVID-19 and ARDS. However, the guidelines also note that, because of the very low quality of the evidence, some experts on the panel preferred not to issue a pro-steroids recommendation at all until higher-quality evidence becomes available. Dr. Pickkers said he believes that the minority view should have prevailed. Moreover, current COVID-19 guidance from the World Health Organization is at odds with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations; the WHO advises against corticosteroids unless the treatment is indicated for a reason other than immunomodulation, he noted.

The evidence in favor of steroids in an effort to blunt the immune response in COVID patients with ARDS is based largely upon a single small, retrospective, non–peer-reviewed report that 5-7 days of treatment with 1-2 mg/kg per day of methylprednisolone was associated with shortened fever duration and need for supplemental oxygen.

The evidence against steroids for immunomodulation comes mainly from earlier studies of the SARS and MERS novel coronaviruses. For example, in a multicenter study of 309 patients with the MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) virus, those who received corticosteroids received no benefit and experienced delayed viral clearance (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Mar 15;197[6]:757-67).

“The thing is, virtually all COVID-19 patients in the ICU fulfill the criteria for ARDS, so following the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines would have far-reaching consequences,” Dr. Pickkers said.

Those consequences include a theoretic potential for serious harm arising from dampening the immune response at a point in the course of COVID-19 when the virus is still present, which could result in slowed viral clearance and prolonged viral shedding. Moreover so far no one has been able to identify a sweet spot in the disease course where the viral load has waned and the immune response is sufficiently early that intervention with corticosteroids might have an optimal benefit/risk ratio, he continued.

“My opinion is that at this moment there is no benefit at all for corticosteroids for immunomodulation in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Pickkers said. “My personal recommendation, in contrast to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation, is not to use this therapy outside of a study.”

He added that randomized, controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are ongoing in Europe and the United States, including the large RECOVERY study of dexamethasone in the United Kingdom.

As for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation to use corticosteroids to treat refractory shock in COVID-19, Dr. Pickkers dismissed this guidance as largely irrelevant. That’s because few patients with COVID-19 who need mechanical ventilation have refractory shock as evidenced by the need for a high infusion rate of norepinephrine. Anyway, he noted, that Surviving Sepsis recommendation is based upon extrapolation from evidence of benefit in bacterial septic shock patients, which he deemed to be of questionable relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Attacking the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS

First off, Dr. Pickkers conceded, there is no evidence that treatment with corticosteroids to prevent lung fibrosis in COVID-19 patients with nonresolving ARDS is an effective strategy; the pandemic is simply too new at this point for the appropriate studies to have been done. But this much is known: Postmortem pathologic studies show fibroplastic proliferation is present in the lungs of COVID-19 patients, as in those who die of ARDS of other causes. Also, COVID-19 patients typically aren’t admitted to the ICU until day 11 or 12 after developing their first symptoms, so by the time they display indications that their ARDS is not resolving, the virus has typically left the scene; thus, there is little risk at that point that corticosteroids will promote viral proliferation. Additionally, studies in critically ill patients with nonresolving ARDS of other causes show clinically meaningful benefits for corticosteroid therapy.

Dr. Pickkers cited as “must reading” an analysis of five randomized trials of corticosteroid therapy in a total of 518 patients with acute lung injury ARDS of non–COVID-19 origin. The analysis by investigators at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, concluded that treatment resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Moreover, in the 400 patients whose steroid therapy commenced before day 14 of ARDS, there was a statistically significant 22% reduction in risk of death, compared with patients in whom corticosteroids were started later (Intensive Care Med. 2008 Jan;34[1]:61-9).

Session cochair Jan De Waele, MD, PhD, struck a cautious note, remarking, “It’s my perception that we’re using the evidence that we’ve gathered in other conditions and are now trying to apply it in COVID-19. But quality data on patients with COVID-19 itself is pretty scare, and it’s really hard to say whether this disease behaves similarly to bacterial septic shock or to other viral infections.”

“We need more information about the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19, although I think a lot of people are using it at this moment,” added Dr. De Waele, a surgical intensivist at Ghent (Belgium) University.

That being said, he asked Dr. Pickkers when he considers using corticosteroids to prevent pulmonary fibrosis.

Dr. Pickkers said that when he notices that a COVID-19 patient’s lung compliance is worsening, that stiff lung is a clue that fibrosis is occurring and is having clinical consequences. “We also measure blood procollagen, a not very sensitive but moderately specific marker of fibroproliferation. If we see an increase in this biomarker and the lung mechanics are changing, then we do treat these patients with corticosteroids,” Dr. Pickkers replied.

He and his colleagues try to start steroids before day 14 of ARDS, and they continue treatment for longer than 7 days in order to prevent a rebound inflammatory response upon treatment discontinuation. They also avoid using neuromuscular agents and engage in meticulous infection surveillance in order to minimize potential complications of corticosteroid therapy in the ICU.

Dr. Pickkers reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

Three main reasons have been put forth for using corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19, but only one – the hope of preventing lung fibrosis in patients with unresolved acute respiratory distress syndrome – is reasonable to employ now outside of formal randomized trials, Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, asserted at a webinar on COVID-19 sponsored by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

The most commonly invoked rationale for giving steroids in patients with severe COVID-19 is to modulate the destructive inflammatory immune response that occurs with advancing disease. Another justification cited for giving steroids is to treat suspected adrenal insufficiency in those with refractory shock. Of note, both practices are endorsed in the recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines on management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 (Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46[5]:854-87).

But those recommendations – numbers 22 and 42 out of a total of 50 recommendations included in the guidelines – should never have been made, according to Dr. Pickkers, professor of experimental intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
 

Dueling guidelines

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, which were developed by a panel comprising 36 experts in 12 countries, are quite frank in conceding that the guidance in favor of corticosteroids are weak recommendations based on low-quality evidence.

The guidelines recommend against using corticosteroids to try to modulate the immune system in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but do recommend steroids in those with COVID-19 and ARDS. However, the guidelines also note that, because of the very low quality of the evidence, some experts on the panel preferred not to issue a pro-steroids recommendation at all until higher-quality evidence becomes available. Dr. Pickkers said he believes that the minority view should have prevailed. Moreover, current COVID-19 guidance from the World Health Organization is at odds with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations; the WHO advises against corticosteroids unless the treatment is indicated for a reason other than immunomodulation, he noted.

The evidence in favor of steroids in an effort to blunt the immune response in COVID patients with ARDS is based largely upon a single small, retrospective, non–peer-reviewed report that 5-7 days of treatment with 1-2 mg/kg per day of methylprednisolone was associated with shortened fever duration and need for supplemental oxygen.

The evidence against steroids for immunomodulation comes mainly from earlier studies of the SARS and MERS novel coronaviruses. For example, in a multicenter study of 309 patients with the MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) virus, those who received corticosteroids received no benefit and experienced delayed viral clearance (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Mar 15;197[6]:757-67).

“The thing is, virtually all COVID-19 patients in the ICU fulfill the criteria for ARDS, so following the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines would have far-reaching consequences,” Dr. Pickkers said.

Those consequences include a theoretic potential for serious harm arising from dampening the immune response at a point in the course of COVID-19 when the virus is still present, which could result in slowed viral clearance and prolonged viral shedding. Moreover so far no one has been able to identify a sweet spot in the disease course where the viral load has waned and the immune response is sufficiently early that intervention with corticosteroids might have an optimal benefit/risk ratio, he continued.

“My opinion is that at this moment there is no benefit at all for corticosteroids for immunomodulation in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Pickkers said. “My personal recommendation, in contrast to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation, is not to use this therapy outside of a study.”

He added that randomized, controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are ongoing in Europe and the United States, including the large RECOVERY study of dexamethasone in the United Kingdom.

As for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation to use corticosteroids to treat refractory shock in COVID-19, Dr. Pickkers dismissed this guidance as largely irrelevant. That’s because few patients with COVID-19 who need mechanical ventilation have refractory shock as evidenced by the need for a high infusion rate of norepinephrine. Anyway, he noted, that Surviving Sepsis recommendation is based upon extrapolation from evidence of benefit in bacterial septic shock patients, which he deemed to be of questionable relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Attacking the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS

First off, Dr. Pickkers conceded, there is no evidence that treatment with corticosteroids to prevent lung fibrosis in COVID-19 patients with nonresolving ARDS is an effective strategy; the pandemic is simply too new at this point for the appropriate studies to have been done. But this much is known: Postmortem pathologic studies show fibroplastic proliferation is present in the lungs of COVID-19 patients, as in those who die of ARDS of other causes. Also, COVID-19 patients typically aren’t admitted to the ICU until day 11 or 12 after developing their first symptoms, so by the time they display indications that their ARDS is not resolving, the virus has typically left the scene; thus, there is little risk at that point that corticosteroids will promote viral proliferation. Additionally, studies in critically ill patients with nonresolving ARDS of other causes show clinically meaningful benefits for corticosteroid therapy.

Dr. Pickkers cited as “must reading” an analysis of five randomized trials of corticosteroid therapy in a total of 518 patients with acute lung injury ARDS of non–COVID-19 origin. The analysis by investigators at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, concluded that treatment resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Moreover, in the 400 patients whose steroid therapy commenced before day 14 of ARDS, there was a statistically significant 22% reduction in risk of death, compared with patients in whom corticosteroids were started later (Intensive Care Med. 2008 Jan;34[1]:61-9).

Session cochair Jan De Waele, MD, PhD, struck a cautious note, remarking, “It’s my perception that we’re using the evidence that we’ve gathered in other conditions and are now trying to apply it in COVID-19. But quality data on patients with COVID-19 itself is pretty scare, and it’s really hard to say whether this disease behaves similarly to bacterial septic shock or to other viral infections.”

“We need more information about the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19, although I think a lot of people are using it at this moment,” added Dr. De Waele, a surgical intensivist at Ghent (Belgium) University.

That being said, he asked Dr. Pickkers when he considers using corticosteroids to prevent pulmonary fibrosis.

Dr. Pickkers said that when he notices that a COVID-19 patient’s lung compliance is worsening, that stiff lung is a clue that fibrosis is occurring and is having clinical consequences. “We also measure blood procollagen, a not very sensitive but moderately specific marker of fibroproliferation. If we see an increase in this biomarker and the lung mechanics are changing, then we do treat these patients with corticosteroids,” Dr. Pickkers replied.

He and his colleagues try to start steroids before day 14 of ARDS, and they continue treatment for longer than 7 days in order to prevent a rebound inflammatory response upon treatment discontinuation. They also avoid using neuromuscular agents and engage in meticulous infection surveillance in order to minimize potential complications of corticosteroid therapy in the ICU.

Dr. Pickkers reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

On March 9 my team was given a directive by the chief medical officer of our health system. We were charged with opening a drive-through COVID-19 testing center for our community in just 2 days’ time. It seemed like an impossible task, involving the mobilization of people, processes, and technology at a scale and speed we had never before achieved. It turned out getting this done was impossible. In spite of our best efforts, we failed to meet the deadline – it actually took us 3 days. Still, by March 12, we had opened the doors on the first community testing site in our area and gained the attention of local and national news outlets for our accomplishment.

Now more than 2 months later, I’m quite proud of what our team was able to achieve for the health system, but I’m still quite frustrated at the state of COVID-19 testing nationwide – there’s simply not enough available, and there is tremendous variability in the reliability of the tests. In this column, we’d like to highlight some of the challenges we’ve faced and reflect on how the shortcomings of modern technology have once again proven that medicine is both a science and an art.
 

Our dangerous lack of preparation

Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, I had never considered surgical masks, face shields, and nasal swabs to be critical components of medical technology. My opinion quickly changed after opening our drive-through COVID-19 site. I now have a much greater appreciation for the importance of personal protective equipment and basic testing supplies.

I was shocked by how difficult obtaining it has been during the past few months. It seems that no one anticipated the possibility of a pandemic on this grand a scale, so stockpiles of equipment were depleted quickly and couldn’t be replenished. Also, most manufacturing occurs outside the United States, which creates additional barriers to controlling the supply chain. One need not look far to find stories of widespread price-gouging, black market racketeering, and even hijackings that have stood in the way of accessing the necessary supplies. Sadly, the lack of equipment is far from the only challenge we’ve faced. In some cases, it has been a mistrust of results that has prevented widespread testing and mitigation.
 

The risks of flying blind

When President Trump touted the introduction of a rapid COVID-19 test at the end of March, many people were excited. Promising positive results in as few as 5 minutes, the assay was granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration in order to expedite its availability in the market. According to the FDA’s website, an EUA allows “unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.” This rapid (though untested) approval was all that many health care providers needed to hear – immediately hospitals and physicians scrambled to get their hands on the testing devices. Unfortunately, on May 14th, the FDA issued a press release that raised concerns about that same test because it seemed to be reporting a high number of false-negative results. Just as quickly as the devices had been adopted, health care providers began backing away from them in favor of other assays, and a serious truth about COVID-19 testing was revealed: In many ways, we’re flying blind.

Laboratory manufacturers have been working overtime to create assays for SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) and have used different technologies for detection. The most commonly used are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. In these assays, viral RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase, then amplified through the addition of primers that enable detection. PCR technology has been available for years and is a reliable method for identifying DNA and RNA, but the required heating and cooling process takes time and results can take several hours to return. To address this and expedite testing, other methods of detection have been tried, such as the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technique employed by the rapid assay mentioned above. Regardless of methodology, all laboratory tests have one thing in common: None of them is perfect.

Every assay has a different level of reliability. When screening for a disease such as COVID-19, we are particularly interested in a test’s sensitivity (that is, it’s ability to detect disease); we’d love such a screening test to be 100% sensitive and thereby not miss a single case. In truth, no test’s sensitivity is 100%, and in this particular case even the best assays only score around 98%. This means that out of every 100 patients with COVID-19 who are evaluated, two might test negative for the virus. In a pandemic this can have dire consequences, so health care providers – unable to fully trust their instruments – must employ clinical acumen and years of experience to navigate these cloudy skies. We are hopeful that additional tools will complement our current methods, but with new assays also come new questions.
 

Is anyone safe?

We receive regular questions from physicians about the value of antibody testing, but it’s not yet clear how best to respond. While the assays seem to be reliable, the utility of the results are still ill defined. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (both IgG and IgM) appear to peak about 2-3 weeks after symptom onset, but we don’t yet know if the presence of those antibodies confers long-term immunity. Therefore, patients should not use the information to change their masking or social-distancing practices, nor should they presume that they are safe from becoming reinfected with COVID-19. While new research looks promising, there are still too many unknowns to be able to confidently reassure providers or patients of the true value of antibody testing. This underscores our final point: Medicine remains an art.

As we are regularly reminded, we’ll never fully anticipate the challenges or barriers to success, and technology will never replace the value of clinical judgment and human experience. While the situation is unsettling in many ways, we are reassured and encouraged by the role we still get to play in keeping our patients healthy in this health care crisis, and we’ll continue to do so through whatever the future holds.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington Lansdale (Pa.) Hospital - Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.
 

On March 9 my team was given a directive by the chief medical officer of our health system. We were charged with opening a drive-through COVID-19 testing center for our community in just 2 days’ time. It seemed like an impossible task, involving the mobilization of people, processes, and technology at a scale and speed we had never before achieved. It turned out getting this done was impossible. In spite of our best efforts, we failed to meet the deadline – it actually took us 3 days. Still, by March 12, we had opened the doors on the first community testing site in our area and gained the attention of local and national news outlets for our accomplishment.

Now more than 2 months later, I’m quite proud of what our team was able to achieve for the health system, but I’m still quite frustrated at the state of COVID-19 testing nationwide – there’s simply not enough available, and there is tremendous variability in the reliability of the tests. In this column, we’d like to highlight some of the challenges we’ve faced and reflect on how the shortcomings of modern technology have once again proven that medicine is both a science and an art.
 

Our dangerous lack of preparation

Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, I had never considered surgical masks, face shields, and nasal swabs to be critical components of medical technology. My opinion quickly changed after opening our drive-through COVID-19 site. I now have a much greater appreciation for the importance of personal protective equipment and basic testing supplies.

I was shocked by how difficult obtaining it has been during the past few months. It seems that no one anticipated the possibility of a pandemic on this grand a scale, so stockpiles of equipment were depleted quickly and couldn’t be replenished. Also, most manufacturing occurs outside the United States, which creates additional barriers to controlling the supply chain. One need not look far to find stories of widespread price-gouging, black market racketeering, and even hijackings that have stood in the way of accessing the necessary supplies. Sadly, the lack of equipment is far from the only challenge we’ve faced. In some cases, it has been a mistrust of results that has prevented widespread testing and mitigation.
 

The risks of flying blind

When President Trump touted the introduction of a rapid COVID-19 test at the end of March, many people were excited. Promising positive results in as few as 5 minutes, the assay was granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration in order to expedite its availability in the market. According to the FDA’s website, an EUA allows “unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.” This rapid (though untested) approval was all that many health care providers needed to hear – immediately hospitals and physicians scrambled to get their hands on the testing devices. Unfortunately, on May 14th, the FDA issued a press release that raised concerns about that same test because it seemed to be reporting a high number of false-negative results. Just as quickly as the devices had been adopted, health care providers began backing away from them in favor of other assays, and a serious truth about COVID-19 testing was revealed: In many ways, we’re flying blind.

Laboratory manufacturers have been working overtime to create assays for SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) and have used different technologies for detection. The most commonly used are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. In these assays, viral RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase, then amplified through the addition of primers that enable detection. PCR technology has been available for years and is a reliable method for identifying DNA and RNA, but the required heating and cooling process takes time and results can take several hours to return. To address this and expedite testing, other methods of detection have been tried, such as the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technique employed by the rapid assay mentioned above. Regardless of methodology, all laboratory tests have one thing in common: None of them is perfect.

Every assay has a different level of reliability. When screening for a disease such as COVID-19, we are particularly interested in a test’s sensitivity (that is, it’s ability to detect disease); we’d love such a screening test to be 100% sensitive and thereby not miss a single case. In truth, no test’s sensitivity is 100%, and in this particular case even the best assays only score around 98%. This means that out of every 100 patients with COVID-19 who are evaluated, two might test negative for the virus. In a pandemic this can have dire consequences, so health care providers – unable to fully trust their instruments – must employ clinical acumen and years of experience to navigate these cloudy skies. We are hopeful that additional tools will complement our current methods, but with new assays also come new questions.
 

Is anyone safe?

We receive regular questions from physicians about the value of antibody testing, but it’s not yet clear how best to respond. While the assays seem to be reliable, the utility of the results are still ill defined. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (both IgG and IgM) appear to peak about 2-3 weeks after symptom onset, but we don’t yet know if the presence of those antibodies confers long-term immunity. Therefore, patients should not use the information to change their masking or social-distancing practices, nor should they presume that they are safe from becoming reinfected with COVID-19. While new research looks promising, there are still too many unknowns to be able to confidently reassure providers or patients of the true value of antibody testing. This underscores our final point: Medicine remains an art.

As we are regularly reminded, we’ll never fully anticipate the challenges or barriers to success, and technology will never replace the value of clinical judgment and human experience. While the situation is unsettling in many ways, we are reassured and encouraged by the role we still get to play in keeping our patients healthy in this health care crisis, and we’ll continue to do so through whatever the future holds.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington Lansdale (Pa.) Hospital - Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.
 

On March 9 my team was given a directive by the chief medical officer of our health system. We were charged with opening a drive-through COVID-19 testing center for our community in just 2 days’ time. It seemed like an impossible task, involving the mobilization of people, processes, and technology at a scale and speed we had never before achieved. It turned out getting this done was impossible. In spite of our best efforts, we failed to meet the deadline – it actually took us 3 days. Still, by March 12, we had opened the doors on the first community testing site in our area and gained the attention of local and national news outlets for our accomplishment.

Now more than 2 months later, I’m quite proud of what our team was able to achieve for the health system, but I’m still quite frustrated at the state of COVID-19 testing nationwide – there’s simply not enough available, and there is tremendous variability in the reliability of the tests. In this column, we’d like to highlight some of the challenges we’ve faced and reflect on how the shortcomings of modern technology have once again proven that medicine is both a science and an art.
 

Our dangerous lack of preparation

Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, I had never considered surgical masks, face shields, and nasal swabs to be critical components of medical technology. My opinion quickly changed after opening our drive-through COVID-19 site. I now have a much greater appreciation for the importance of personal protective equipment and basic testing supplies.

I was shocked by how difficult obtaining it has been during the past few months. It seems that no one anticipated the possibility of a pandemic on this grand a scale, so stockpiles of equipment were depleted quickly and couldn’t be replenished. Also, most manufacturing occurs outside the United States, which creates additional barriers to controlling the supply chain. One need not look far to find stories of widespread price-gouging, black market racketeering, and even hijackings that have stood in the way of accessing the necessary supplies. Sadly, the lack of equipment is far from the only challenge we’ve faced. In some cases, it has been a mistrust of results that has prevented widespread testing and mitigation.
 

The risks of flying blind

When President Trump touted the introduction of a rapid COVID-19 test at the end of March, many people were excited. Promising positive results in as few as 5 minutes, the assay was granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration in order to expedite its availability in the market. According to the FDA’s website, an EUA allows “unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.” This rapid (though untested) approval was all that many health care providers needed to hear – immediately hospitals and physicians scrambled to get their hands on the testing devices. Unfortunately, on May 14th, the FDA issued a press release that raised concerns about that same test because it seemed to be reporting a high number of false-negative results. Just as quickly as the devices had been adopted, health care providers began backing away from them in favor of other assays, and a serious truth about COVID-19 testing was revealed: In many ways, we’re flying blind.

Laboratory manufacturers have been working overtime to create assays for SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) and have used different technologies for detection. The most commonly used are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. In these assays, viral RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase, then amplified through the addition of primers that enable detection. PCR technology has been available for years and is a reliable method for identifying DNA and RNA, but the required heating and cooling process takes time and results can take several hours to return. To address this and expedite testing, other methods of detection have been tried, such as the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technique employed by the rapid assay mentioned above. Regardless of methodology, all laboratory tests have one thing in common: None of them is perfect.

Every assay has a different level of reliability. When screening for a disease such as COVID-19, we are particularly interested in a test’s sensitivity (that is, it’s ability to detect disease); we’d love such a screening test to be 100% sensitive and thereby not miss a single case. In truth, no test’s sensitivity is 100%, and in this particular case even the best assays only score around 98%. This means that out of every 100 patients with COVID-19 who are evaluated, two might test negative for the virus. In a pandemic this can have dire consequences, so health care providers – unable to fully trust their instruments – must employ clinical acumen and years of experience to navigate these cloudy skies. We are hopeful that additional tools will complement our current methods, but with new assays also come new questions.
 

Is anyone safe?

We receive regular questions from physicians about the value of antibody testing, but it’s not yet clear how best to respond. While the assays seem to be reliable, the utility of the results are still ill defined. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (both IgG and IgM) appear to peak about 2-3 weeks after symptom onset, but we don’t yet know if the presence of those antibodies confers long-term immunity. Therefore, patients should not use the information to change their masking or social-distancing practices, nor should they presume that they are safe from becoming reinfected with COVID-19. While new research looks promising, there are still too many unknowns to be able to confidently reassure providers or patients of the true value of antibody testing. This underscores our final point: Medicine remains an art.

As we are regularly reminded, we’ll never fully anticipate the challenges or barriers to success, and technology will never replace the value of clinical judgment and human experience. While the situation is unsettling in many ways, we are reassured and encouraged by the role we still get to play in keeping our patients healthy in this health care crisis, and we’ll continue to do so through whatever the future holds.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington Lansdale (Pa.) Hospital - Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.