Pulmonology

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 28-year-old G2P1001 at 28 weeks’ gestation presents to your clinic with 1 day of dyspnea and palpitations. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated. She reports worsening dyspnea with mild exertion but denies other symptoms, including leg swelling.

The current incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnant women is estimated to be a relatively low 5 to 12 events per 10,000 pregnancies, yet the condition is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries.^2,3,4 Currently, there are conflicting recommendations among relevant organization guidelines regarding the use of D-dimer testing to aid in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy. Both the Working Group in Women’s Health of the Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (GTH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend using D-dimer testing to rule out PE in pregnant women (ESC Class IIa, level of evidence B based on small studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies; GTH provides no grade).^5,6

Conversely, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Society of Thoracic Radiology recommend against the use of D-dimer testing in pregnant women because pregnant women were excluded from D-dimer validation studies (RCOG and SOGC Grade D; ATS weak recommendation).^4,7,8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not have specific recommendations regarding the use of D-dimer testing during pregnancy, but has endorsed the ATS guidelines.^4,9 In addition, SOGC recommends against the use of clinical prediction scores (Grade D), and RCOG states that there is no evidence to support their use (Grade C).^7,8 The remaining societies do not make a recommendation for or against the use of clinical prediction scores because of the absence of high-quality evidence regarding their use in the pregnant patient population.^4,5,6

STUDY SUMMARY

Prospective validation of a strategy to diagnose PE in pregnant women

This multicenter, multinational, prospective diagnostic study involving 395 pregnant women evaluated the accuracy of PE diagnosis across 11 centers in France and Switzerland from August 2008 through July 2016.¹ Patients with clinically suspected PE were evaluated in emergency departments. Patients were tested according to a diagnostic algorithm that included pretest clinical probability using the revised Geneva Score for Pulmonary Embolism (www.mdcalc.com/geneva-score-revised-pulmonary-­embolism), a clinical prediction tool that uses patient history, presenting symptoms, and clinical signs to classify patients as being at low (0-3/25), intermediate (4-10/25), or high (≥ 11/25) risk;¹⁰ high-sensitivity D-dimer testing; bilateral lower limb compression ultrasonography (CUS); computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and a ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan.

PE was excluded in patients who had a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability score and a negative D-dimer test result (< 500 mcg/L). Patients with a high pretest probability score or positive D-dimer test result underwent CUS, and, if negative, subsequent CTPA. A V/Q scan was performed if the CTPA was inconclusive. If the work-up was negative, PE was excluded.

Untreated pregnant women had clinical follow-up at 3 months. Any cases of suspected VTE were evaluated by a 3-member independent adjudication committee blinded to the initial diagnostic work-up. The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated VTE events during the 3-month follow-up period. PE was diagnosed in 28 patients (7.1%) and excluded in 367 (clinical probability score and negative D-dimer test result [n = 46], negative CTPA result [n = 290], normal or low-probability V/Q scan [n = 17], and other reason [n = 14]). Twenty-two women received anticoagulation during the follow-up period for other reasons (mainly history of previous VTE disease). No symptomatic VTE events occurred in any of the women after the diagnostic work-up was negative, including among those patients who were ruled out with only the clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result (rate 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-1%).

WHAT’S NEW

Clinical probability and D-dimer rule out PE in pregnant women

This study ruled out PE in patients with low/intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing. This low-cost strategy can be applied easily to the pregnant population.

CAVEATS

Additional research is still needed

From the results of this study, 11.6% of patients (n = 46) had a PE ruled out utilizing the revised Geneva score in conjunction with a D-dimer test result, with avoidance of chest imaging. However, this study was powered for the entire treatment algorithm and was not specifically powered for patients with low- or intermediate-risk pretest probability scores. Since this is the first published prospective diagnostic study of VTE in pregnancy, further research is needed to confirm the findings that a clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result can safely rule out PE in pregnant women.

This strategy ruled out PE in patients with low/ intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing.

In addition, further research is needed to determine pregnancy-adapted D-dimer cut-off values, as the researchers of this study noted that < 500 mcg/L was useful in the first and second trimester, but that levels increased as gestational age increased.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

Implementing a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates sequential assessment of pretest clinical probability based on the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer measurement should be relatively easy to implement, as both methods are readily available and relatively inexpensive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 28-year-old G2P1001 at 28 weeks’ gestation presents to your clinic with 1 day of dyspnea and palpitations. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated. She reports worsening dyspnea with mild exertion but denies other symptoms, including leg swelling.

The current incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnant women is estimated to be a relatively low 5 to 12 events per 10,000 pregnancies, yet the condition is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries.^2,3,4 Currently, there are conflicting recommendations among relevant organization guidelines regarding the use of D-dimer testing to aid in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy. Both the Working Group in Women’s Health of the Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (GTH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend using D-dimer testing to rule out PE in pregnant women (ESC Class IIa, level of evidence B based on small studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies; GTH provides no grade).^5,6

Conversely, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Society of Thoracic Radiology recommend against the use of D-dimer testing in pregnant women because pregnant women were excluded from D-dimer validation studies (RCOG and SOGC Grade D; ATS weak recommendation).^4,7,8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not have specific recommendations regarding the use of D-dimer testing during pregnancy, but has endorsed the ATS guidelines.^4,9 In addition, SOGC recommends against the use of clinical prediction scores (Grade D), and RCOG states that there is no evidence to support their use (Grade C).^7,8 The remaining societies do not make a recommendation for or against the use of clinical prediction scores because of the absence of high-quality evidence regarding their use in the pregnant patient population.^4,5,6

STUDY SUMMARY

Prospective validation of a strategy to diagnose PE in pregnant women

This multicenter, multinational, prospective diagnostic study involving 395 pregnant women evaluated the accuracy of PE diagnosis across 11 centers in France and Switzerland from August 2008 through July 2016.¹ Patients with clinically suspected PE were evaluated in emergency departments. Patients were tested according to a diagnostic algorithm that included pretest clinical probability using the revised Geneva Score for Pulmonary Embolism (www.mdcalc.com/geneva-score-revised-pulmonary-­embolism), a clinical prediction tool that uses patient history, presenting symptoms, and clinical signs to classify patients as being at low (0-3/25), intermediate (4-10/25), or high (≥ 11/25) risk;¹⁰ high-sensitivity D-dimer testing; bilateral lower limb compression ultrasonography (CUS); computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and a ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan.

PE was excluded in patients who had a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability score and a negative D-dimer test result (< 500 mcg/L). Patients with a high pretest probability score or positive D-dimer test result underwent CUS, and, if negative, subsequent CTPA. A V/Q scan was performed if the CTPA was inconclusive. If the work-up was negative, PE was excluded.

Untreated pregnant women had clinical follow-up at 3 months. Any cases of suspected VTE were evaluated by a 3-member independent adjudication committee blinded to the initial diagnostic work-up. The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated VTE events during the 3-month follow-up period. PE was diagnosed in 28 patients (7.1%) and excluded in 367 (clinical probability score and negative D-dimer test result [n = 46], negative CTPA result [n = 290], normal or low-probability V/Q scan [n = 17], and other reason [n = 14]). Twenty-two women received anticoagulation during the follow-up period for other reasons (mainly history of previous VTE disease). No symptomatic VTE events occurred in any of the women after the diagnostic work-up was negative, including among those patients who were ruled out with only the clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result (rate 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-1%).

WHAT’S NEW

Clinical probability and D-dimer rule out PE in pregnant women

This study ruled out PE in patients with low/intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing. This low-cost strategy can be applied easily to the pregnant population.

CAVEATS

Additional research is still needed

From the results of this study, 11.6% of patients (n = 46) had a PE ruled out utilizing the revised Geneva score in conjunction with a D-dimer test result, with avoidance of chest imaging. However, this study was powered for the entire treatment algorithm and was not specifically powered for patients with low- or intermediate-risk pretest probability scores. Since this is the first published prospective diagnostic study of VTE in pregnancy, further research is needed to confirm the findings that a clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result can safely rule out PE in pregnant women.

This strategy ruled out PE in patients with low/ intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing.

In addition, further research is needed to determine pregnancy-adapted D-dimer cut-off values, as the researchers of this study noted that < 500 mcg/L was useful in the first and second trimester, but that levels increased as gestational age increased.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

Implementing a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates sequential assessment of pretest clinical probability based on the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer measurement should be relatively easy to implement, as both methods are readily available and relatively inexpensive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 28-year-old G2P1001 at 28 weeks’ gestation presents to your clinic with 1 day of dyspnea and palpitations. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated. She reports worsening dyspnea with mild exertion but denies other symptoms, including leg swelling.

The current incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnant women is estimated to be a relatively low 5 to 12 events per 10,000 pregnancies, yet the condition is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries.^2,3,4 Currently, there are conflicting recommendations among relevant organization guidelines regarding the use of D-dimer testing to aid in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy. Both the Working Group in Women’s Health of the Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (GTH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend using D-dimer testing to rule out PE in pregnant women (ESC Class IIa, level of evidence B based on small studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies; GTH provides no grade).^5,6

Conversely, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Society of Thoracic Radiology recommend against the use of D-dimer testing in pregnant women because pregnant women were excluded from D-dimer validation studies (RCOG and SOGC Grade D; ATS weak recommendation).^4,7,8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not have specific recommendations regarding the use of D-dimer testing during pregnancy, but has endorsed the ATS guidelines.^4,9 In addition, SOGC recommends against the use of clinical prediction scores (Grade D), and RCOG states that there is no evidence to support their use (Grade C).^7,8 The remaining societies do not make a recommendation for or against the use of clinical prediction scores because of the absence of high-quality evidence regarding their use in the pregnant patient population.^4,5,6

STUDY SUMMARY

Prospective validation of a strategy to diagnose PE in pregnant women

This multicenter, multinational, prospective diagnostic study involving 395 pregnant women evaluated the accuracy of PE diagnosis across 11 centers in France and Switzerland from August 2008 through July 2016.¹ Patients with clinically suspected PE were evaluated in emergency departments. Patients were tested according to a diagnostic algorithm that included pretest clinical probability using the revised Geneva Score for Pulmonary Embolism (www.mdcalc.com/geneva-score-revised-pulmonary-­embolism), a clinical prediction tool that uses patient history, presenting symptoms, and clinical signs to classify patients as being at low (0-3/25), intermediate (4-10/25), or high (≥ 11/25) risk;¹⁰ high-sensitivity D-dimer testing; bilateral lower limb compression ultrasonography (CUS); computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and a ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan.

PE was excluded in patients who had a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability score and a negative D-dimer test result (< 500 mcg/L). Patients with a high pretest probability score or positive D-dimer test result underwent CUS, and, if negative, subsequent CTPA. A V/Q scan was performed if the CTPA was inconclusive. If the work-up was negative, PE was excluded.

Untreated pregnant women had clinical follow-up at 3 months. Any cases of suspected VTE were evaluated by a 3-member independent adjudication committee blinded to the initial diagnostic work-up. The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated VTE events during the 3-month follow-up period. PE was diagnosed in 28 patients (7.1%) and excluded in 367 (clinical probability score and negative D-dimer test result [n = 46], negative CTPA result [n = 290], normal or low-probability V/Q scan [n = 17], and other reason [n = 14]). Twenty-two women received anticoagulation during the follow-up period for other reasons (mainly history of previous VTE disease). No symptomatic VTE events occurred in any of the women after the diagnostic work-up was negative, including among those patients who were ruled out with only the clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result (rate 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-1%).

WHAT’S NEW

Clinical probability and D-dimer rule out PE in pregnant women

This study ruled out PE in patients with low/intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing. This low-cost strategy can be applied easily to the pregnant population.

CAVEATS

Additional research is still needed

From the results of this study, 11.6% of patients (n = 46) had a PE ruled out utilizing the revised Geneva score in conjunction with a D-dimer test result, with avoidance of chest imaging. However, this study was powered for the entire treatment algorithm and was not specifically powered for patients with low- or intermediate-risk pretest probability scores. Since this is the first published prospective diagnostic study of VTE in pregnancy, further research is needed to confirm the findings that a clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result can safely rule out PE in pregnant women.

This strategy ruled out PE in patients with low/ intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing.

In addition, further research is needed to determine pregnancy-adapted D-dimer cut-off values, as the researchers of this study noted that < 500 mcg/L was useful in the first and second trimester, but that levels increased as gestational age increased.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

Implementing a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates sequential assessment of pretest clinical probability based on the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer measurement should be relatively easy to implement, as both methods are readily available and relatively inexpensive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Elevated pulmonary artery diastolic pressure is “perhaps the best predictor of bad outcomes in patients with heart failure, including hospitalization and death,” and new evidence clearly showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin cuts this metric in patients by a clinically significant amount, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The evidence he collected from a total of 65 heart failure patients with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction is the first documentation from a randomized, controlled study to show a direct effect by a SGLT2 inhibitor on pulmonary artery (PA) pressures.

Other key findings were that the drop in PA diastolic pressure with empagliflozin treatment compared with placebo became discernible early (within the first 4 weeks on treatment), that the pressure-lowering effect steadily grew over time, and that it showed no link to the intensity of loop diuretic treatment, which held steady during 12 weeks on treatment and 13 weeks of overall monitoring.

The study’s primary endpoint was the change from baseline in PA diastolic pressure after 12 weeks on treatment. The 31 patients who completed the full 12-week course had an average drop in their PA diastolic pressure of about 1.5 mm Hg, compared with 28 patients who completed 12 weeks on placebo. Average PA diastolic pressure at baseline was about 21 mm Hg in both treatment arms, and on treatment this fell by more than 0.5 mm Hg among those who received empagliflozin and rose by close to 1 mm Hg among control patients.

“There appears to be a direct effect of empagliflozin on pulmonary artery pressure that’s not been previously demonstrated” by an SGLT2 inhibitor, Dr. Kosiborod said. “I think this is one mechanism of action” for this drug class. “If you control pulmonary artery filling pressures you can prevent hospitalizations and deaths.”
 

Small reductions matter

“Small pressure differences are particularly important for pulmonary hypertension,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and the report’s designated discussant.

“In the Vanderbilt heart failure database, patients with a pulmonary artery mean pressure of 20-24 mm Hg had 30% higher mortality than patients with lower pressures,” Dr. Stevenson noted. “This has led to a new definition of pulmonary hypertension, a mean pulmonary artery pressure above at or above 20 mm Hg.”

In Dr. Kosiborod’s study, patients began with an average PA mean pressure of about 30 mm Hg, and empagliflozin treatment led to a reduction in this metric with about the same magnitude as its effect on PA diastolic pressure. Empagliflozin also produced a similar reduction in average PA systolic pressure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A study built on ambulatory PA monitoring

The results “also provide more proof for the concept of ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring” in patients with heart failure to monitor their status, she added. The study enrolled only patients who had already received a CardioMEMS implant as part of their routine care. This device allows for frequent, noninvasive monitoring of PA pressures. Researchers collected PA pressure data from patients twice daily for the entire 13-week study.

The EMBRACE HF (Empagliflozin Impact on Hemodynamics in Patients With Heart Failure) study enrolled patients with established heart failure, a CardioMEMS implant, and New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms at any of eight U.S. centers. Patients averaged about 65 years old, and slightly more than half had class III disease, which denotes marked limitation of physical activity.

Despite the brief treatment period, patients who received empagliflozin showed other evidence of benefit including a trend toward improved quality of life scores, reduced levels of two different forms of brain natriuretic peptide, and significant weight loss, compared with controls, that averaged 2.4 kg.

The mechanism by which empagliflozin and other drugs in its class might lower PA filling pressures is unclear, but Dr. Kosiborod stressed that the consistent level of loop diuretic use during the study seems to rule out a diuretic effect from the SGLT2 inhibitor as having a role. A pulmonary vasculature effect is “much more likely,” perhaps mediated through modified endothelial function and vasodilation, he suggested.

EMBRACE HF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance) along with Eli Lilly. Dr. Kosiborod has received research support and honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has received honoraria from several other companies. Dr. Stevenson had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Elevated pulmonary artery diastolic pressure is “perhaps the best predictor of bad outcomes in patients with heart failure, including hospitalization and death,” and new evidence clearly showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin cuts this metric in patients by a clinically significant amount, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The evidence he collected from a total of 65 heart failure patients with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction is the first documentation from a randomized, controlled study to show a direct effect by a SGLT2 inhibitor on pulmonary artery (PA) pressures.

Other key findings were that the drop in PA diastolic pressure with empagliflozin treatment compared with placebo became discernible early (within the first 4 weeks on treatment), that the pressure-lowering effect steadily grew over time, and that it showed no link to the intensity of loop diuretic treatment, which held steady during 12 weeks on treatment and 13 weeks of overall monitoring.

The study’s primary endpoint was the change from baseline in PA diastolic pressure after 12 weeks on treatment. The 31 patients who completed the full 12-week course had an average drop in their PA diastolic pressure of about 1.5 mm Hg, compared with 28 patients who completed 12 weeks on placebo. Average PA diastolic pressure at baseline was about 21 mm Hg in both treatment arms, and on treatment this fell by more than 0.5 mm Hg among those who received empagliflozin and rose by close to 1 mm Hg among control patients.

“There appears to be a direct effect of empagliflozin on pulmonary artery pressure that’s not been previously demonstrated” by an SGLT2 inhibitor, Dr. Kosiborod said. “I think this is one mechanism of action” for this drug class. “If you control pulmonary artery filling pressures you can prevent hospitalizations and deaths.”
 

Small reductions matter

“Small pressure differences are particularly important for pulmonary hypertension,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and the report’s designated discussant.

“In the Vanderbilt heart failure database, patients with a pulmonary artery mean pressure of 20-24 mm Hg had 30% higher mortality than patients with lower pressures,” Dr. Stevenson noted. “This has led to a new definition of pulmonary hypertension, a mean pulmonary artery pressure above at or above 20 mm Hg.”

In Dr. Kosiborod’s study, patients began with an average PA mean pressure of about 30 mm Hg, and empagliflozin treatment led to a reduction in this metric with about the same magnitude as its effect on PA diastolic pressure. Empagliflozin also produced a similar reduction in average PA systolic pressure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A study built on ambulatory PA monitoring

The results “also provide more proof for the concept of ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring” in patients with heart failure to monitor their status, she added. The study enrolled only patients who had already received a CardioMEMS implant as part of their routine care. This device allows for frequent, noninvasive monitoring of PA pressures. Researchers collected PA pressure data from patients twice daily for the entire 13-week study.

The EMBRACE HF (Empagliflozin Impact on Hemodynamics in Patients With Heart Failure) study enrolled patients with established heart failure, a CardioMEMS implant, and New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms at any of eight U.S. centers. Patients averaged about 65 years old, and slightly more than half had class III disease, which denotes marked limitation of physical activity.

Despite the brief treatment period, patients who received empagliflozin showed other evidence of benefit including a trend toward improved quality of life scores, reduced levels of two different forms of brain natriuretic peptide, and significant weight loss, compared with controls, that averaged 2.4 kg.

The mechanism by which empagliflozin and other drugs in its class might lower PA filling pressures is unclear, but Dr. Kosiborod stressed that the consistent level of loop diuretic use during the study seems to rule out a diuretic effect from the SGLT2 inhibitor as having a role. A pulmonary vasculature effect is “much more likely,” perhaps mediated through modified endothelial function and vasodilation, he suggested.

EMBRACE HF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance) along with Eli Lilly. Dr. Kosiborod has received research support and honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has received honoraria from several other companies. Dr. Stevenson had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Elevated pulmonary artery diastolic pressure is “perhaps the best predictor of bad outcomes in patients with heart failure, including hospitalization and death,” and new evidence clearly showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin cuts this metric in patients by a clinically significant amount, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The evidence he collected from a total of 65 heart failure patients with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction is the first documentation from a randomized, controlled study to show a direct effect by a SGLT2 inhibitor on pulmonary artery (PA) pressures.

Other key findings were that the drop in PA diastolic pressure with empagliflozin treatment compared with placebo became discernible early (within the first 4 weeks on treatment), that the pressure-lowering effect steadily grew over time, and that it showed no link to the intensity of loop diuretic treatment, which held steady during 12 weeks on treatment and 13 weeks of overall monitoring.

The study’s primary endpoint was the change from baseline in PA diastolic pressure after 12 weeks on treatment. The 31 patients who completed the full 12-week course had an average drop in their PA diastolic pressure of about 1.5 mm Hg, compared with 28 patients who completed 12 weeks on placebo. Average PA diastolic pressure at baseline was about 21 mm Hg in both treatment arms, and on treatment this fell by more than 0.5 mm Hg among those who received empagliflozin and rose by close to 1 mm Hg among control patients.

“There appears to be a direct effect of empagliflozin on pulmonary artery pressure that’s not been previously demonstrated” by an SGLT2 inhibitor, Dr. Kosiborod said. “I think this is one mechanism of action” for this drug class. “If you control pulmonary artery filling pressures you can prevent hospitalizations and deaths.”
 

Small reductions matter

“Small pressure differences are particularly important for pulmonary hypertension,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and the report’s designated discussant.

“In the Vanderbilt heart failure database, patients with a pulmonary artery mean pressure of 20-24 mm Hg had 30% higher mortality than patients with lower pressures,” Dr. Stevenson noted. “This has led to a new definition of pulmonary hypertension, a mean pulmonary artery pressure above at or above 20 mm Hg.”

In Dr. Kosiborod’s study, patients began with an average PA mean pressure of about 30 mm Hg, and empagliflozin treatment led to a reduction in this metric with about the same magnitude as its effect on PA diastolic pressure. Empagliflozin also produced a similar reduction in average PA systolic pressure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A study built on ambulatory PA monitoring

The results “also provide more proof for the concept of ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring” in patients with heart failure to monitor their status, she added. The study enrolled only patients who had already received a CardioMEMS implant as part of their routine care. This device allows for frequent, noninvasive monitoring of PA pressures. Researchers collected PA pressure data from patients twice daily for the entire 13-week study.

The EMBRACE HF (Empagliflozin Impact on Hemodynamics in Patients With Heart Failure) study enrolled patients with established heart failure, a CardioMEMS implant, and New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms at any of eight U.S. centers. Patients averaged about 65 years old, and slightly more than half had class III disease, which denotes marked limitation of physical activity.

Despite the brief treatment period, patients who received empagliflozin showed other evidence of benefit including a trend toward improved quality of life scores, reduced levels of two different forms of brain natriuretic peptide, and significant weight loss, compared with controls, that averaged 2.4 kg.

The mechanism by which empagliflozin and other drugs in its class might lower PA filling pressures is unclear, but Dr. Kosiborod stressed that the consistent level of loop diuretic use during the study seems to rule out a diuretic effect from the SGLT2 inhibitor as having a role. A pulmonary vasculature effect is “much more likely,” perhaps mediated through modified endothelial function and vasodilation, he suggested.

EMBRACE HF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance) along with Eli Lilly. Dr. Kosiborod has received research support and honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has received honoraria from several other companies. Dr. Stevenson had no disclosures.

[email protected]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the way we deliver healthcare for the foreseeable future. Not only have we had to rapidly learn how to evaluate, diagnose, and treat this new disease, we have also had to shift how we screen, triage, and care for other patients for both their safety and ours. As the virus is primarily spread via respiratory droplets, aerosol-generating procedures (AGP), such as bronchoscopy and tracheostomy, are high-risk for viral transmission. We have therefore had to reassess the risk/benefit ratio of performing these procedures – what is the risk to the patient by procedure postponement vs the risk to the health-care personnel (HCP) involved by moving ahead with the procedure? And, if proceeding, how should we protect ourselves? How do we screen patients to help us stratify risk? In order to answer these questions, we generally divide patients into three categories: the asymptomatic outpatient, the symptomatic patient, and the critically ill patient.

The asymptomatic outpatient

Early in the pandemic as cases began to spike in the US, many hospitals decided to postpone all elective procedures and surgeries. Guidelines quickly emerged stratifying bronchoscopic procedures into emergent, urgent, acute, subacute, and truly elective with recommendations on the subsequent timing of those procedures (Pritchett MA, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2020 May;12[5]:1781-1798). As we have obtained further data and our infrastructure has been bolstered, many physicians have begun performing more routine procedures. Preprocedural screening, both with symptom questionnaires and nasopharyngeal swabs, has been enacted as a measure to prevent inadvertent exposure to infected patients. While there are limited data regarding the reliability of this measure, emerging data have shown good concordance between nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples in low-risk patients (Oberg, et al. Personal communication, Sept 2020). Emergency procedures, such as foreign body aspiration, critical airway obstruction, and massive hemoptysis, were generally performed without delay throughout the pandemic. More recently, emphasis has been placed on prioritizing procedures for acute clinical diagnoses, such as biopsies for concerning lung nodules or masses in potentially early-stage patients, in those where staging is needed and in those where disease progression is suspected. Subacute procedures, such as inspection bronchoscopy for cough, minor hemoptysis, or airway stent surveillance, have generally been reintroduced while elective procedures, such as bronchial thermoplasty and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction, are considered elective, and their frequency and timing is determined mostly by the number of new cases of COVID-19 in the local community.

For all procedures, general modifications have been made. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters should be placed on all ventilatory circuits. When equivalent, flexible bronchoscopy is preferred over rigid bronchoscopy due to the closed circuit. Enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) for all procedures is recommended – this typically includes a gown, gloves, hair bonnet, N-95 mask, and a face shield. Strict adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for postprocedure cleaning and sterilization is strongly recommended. In some cases, single-use bronchoscopes are being preferentially used, though no strong recommendations exist for this.
 

The symptomatic COVID-19 patient

In patients who have been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, we generally recommend postponing all procedures other than for life-threatening indications. For outpatients, we generally wait for two negative nasopharyngeal swabs prior to performing any nonemergent procedure. In inpatients, similar recommendations exist. Potential inpatient indications for bronchoscopy include diagnostic evaluation for alternate or coinfections, and therapeutic aspiration of clinically significant secretions. These should be carefully considered and performed only if deemed absolutely necessary. If bronchoscopy is needed in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, at a minimum, gown, gloves, head cover, face shield, and an N-95 mask should be worn. A powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) can be used and may provide increased protection. Proper donning and doffing techniques should be reviewed prior to any procedure. Personnel involved in the case should be limited to the minimum required. The procedure should be performed by experienced operators and limited in length. Removal and reinsertion of the bronchoscope should be minimized.

The critically ill COVID-19 patient

While the majority of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 will have only mild symptoms, we know that a subset of patients will develop respiratory failure. Of those, a small but significant number will require prolonged mechanical ventilation during their clinical course. Thus, the consideration for tracheostomy comes into play.

Multiple issues arise when discussing tracheostomy placement in the COVID-19 world. Should it be done at all? If yes, what is the best technique and who should do it? When and where should it be done? Importantly – how do we care for patients once it is in place to facilitate recovery and, hopefully, decannulation?

Tracheostomy tubes are used in the ICU for patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation for many reasons – patient comfort, decreased need for sedation, and to facilitate transfer out of the ICU to less acute care areas. These reasons are just as important in patients afflicted with respiratory failure from COVID-19, if not more so. As the patient volumes surge, health-care systems can quickly become overwhelmed. The ability to safely move patients out of the ICU frees up those resources for others who are more acutely ill.

The optimal technique for tracheostomy placement largely depends on the technological and human capital of each institution. Emphasis should be placed on procedural experience, efficiency, safety, and minimizing risk to HCP. While mortality rates do not differ between the surgical and percutaneous techniques, the percutaneous approach has been shown to require less procedural time (Iftikhar IH, et al. Lung. 2019[Jun];197[3]:267-275), an important infection control advantage in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, percutaneous tracheostomies are typically performed at the bedside, which offers the immediate benefit of minimizing patient transfer. This decreases exposure to multiple HCP, as well as contamination of other health-care areas. If performing a bronchoscopic-guided percutaneous tracheostomy, apnea should be maintained from insertion of the guiding catheter to tracheostomy insertion in order to minimize aerosolization. A novel technique involving placing the bronchoscope beside the endotracheal tube instead of through it has also been described (Angel L, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020[Sep];110[3]:1006–1011).

Timing of tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 patients has varied widely. Initially, concern for the safety of HCP performing these procedures led to recommendations of waiting at least 21 days of intubation or until COVID-19 testing became negative. However, more recently, multiple recommendations have been made for tracheostomy placement after day 10 of intubation (McGrath, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020[Jul];8[7]:717-725).

Finally, once a tracheostomy tube has been placed, the care does not stop there. As patients are transitioned to rehabilitation centers or skilled nursing facilities and are assessed for weaning, downsizing, and decannulation, care should be taken to avoid virus aerosolization during key high-risk steps. Modifications such as performing spontaneous breathing trials using pressure support (a closed circuit) rather than tracheostomy mask, bypassing speaking valve trials in favor of direct tracheostomy capping, and avoiding routine tracheostomy downsizing are examples of simple steps that can be taken to facilitate patient progress while minimizing HCP risk (Divo, et al. Respir Care. 2020[Aug]5;respcare.08157).
 

What’s ahead?

As we move forward, we will continue to balance caring for patients effectively and efficiently while minimizing risk to ourselves and others. Ultimately until a vaccine exists, we will have to focus on prevention of infection and spread; therefore, the core principles of hand hygiene, mask wearing, and social distancing have never been more important. We encourage continued study, scrutiny, and collaboration in order to optimize procedural techniques as more information becomes available.
 

Dr. Oberg is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; Dr. Beattie is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; and Dr. Folch is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the way we deliver healthcare for the foreseeable future. Not only have we had to rapidly learn how to evaluate, diagnose, and treat this new disease, we have also had to shift how we screen, triage, and care for other patients for both their safety and ours. As the virus is primarily spread via respiratory droplets, aerosol-generating procedures (AGP), such as bronchoscopy and tracheostomy, are high-risk for viral transmission. We have therefore had to reassess the risk/benefit ratio of performing these procedures – what is the risk to the patient by procedure postponement vs the risk to the health-care personnel (HCP) involved by moving ahead with the procedure? And, if proceeding, how should we protect ourselves? How do we screen patients to help us stratify risk? In order to answer these questions, we generally divide patients into three categories: the asymptomatic outpatient, the symptomatic patient, and the critically ill patient.

The asymptomatic outpatient

Early in the pandemic as cases began to spike in the US, many hospitals decided to postpone all elective procedures and surgeries. Guidelines quickly emerged stratifying bronchoscopic procedures into emergent, urgent, acute, subacute, and truly elective with recommendations on the subsequent timing of those procedures (Pritchett MA, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2020 May;12[5]:1781-1798). As we have obtained further data and our infrastructure has been bolstered, many physicians have begun performing more routine procedures. Preprocedural screening, both with symptom questionnaires and nasopharyngeal swabs, has been enacted as a measure to prevent inadvertent exposure to infected patients. While there are limited data regarding the reliability of this measure, emerging data have shown good concordance between nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples in low-risk patients (Oberg, et al. Personal communication, Sept 2020). Emergency procedures, such as foreign body aspiration, critical airway obstruction, and massive hemoptysis, were generally performed without delay throughout the pandemic. More recently, emphasis has been placed on prioritizing procedures for acute clinical diagnoses, such as biopsies for concerning lung nodules or masses in potentially early-stage patients, in those where staging is needed and in those where disease progression is suspected. Subacute procedures, such as inspection bronchoscopy for cough, minor hemoptysis, or airway stent surveillance, have generally been reintroduced while elective procedures, such as bronchial thermoplasty and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction, are considered elective, and their frequency and timing is determined mostly by the number of new cases of COVID-19 in the local community.

For all procedures, general modifications have been made. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters should be placed on all ventilatory circuits. When equivalent, flexible bronchoscopy is preferred over rigid bronchoscopy due to the closed circuit. Enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) for all procedures is recommended – this typically includes a gown, gloves, hair bonnet, N-95 mask, and a face shield. Strict adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for postprocedure cleaning and sterilization is strongly recommended. In some cases, single-use bronchoscopes are being preferentially used, though no strong recommendations exist for this.
 

The symptomatic COVID-19 patient

In patients who have been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, we generally recommend postponing all procedures other than for life-threatening indications. For outpatients, we generally wait for two negative nasopharyngeal swabs prior to performing any nonemergent procedure. In inpatients, similar recommendations exist. Potential inpatient indications for bronchoscopy include diagnostic evaluation for alternate or coinfections, and therapeutic aspiration of clinically significant secretions. These should be carefully considered and performed only if deemed absolutely necessary. If bronchoscopy is needed in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, at a minimum, gown, gloves, head cover, face shield, and an N-95 mask should be worn. A powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) can be used and may provide increased protection. Proper donning and doffing techniques should be reviewed prior to any procedure. Personnel involved in the case should be limited to the minimum required. The procedure should be performed by experienced operators and limited in length. Removal and reinsertion of the bronchoscope should be minimized.

The critically ill COVID-19 patient

While the majority of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 will have only mild symptoms, we know that a subset of patients will develop respiratory failure. Of those, a small but significant number will require prolonged mechanical ventilation during their clinical course. Thus, the consideration for tracheostomy comes into play.

Multiple issues arise when discussing tracheostomy placement in the COVID-19 world. Should it be done at all? If yes, what is the best technique and who should do it? When and where should it be done? Importantly – how do we care for patients once it is in place to facilitate recovery and, hopefully, decannulation?

Tracheostomy tubes are used in the ICU for patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation for many reasons – patient comfort, decreased need for sedation, and to facilitate transfer out of the ICU to less acute care areas. These reasons are just as important in patients afflicted with respiratory failure from COVID-19, if not more so. As the patient volumes surge, health-care systems can quickly become overwhelmed. The ability to safely move patients out of the ICU frees up those resources for others who are more acutely ill.

The optimal technique for tracheostomy placement largely depends on the technological and human capital of each institution. Emphasis should be placed on procedural experience, efficiency, safety, and minimizing risk to HCP. While mortality rates do not differ between the surgical and percutaneous techniques, the percutaneous approach has been shown to require less procedural time (Iftikhar IH, et al. Lung. 2019[Jun];197[3]:267-275), an important infection control advantage in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, percutaneous tracheostomies are typically performed at the bedside, which offers the immediate benefit of minimizing patient transfer. This decreases exposure to multiple HCP, as well as contamination of other health-care areas. If performing a bronchoscopic-guided percutaneous tracheostomy, apnea should be maintained from insertion of the guiding catheter to tracheostomy insertion in order to minimize aerosolization. A novel technique involving placing the bronchoscope beside the endotracheal tube instead of through it has also been described (Angel L, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020[Sep];110[3]:1006–1011).

Timing of tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 patients has varied widely. Initially, concern for the safety of HCP performing these procedures led to recommendations of waiting at least 21 days of intubation or until COVID-19 testing became negative. However, more recently, multiple recommendations have been made for tracheostomy placement after day 10 of intubation (McGrath, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020[Jul];8[7]:717-725).

Finally, once a tracheostomy tube has been placed, the care does not stop there. As patients are transitioned to rehabilitation centers or skilled nursing facilities and are assessed for weaning, downsizing, and decannulation, care should be taken to avoid virus aerosolization during key high-risk steps. Modifications such as performing spontaneous breathing trials using pressure support (a closed circuit) rather than tracheostomy mask, bypassing speaking valve trials in favor of direct tracheostomy capping, and avoiding routine tracheostomy downsizing are examples of simple steps that can be taken to facilitate patient progress while minimizing HCP risk (Divo, et al. Respir Care. 2020[Aug]5;respcare.08157).
 

What’s ahead?

As we move forward, we will continue to balance caring for patients effectively and efficiently while minimizing risk to ourselves and others. Ultimately until a vaccine exists, we will have to focus on prevention of infection and spread; therefore, the core principles of hand hygiene, mask wearing, and social distancing have never been more important. We encourage continued study, scrutiny, and collaboration in order to optimize procedural techniques as more information becomes available.
 

Dr. Oberg is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; Dr. Beattie is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; and Dr. Folch is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the way we deliver healthcare for the foreseeable future. Not only have we had to rapidly learn how to evaluate, diagnose, and treat this new disease, we have also had to shift how we screen, triage, and care for other patients for both their safety and ours. As the virus is primarily spread via respiratory droplets, aerosol-generating procedures (AGP), such as bronchoscopy and tracheostomy, are high-risk for viral transmission. We have therefore had to reassess the risk/benefit ratio of performing these procedures – what is the risk to the patient by procedure postponement vs the risk to the health-care personnel (HCP) involved by moving ahead with the procedure? And, if proceeding, how should we protect ourselves? How do we screen patients to help us stratify risk? In order to answer these questions, we generally divide patients into three categories: the asymptomatic outpatient, the symptomatic patient, and the critically ill patient.

The asymptomatic outpatient

Early in the pandemic as cases began to spike in the US, many hospitals decided to postpone all elective procedures and surgeries. Guidelines quickly emerged stratifying bronchoscopic procedures into emergent, urgent, acute, subacute, and truly elective with recommendations on the subsequent timing of those procedures (Pritchett MA, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2020 May;12[5]:1781-1798). As we have obtained further data and our infrastructure has been bolstered, many physicians have begun performing more routine procedures. Preprocedural screening, both with symptom questionnaires and nasopharyngeal swabs, has been enacted as a measure to prevent inadvertent exposure to infected patients. While there are limited data regarding the reliability of this measure, emerging data have shown good concordance between nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples in low-risk patients (Oberg, et al. Personal communication, Sept 2020). Emergency procedures, such as foreign body aspiration, critical airway obstruction, and massive hemoptysis, were generally performed without delay throughout the pandemic. More recently, emphasis has been placed on prioritizing procedures for acute clinical diagnoses, such as biopsies for concerning lung nodules or masses in potentially early-stage patients, in those where staging is needed and in those where disease progression is suspected. Subacute procedures, such as inspection bronchoscopy for cough, minor hemoptysis, or airway stent surveillance, have generally been reintroduced while elective procedures, such as bronchial thermoplasty and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction, are considered elective, and their frequency and timing is determined mostly by the number of new cases of COVID-19 in the local community.

For all procedures, general modifications have been made. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters should be placed on all ventilatory circuits. When equivalent, flexible bronchoscopy is preferred over rigid bronchoscopy due to the closed circuit. Enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) for all procedures is recommended – this typically includes a gown, gloves, hair bonnet, N-95 mask, and a face shield. Strict adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for postprocedure cleaning and sterilization is strongly recommended. In some cases, single-use bronchoscopes are being preferentially used, though no strong recommendations exist for this.
 

The symptomatic COVID-19 patient

In patients who have been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, we generally recommend postponing all procedures other than for life-threatening indications. For outpatients, we generally wait for two negative nasopharyngeal swabs prior to performing any nonemergent procedure. In inpatients, similar recommendations exist. Potential inpatient indications for bronchoscopy include diagnostic evaluation for alternate or coinfections, and therapeutic aspiration of clinically significant secretions. These should be carefully considered and performed only if deemed absolutely necessary. If bronchoscopy is needed in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, at a minimum, gown, gloves, head cover, face shield, and an N-95 mask should be worn. A powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) can be used and may provide increased protection. Proper donning and doffing techniques should be reviewed prior to any procedure. Personnel involved in the case should be limited to the minimum required. The procedure should be performed by experienced operators and limited in length. Removal and reinsertion of the bronchoscope should be minimized.

The critically ill COVID-19 patient

While the majority of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 will have only mild symptoms, we know that a subset of patients will develop respiratory failure. Of those, a small but significant number will require prolonged mechanical ventilation during their clinical course. Thus, the consideration for tracheostomy comes into play.

Multiple issues arise when discussing tracheostomy placement in the COVID-19 world. Should it be done at all? If yes, what is the best technique and who should do it? When and where should it be done? Importantly – how do we care for patients once it is in place to facilitate recovery and, hopefully, decannulation?

Tracheostomy tubes are used in the ICU for patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation for many reasons – patient comfort, decreased need for sedation, and to facilitate transfer out of the ICU to less acute care areas. These reasons are just as important in patients afflicted with respiratory failure from COVID-19, if not more so. As the patient volumes surge, health-care systems can quickly become overwhelmed. The ability to safely move patients out of the ICU frees up those resources for others who are more acutely ill.

The optimal technique for tracheostomy placement largely depends on the technological and human capital of each institution. Emphasis should be placed on procedural experience, efficiency, safety, and minimizing risk to HCP. While mortality rates do not differ between the surgical and percutaneous techniques, the percutaneous approach has been shown to require less procedural time (Iftikhar IH, et al. Lung. 2019[Jun];197[3]:267-275), an important infection control advantage in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, percutaneous tracheostomies are typically performed at the bedside, which offers the immediate benefit of minimizing patient transfer. This decreases exposure to multiple HCP, as well as contamination of other health-care areas. If performing a bronchoscopic-guided percutaneous tracheostomy, apnea should be maintained from insertion of the guiding catheter to tracheostomy insertion in order to minimize aerosolization. A novel technique involving placing the bronchoscope beside the endotracheal tube instead of through it has also been described (Angel L, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020[Sep];110[3]:1006–1011).

Timing of tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 patients has varied widely. Initially, concern for the safety of HCP performing these procedures led to recommendations of waiting at least 21 days of intubation or until COVID-19 testing became negative. However, more recently, multiple recommendations have been made for tracheostomy placement after day 10 of intubation (McGrath, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020[Jul];8[7]:717-725).

Finally, once a tracheostomy tube has been placed, the care does not stop there. As patients are transitioned to rehabilitation centers or skilled nursing facilities and are assessed for weaning, downsizing, and decannulation, care should be taken to avoid virus aerosolization during key high-risk steps. Modifications such as performing spontaneous breathing trials using pressure support (a closed circuit) rather than tracheostomy mask, bypassing speaking valve trials in favor of direct tracheostomy capping, and avoiding routine tracheostomy downsizing are examples of simple steps that can be taken to facilitate patient progress while minimizing HCP risk (Divo, et al. Respir Care. 2020[Aug]5;respcare.08157).
 

What’s ahead?

As we move forward, we will continue to balance caring for patients effectively and efficiently while minimizing risk to ourselves and others. Ultimately until a vaccine exists, we will have to focus on prevention of infection and spread; therefore, the core principles of hand hygiene, mask wearing, and social distancing have never been more important. We encourage continued study, scrutiny, and collaboration in order to optimize procedural techniques as more information becomes available.
 

Dr. Oberg is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; Dr. Beattie is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; and Dr. Folch is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been the third leading cause of death in the US since 2008.¹ Current management of COPD includes smoking cessation, adequate nutrition, medication therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation, and vaccines.² Outside of pharmacologic management, oxygen therapy has become a staple treatment of chronic hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COPD. Landmark trials, including the Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy Trial (NOTT) and Medical Research Council (MRC) study, demonstrated improved survival in patients with COPD and hypoxemia, particularly if these patients received oxygen for 18 hours per day.^3,4 NOTT prospectively evaluated 203 patients at 6 centers who were randomly allocated to either continuous oxygen therapy or 12-hour nocturnal oxygen therapy. The overall mortality in the nocturnal oxygen therapy group was 1.94 times that in the continuous oxygen therapy group (P = .01).³ The MRC study included 87 patients who were randomized to oxygen therapy or no oxygen; risk of death was 12% per year in the treated group vs 29% per year in the control group (P = .04).⁴ The effectiveness of long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) in active smokers continues to be a source of debate; although 50% of patients in the NOTT trial were smokers, there was no subgroup analysis of whether smoking status had an impact on survival in those on continuous oxygen therapy.

Although many therapies are available for the treatment of COPD, the most effective treatment to prevent the progression of COPD is smoking cessation. Resources like smoking cessation programs, nicotine patches, and medications, such as bupropion and varenicline, are available to aid smoking cessation.⁵ However, many patients are unable to quit tobacco use despite their best efforts using available resources, and they continue to smoke even with progressive COPD. Long-time smokers also are likely to continue smoking while on LTOT, which increases their risk for fire-related injury.^6-8

Traditional indications are being scrutinized after the LTOT trial found no benefit with respect to time to death or first hospitalization among patients with stable COPD and resting or exercise-induced moderate desaturation.⁹

Although oxygen accelerates combustion and is a potential fire hazard, LTOT has been prescribed even to active smokers as the 2 landmark trials did not exclude patients who were active smokers from receiving oxygen therapy.^3,4 Therefore, LTOT has traditionally been prescribed to veterans who are actively smoking, despite the fire hazard. Attempts at mitigating hazards related to oxygen therapy in active smokers include counseling extensively about safety measures (which includes avoiding open flames such as candles, large fires, or sparks when on LTOT and providing Home Safety Agreements—a written contract between prescriber and patient wherein the patient agrees to abide by the terms of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to mitigate hazards related to LTOT in order to receive LTOT (eAppendix 

Methods

With this practice in mind, we conducted an institutional review board approved retrospective chart review of all veterans with diagnosis of COPD within the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System (CTVHCS) who were prescribed new LTOT between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2015. Given the retrospective nature of the chart review, patient consent was not obtained. Inclusion criteria were veterans aged > 18 years who had a confirmed diagnosis of COPD by spirometry and who met criteria for either continuous or ambulation- only oxygen therapy.

Criteria for exclusion included patients with hypoxemia not solely attributable to COPD or due to diseases other than COPD. We reviewed encounters in these patients’ charts, including follow-up in the clinic of the providers prescribing oxygen, to assess for fire-related incidents, defined as events wherein fire was visualized by the patient or by individuals living with the patient and with report provided to medical equipment company providing oxygen; the patient did not have to seek medical care to qualify for fire-related incident. Of the 158 patients who met the criteria for inclusion in the study, 152 were male.

Statistics

Bayesian logistic regression was used to model the outcome variable fire-related incident with the predictors smoking status, age, race, depression, PTSD, and type of oxygen used. Mental health disorders have significant effect on substance use disorders, such as alcohol use. Depression and PTSD were more common mental health diagnoses found in our patient population. Additionally, due to the small sample size, these psychiatric diagnoses were chosen to evaluate the impact of mental health disorders on firerelated events.

Although the sample size of events was small, weakly informative normal priors (0, 2.5) were used to shrink parameter estimates toward 0 and minimize overfitting. Weakly informative normal priors have also been suggested to deal with the problem of quasi-complete separation, where in our case, both smoking and no-PTSD perfectly predicted the 9 fire-related incidents.¹⁰ All input variables were centered and scaled as recommended. ⁹ The model fit well as assessed by posterior predictive checks, and Rhat was 1.00 for all parameters, indicating that all chains converged. Analysis was completed in R version 3.5.1 using the ‘brms’ package for Bayesian modeling.¹¹

Results

The mean age for the 158 included patients was 71.3 years in nonsmokers and 65.9 years in smokers. Fifty-three of the included patients were active smokers when LTOT was initiated. Nine veterans had fire-related incidents during the study period. All 9 patients were actively smoking (about 17%) at the time of the fire incidents. There were no deaths, and 5 patients required hospitalization due to facial burns resulting from the fire-related incidents. Our study focused on 5 baseline characteristics in our population (Table 1). After gathering data, our group inferred that these characteristics had a potential relationship to fire-related incidents compared with other variables that were studied. Future studies could look at other patient characteristics that may be linked to fire-related incidents in patients on LTOT. For example, not having PTSD also perfectly predicts fire-related incidents in our data (ie, none of the participants who had fire-related incidents had PTSD). Although this finding was not within the 95% confidence interval (CI) in the model, it does show that care must be taken when interpreting effects from small samples (Table 2). The modelestimated odds of a fire-related incident occurring in a smoker were 31.6 (5.1-372.7) times more likely than were the odds of a firerelated incident occurring in a nonsmoker, holding all other predictors at their reference level; 95% CI for the odds ratios for all other predictors in the model included a value of 1.

Discussion

This study showed evidence of increased odds of fire-related events in actively smoking patients receiving LTOT compared with patients who do not actively smoke while attempting to adjust for potential confounders. Of the 9 patients who had fire events, 5 required hospitalization for burns.

A similar retrospective cohort study by Sharma and colleagues in 2015 demonstrated an increased risk of burn-related injury when on LTOT but reiterated that the benefit of oxygen outweighs the risk of burn-related injury in patients requiring oxygen therapy.¹² Interestingly, Sharma and colleagues were unable to identify smoking status for the patients studied but further identified factors associated with burn injury to include male sex, low socioeconomic status, oxygen therapy use, and ≥ 3 comorbidities. The study’s conclusion recommended continued education by health care professionals (HCPs) to their patients on LTOT regarding potential for burn injury. In the same vein, the VA National Center for Ethics in Health Care noted that “clinicians should familiarize themselves with the risks and benefits of LTOT; should inform their patients of the risks and benefits without exaggerating the risk associated with smoking; avoid undue coercion inherent in the clinician’s ability to withdraw LTOT; reduce the risk to the greatest degree possible; and consider termination of LTOT in very extreme cases and in consultation with a multidisciplinary committee.”¹³

This statement is in contrast to the guidelines and policies of other countries, such as Sweden, where smoking is a direct contraindication for prescription of oxygen therapy, or in Australia and New Zealand, where the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand oxygen therapy guidelines recommend against prescription of LTOT, citing “increased fire risk and the probability that the poorer prognosis conferred by smoking will offset treatment benefit.”^6,14

The prevalence of oxygen therapy introduces the potential for fire-related incidents with subsequent injury requiring medical care. There are few studies regarding home oxygen fire in the US due to the lack of a uniform reporting system. One study by Wendling and Pelletier analyzed deaths in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma between 2000 and 2007 and found 38 deaths directly attributable to home oxygen fires as a result of smoking^.15 Further, the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s National Electronic Injury Surveillance System between 2003 and 2006 attributed 1,190 thermal burns related to home oxygen fires; the majority of which were ignited by tobacco smoking.¹⁵ The Swedish National Register of Respiratory Failure (Swedevox) published prospective population-based, consecutive cohort study that collected data over 17 years and evaluated the risk of fire-related incident in those on LTOT. Of the 12,497 patients sampled, 17 had a burn injury and 2 patients died. The low incidence of burn injury on LTOT was attributed to the strict guidelines instituted in Sweden for doctors to avoid prescribing LTOT to actively smoking patients.⁶ A follow-up study by Tanash and colleagues compared the risk of burn injury in each country, respectively. The results found an increased number of burn injuries in those on oxygen therapy in Denmark, a country with fewer restrictions on smoking compared with those of Sweden.⁷ Similarly, our results showed that the rate of fire and burn injuries was exclusively among veterans who were active smokers. All patients who were prescribed oxygen therapy at CTVHCS received counseling and signed Home Safety Agreements. Despite following the recommendations set forth by the VA on counseling, extensive harm reduction techniques, and close follow-up, we found there was still a high incidence of fires in veterans with COPD on LTOT who continue to smoke.

The findings from our study concur with those previously published regarding the risk of home oxygen fire and concomitant smoking, supporting the idea for more regulated and concrete guidelines for prescribing LTOT to those requiring it.⁸

Limitations

The major limitation was the small sample size of our study. Another limitation was that our study population is predominantly male as is common in veteran cohorts. In fiscal year 2016, the veteran population of Texas was 1,434,361 males and 168,967 females.¹⁶ According to Franklin and colleagues, HCPs noticed an increase use of long-term oxygen among women compared with that of men.¹⁷

Conclusions

Our study showed an increased odds of firerelated incidents of patients while on LTOT, strengthening the argument that even with extensive education, those who smoke and are on LTOT continue to put themselves at risk of a fire-related incident. This finding stresses the importance of continuing patient education on the importance of smoking cessation prior to administration of LTOT or avoiding fire hazards while on LTOT. Further research into LTOT and fire hazards could help in implementing a more structured approval process for patients who want to obtain LTOT. We propose further studies evaluating risk factors for the incidence of fire events among patients prescribed LTOT. A growing and aging population with a need for LTOT necessitates examination of oxygen safe prescribing.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been the third leading cause of death in the US since 2008.¹ Current management of COPD includes smoking cessation, adequate nutrition, medication therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation, and vaccines.² Outside of pharmacologic management, oxygen therapy has become a staple treatment of chronic hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COPD. Landmark trials, including the Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy Trial (NOTT) and Medical Research Council (MRC) study, demonstrated improved survival in patients with COPD and hypoxemia, particularly if these patients received oxygen for 18 hours per day.^3,4 NOTT prospectively evaluated 203 patients at 6 centers who were randomly allocated to either continuous oxygen therapy or 12-hour nocturnal oxygen therapy. The overall mortality in the nocturnal oxygen therapy group was 1.94 times that in the continuous oxygen therapy group (P = .01).³ The MRC study included 87 patients who were randomized to oxygen therapy or no oxygen; risk of death was 12% per year in the treated group vs 29% per year in the control group (P = .04).⁴ The effectiveness of long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) in active smokers continues to be a source of debate; although 50% of patients in the NOTT trial were smokers, there was no subgroup analysis of whether smoking status had an impact on survival in those on continuous oxygen therapy.

Although many therapies are available for the treatment of COPD, the most effective treatment to prevent the progression of COPD is smoking cessation. Resources like smoking cessation programs, nicotine patches, and medications, such as bupropion and varenicline, are available to aid smoking cessation.⁵ However, many patients are unable to quit tobacco use despite their best efforts using available resources, and they continue to smoke even with progressive COPD. Long-time smokers also are likely to continue smoking while on LTOT, which increases their risk for fire-related injury.^6-8

Traditional indications are being scrutinized after the LTOT trial found no benefit with respect to time to death or first hospitalization among patients with stable COPD and resting or exercise-induced moderate desaturation.⁹

Although oxygen accelerates combustion and is a potential fire hazard, LTOT has been prescribed even to active smokers as the 2 landmark trials did not exclude patients who were active smokers from receiving oxygen therapy.^3,4 Therefore, LTOT has traditionally been prescribed to veterans who are actively smoking, despite the fire hazard. Attempts at mitigating hazards related to oxygen therapy in active smokers include counseling extensively about safety measures (which includes avoiding open flames such as candles, large fires, or sparks when on LTOT and providing Home Safety Agreements—a written contract between prescriber and patient wherein the patient agrees to abide by the terms of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to mitigate hazards related to LTOT in order to receive LTOT (eAppendix 

Methods

With this practice in mind, we conducted an institutional review board approved retrospective chart review of all veterans with diagnosis of COPD within the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System (CTVHCS) who were prescribed new LTOT between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2015. Given the retrospective nature of the chart review, patient consent was not obtained. Inclusion criteria were veterans aged > 18 years who had a confirmed diagnosis of COPD by spirometry and who met criteria for either continuous or ambulation- only oxygen therapy.

Criteria for exclusion included patients with hypoxemia not solely attributable to COPD or due to diseases other than COPD. We reviewed encounters in these patients’ charts, including follow-up in the clinic of the providers prescribing oxygen, to assess for fire-related incidents, defined as events wherein fire was visualized by the patient or by individuals living with the patient and with report provided to medical equipment company providing oxygen; the patient did not have to seek medical care to qualify for fire-related incident. Of the 158 patients who met the criteria for inclusion in the study, 152 were male.

Statistics

Bayesian logistic regression was used to model the outcome variable fire-related incident with the predictors smoking status, age, race, depression, PTSD, and type of oxygen used. Mental health disorders have significant effect on substance use disorders, such as alcohol use. Depression and PTSD were more common mental health diagnoses found in our patient population. Additionally, due to the small sample size, these psychiatric diagnoses were chosen to evaluate the impact of mental health disorders on firerelated events.

Although the sample size of events was small, weakly informative normal priors (0, 2.5) were used to shrink parameter estimates toward 0 and minimize overfitting. Weakly informative normal priors have also been suggested to deal with the problem of quasi-complete separation, where in our case, both smoking and no-PTSD perfectly predicted the 9 fire-related incidents.¹⁰ All input variables were centered and scaled as recommended. ⁹ The model fit well as assessed by posterior predictive checks, and Rhat was 1.00 for all parameters, indicating that all chains converged. Analysis was completed in R version 3.5.1 using the ‘brms’ package for Bayesian modeling.¹¹

Results

The mean age for the 158 included patients was 71.3 years in nonsmokers and 65.9 years in smokers. Fifty-three of the included patients were active smokers when LTOT was initiated. Nine veterans had fire-related incidents during the study period. All 9 patients were actively smoking (about 17%) at the time of the fire incidents. There were no deaths, and 5 patients required hospitalization due to facial burns resulting from the fire-related incidents. Our study focused on 5 baseline characteristics in our population (Table 1). After gathering data, our group inferred that these characteristics had a potential relationship to fire-related incidents compared with other variables that were studied. Future studies could look at other patient characteristics that may be linked to fire-related incidents in patients on LTOT. For example, not having PTSD also perfectly predicts fire-related incidents in our data (ie, none of the participants who had fire-related incidents had PTSD). Although this finding was not within the 95% confidence interval (CI) in the model, it does show that care must be taken when interpreting effects from small samples (Table 2). The modelestimated odds of a fire-related incident occurring in a smoker were 31.6 (5.1-372.7) times more likely than were the odds of a firerelated incident occurring in a nonsmoker, holding all other predictors at their reference level; 95% CI for the odds ratios for all other predictors in the model included a value of 1.

Discussion

This study showed evidence of increased odds of fire-related events in actively smoking patients receiving LTOT compared with patients who do not actively smoke while attempting to adjust for potential confounders. Of the 9 patients who had fire events, 5 required hospitalization for burns.

A similar retrospective cohort study by Sharma and colleagues in 2015 demonstrated an increased risk of burn-related injury when on LTOT but reiterated that the benefit of oxygen outweighs the risk of burn-related injury in patients requiring oxygen therapy.¹² Interestingly, Sharma and colleagues were unable to identify smoking status for the patients studied but further identified factors associated with burn injury to include male sex, low socioeconomic status, oxygen therapy use, and ≥ 3 comorbidities. The study’s conclusion recommended continued education by health care professionals (HCPs) to their patients on LTOT regarding potential for burn injury. In the same vein, the VA National Center for Ethics in Health Care noted that “clinicians should familiarize themselves with the risks and benefits of LTOT; should inform their patients of the risks and benefits without exaggerating the risk associated with smoking; avoid undue coercion inherent in the clinician’s ability to withdraw LTOT; reduce the risk to the greatest degree possible; and consider termination of LTOT in very extreme cases and in consultation with a multidisciplinary committee.”¹³

This statement is in contrast to the guidelines and policies of other countries, such as Sweden, where smoking is a direct contraindication for prescription of oxygen therapy, or in Australia and New Zealand, where the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand oxygen therapy guidelines recommend against prescription of LTOT, citing “increased fire risk and the probability that the poorer prognosis conferred by smoking will offset treatment benefit.”^6,14

The prevalence of oxygen therapy introduces the potential for fire-related incidents with subsequent injury requiring medical care. There are few studies regarding home oxygen fire in the US due to the lack of a uniform reporting system. One study by Wendling and Pelletier analyzed deaths in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma between 2000 and 2007 and found 38 deaths directly attributable to home oxygen fires as a result of smoking^.15 Further, the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s National Electronic Injury Surveillance System between 2003 and 2006 attributed 1,190 thermal burns related to home oxygen fires; the majority of which were ignited by tobacco smoking.¹⁵ The Swedish National Register of Respiratory Failure (Swedevox) published prospective population-based, consecutive cohort study that collected data over 17 years and evaluated the risk of fire-related incident in those on LTOT. Of the 12,497 patients sampled, 17 had a burn injury and 2 patients died. The low incidence of burn injury on LTOT was attributed to the strict guidelines instituted in Sweden for doctors to avoid prescribing LTOT to actively smoking patients.⁶ A follow-up study by Tanash and colleagues compared the risk of burn injury in each country, respectively. The results found an increased number of burn injuries in those on oxygen therapy in Denmark, a country with fewer restrictions on smoking compared with those of Sweden.⁷ Similarly, our results showed that the rate of fire and burn injuries was exclusively among veterans who were active smokers. All patients who were prescribed oxygen therapy at CTVHCS received counseling and signed Home Safety Agreements. Despite following the recommendations set forth by the VA on counseling, extensive harm reduction techniques, and close follow-up, we found there was still a high incidence of fires in veterans with COPD on LTOT who continue to smoke.

The findings from our study concur with those previously published regarding the risk of home oxygen fire and concomitant smoking, supporting the idea for more regulated and concrete guidelines for prescribing LTOT to those requiring it.⁸

Limitations

The major limitation was the small sample size of our study. Another limitation was that our study population is predominantly male as is common in veteran cohorts. In fiscal year 2016, the veteran population of Texas was 1,434,361 males and 168,967 females.¹⁶ According to Franklin and colleagues, HCPs noticed an increase use of long-term oxygen among women compared with that of men.¹⁷

Conclusions

Our study showed an increased odds of firerelated incidents of patients while on LTOT, strengthening the argument that even with extensive education, those who smoke and are on LTOT continue to put themselves at risk of a fire-related incident. This finding stresses the importance of continuing patient education on the importance of smoking cessation prior to administration of LTOT or avoiding fire hazards while on LTOT. Further research into LTOT and fire hazards could help in implementing a more structured approval process for patients who want to obtain LTOT. We propose further studies evaluating risk factors for the incidence of fire events among patients prescribed LTOT. A growing and aging population with a need for LTOT necessitates examination of oxygen safe prescribing.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been the third leading cause of death in the US since 2008.¹ Current management of COPD includes smoking cessation, adequate nutrition, medication therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation, and vaccines.² Outside of pharmacologic management, oxygen therapy has become a staple treatment of chronic hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COPD. Landmark trials, including the Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy Trial (NOTT) and Medical Research Council (MRC) study, demonstrated improved survival in patients with COPD and hypoxemia, particularly if these patients received oxygen for 18 hours per day.^3,4 NOTT prospectively evaluated 203 patients at 6 centers who were randomly allocated to either continuous oxygen therapy or 12-hour nocturnal oxygen therapy. The overall mortality in the nocturnal oxygen therapy group was 1.94 times that in the continuous oxygen therapy group (P = .01).³ The MRC study included 87 patients who were randomized to oxygen therapy or no oxygen; risk of death was 12% per year in the treated group vs 29% per year in the control group (P = .04).⁴ The effectiveness of long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) in active smokers continues to be a source of debate; although 50% of patients in the NOTT trial were smokers, there was no subgroup analysis of whether smoking status had an impact on survival in those on continuous oxygen therapy.

Although many therapies are available for the treatment of COPD, the most effective treatment to prevent the progression of COPD is smoking cessation. Resources like smoking cessation programs, nicotine patches, and medications, such as bupropion and varenicline, are available to aid smoking cessation.⁵ However, many patients are unable to quit tobacco use despite their best efforts using available resources, and they continue to smoke even with progressive COPD. Long-time smokers also are likely to continue smoking while on LTOT, which increases their risk for fire-related injury.^6-8

Traditional indications are being scrutinized after the LTOT trial found no benefit with respect to time to death or first hospitalization among patients with stable COPD and resting or exercise-induced moderate desaturation.⁹

Although oxygen accelerates combustion and is a potential fire hazard, LTOT has been prescribed even to active smokers as the 2 landmark trials did not exclude patients who were active smokers from receiving oxygen therapy.^3,4 Therefore, LTOT has traditionally been prescribed to veterans who are actively smoking, despite the fire hazard. Attempts at mitigating hazards related to oxygen therapy in active smokers include counseling extensively about safety measures (which includes avoiding open flames such as candles, large fires, or sparks when on LTOT and providing Home Safety Agreements—a written contract between prescriber and patient wherein the patient agrees to abide by the terms of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to mitigate hazards related to LTOT in order to receive LTOT (eAppendix 

Methods

With this practice in mind, we conducted an institutional review board approved retrospective chart review of all veterans with diagnosis of COPD within the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System (CTVHCS) who were prescribed new LTOT between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2015. Given the retrospective nature of the chart review, patient consent was not obtained. Inclusion criteria were veterans aged > 18 years who had a confirmed diagnosis of COPD by spirometry and who met criteria for either continuous or ambulation- only oxygen therapy.

Criteria for exclusion included patients with hypoxemia not solely attributable to COPD or due to diseases other than COPD. We reviewed encounters in these patients’ charts, including follow-up in the clinic of the providers prescribing oxygen, to assess for fire-related incidents, defined as events wherein fire was visualized by the patient or by individuals living with the patient and with report provided to medical equipment company providing oxygen; the patient did not have to seek medical care to qualify for fire-related incident. Of the 158 patients who met the criteria for inclusion in the study, 152 were male.

Statistics

Bayesian logistic regression was used to model the outcome variable fire-related incident with the predictors smoking status, age, race, depression, PTSD, and type of oxygen used. Mental health disorders have significant effect on substance use disorders, such as alcohol use. Depression and PTSD were more common mental health diagnoses found in our patient population. Additionally, due to the small sample size, these psychiatric diagnoses were chosen to evaluate the impact of mental health disorders on firerelated events.

Although the sample size of events was small, weakly informative normal priors (0, 2.5) were used to shrink parameter estimates toward 0 and minimize overfitting. Weakly informative normal priors have also been suggested to deal with the problem of quasi-complete separation, where in our case, both smoking and no-PTSD perfectly predicted the 9 fire-related incidents.¹⁰ All input variables were centered and scaled as recommended. ⁹ The model fit well as assessed by posterior predictive checks, and Rhat was 1.00 for all parameters, indicating that all chains converged. Analysis was completed in R version 3.5.1 using the ‘brms’ package for Bayesian modeling.¹¹

Results

The mean age for the 158 included patients was 71.3 years in nonsmokers and 65.9 years in smokers. Fifty-three of the included patients were active smokers when LTOT was initiated. Nine veterans had fire-related incidents during the study period. All 9 patients were actively smoking (about 17%) at the time of the fire incidents. There were no deaths, and 5 patients required hospitalization due to facial burns resulting from the fire-related incidents. Our study focused on 5 baseline characteristics in our population (Table 1). After gathering data, our group inferred that these characteristics had a potential relationship to fire-related incidents compared with other variables that were studied. Future studies could look at other patient characteristics that may be linked to fire-related incidents in patients on LTOT. For example, not having PTSD also perfectly predicts fire-related incidents in our data (ie, none of the participants who had fire-related incidents had PTSD). Although this finding was not within the 95% confidence interval (CI) in the model, it does show that care must be taken when interpreting effects from small samples (Table 2). The modelestimated odds of a fire-related incident occurring in a smoker were 31.6 (5.1-372.7) times more likely than were the odds of a firerelated incident occurring in a nonsmoker, holding all other predictors at their reference level; 95% CI for the odds ratios for all other predictors in the model included a value of 1.

Discussion

This study showed evidence of increased odds of fire-related events in actively smoking patients receiving LTOT compared with patients who do not actively smoke while attempting to adjust for potential confounders. Of the 9 patients who had fire events, 5 required hospitalization for burns.

A similar retrospective cohort study by Sharma and colleagues in 2015 demonstrated an increased risk of burn-related injury when on LTOT but reiterated that the benefit of oxygen outweighs the risk of burn-related injury in patients requiring oxygen therapy.¹² Interestingly, Sharma and colleagues were unable to identify smoking status for the patients studied but further identified factors associated with burn injury to include male sex, low socioeconomic status, oxygen therapy use, and ≥ 3 comorbidities. The study’s conclusion recommended continued education by health care professionals (HCPs) to their patients on LTOT regarding potential for burn injury. In the same vein, the VA National Center for Ethics in Health Care noted that “clinicians should familiarize themselves with the risks and benefits of LTOT; should inform their patients of the risks and benefits without exaggerating the risk associated with smoking; avoid undue coercion inherent in the clinician’s ability to withdraw LTOT; reduce the risk to the greatest degree possible; and consider termination of LTOT in very extreme cases and in consultation with a multidisciplinary committee.”¹³

This statement is in contrast to the guidelines and policies of other countries, such as Sweden, where smoking is a direct contraindication for prescription of oxygen therapy, or in Australia and New Zealand, where the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand oxygen therapy guidelines recommend against prescription of LTOT, citing “increased fire risk and the probability that the poorer prognosis conferred by smoking will offset treatment benefit.”^6,14

The prevalence of oxygen therapy introduces the potential for fire-related incidents with subsequent injury requiring medical care. There are few studies regarding home oxygen fire in the US due to the lack of a uniform reporting system. One study by Wendling and Pelletier analyzed deaths in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma between 2000 and 2007 and found 38 deaths directly attributable to home oxygen fires as a result of smoking^.15 Further, the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s National Electronic Injury Surveillance System between 2003 and 2006 attributed 1,190 thermal burns related to home oxygen fires; the majority of which were ignited by tobacco smoking.¹⁵ The Swedish National Register of Respiratory Failure (Swedevox) published prospective population-based, consecutive cohort study that collected data over 17 years and evaluated the risk of fire-related incident in those on LTOT. Of the 12,497 patients sampled, 17 had a burn injury and 2 patients died. The low incidence of burn injury on LTOT was attributed to the strict guidelines instituted in Sweden for doctors to avoid prescribing LTOT to actively smoking patients.⁶ A follow-up study by Tanash and colleagues compared the risk of burn injury in each country, respectively. The results found an increased number of burn injuries in those on oxygen therapy in Denmark, a country with fewer restrictions on smoking compared with those of Sweden.⁷ Similarly, our results showed that the rate of fire and burn injuries was exclusively among veterans who were active smokers. All patients who were prescribed oxygen therapy at CTVHCS received counseling and signed Home Safety Agreements. Despite following the recommendations set forth by the VA on counseling, extensive harm reduction techniques, and close follow-up, we found there was still a high incidence of fires in veterans with COPD on LTOT who continue to smoke.

The findings from our study concur with those previously published regarding the risk of home oxygen fire and concomitant smoking, supporting the idea for more regulated and concrete guidelines for prescribing LTOT to those requiring it.⁸

Limitations

The major limitation was the small sample size of our study. Another limitation was that our study population is predominantly male as is common in veteran cohorts. In fiscal year 2016, the veteran population of Texas was 1,434,361 males and 168,967 females.¹⁶ According to Franklin and colleagues, HCPs noticed an increase use of long-term oxygen among women compared with that of men.¹⁷

Conclusions

Our study showed an increased odds of firerelated incidents of patients while on LTOT, strengthening the argument that even with extensive education, those who smoke and are on LTOT continue to put themselves at risk of a fire-related incident. This finding stresses the importance of continuing patient education on the importance of smoking cessation prior to administration of LTOT or avoiding fire hazards while on LTOT. Further research into LTOT and fire hazards could help in implementing a more structured approval process for patients who want to obtain LTOT. We propose further studies evaluating risk factors for the incidence of fire events among patients prescribed LTOT. A growing and aging population with a need for LTOT necessitates examination of oxygen safe prescribing.

Substance use disorders (SUD), particularly opioid addiction and smoking, are tied to an increased risk for COVID-19 and serious adverse outcomes including hospitalization and death, new research suggests.

A study funded by the National Institutes of Health assessed electronic health records of more than 73 million patients in the United States. Although only 10.3% of the participants had an SUD, “they represented 15.6% of the COVID-19 cases,” the investigators reported.

In addition, those with a recent diagnosis of SUD were eight times more likely to develop COVID-19 versus those without such a diagnosis. For specific SUDs, the greatest risk was for those with an opioid addiction followed by those who were addicted to cigarettes.

Is nicotine protective?

Dr. Volkow, her fellow senior author Rong Xu, PhD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and their team conducted the study because data released before the pandemic showed a significant increase in opioid overdose in 2019. “We were in an opioid crisis where we again saw an increase in mortality associated with overdose – and then COVID comes along. So the question was how are people who are already struggling faring? And if they were getting infected [with the coronavirus], what happened to them?”

Patients with SUDs have multiple medical comorbidities that are known risk factors for COVID-19, Dr. Volkow noted.

However, the only specific SUD that has been previously studied in this context is tobacco use disorder, she said. A report from Chinese investigators released early in the pandemic showed that smokers were more likely to be infected by coronavirus and more likely to die from COVID-19.

Interestingly, a cross-sectional study published in April suggested that smoking may be protective against COVID, and Dr. Volkow noted that a clinical study currently being conducted in France is assessing whether wearing a nicotine patch has the potential to prevent the virus.

“That’s very different from looking at a chronic smoker,” she pointed out. “It’s a potential that nicotine as a chemical [could be] a preventive measure as opposed to saying smoking will prevent you from getting COVID.”

Patients with SUDs, said Dr. Volkow, “are likely to be at greater risk because of the effects of drugs in the metabolic system and the interfering with oxygenation in the pulmonary vessels.”

The retrospective case-control study included EHR data from 73.1 million patients. In the study population, 54% were women, 55% were White, 10% Black, 2% Asian, 1% Hispanic/Latino, and the others were classified as other or unknown.

EHRs were collected through June 15 at 360 hospitals in all 50 states and were deidentified to ensure privacy. SUDs included alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, opioid, and cocaine.
 

Racial disparities

Results showed that about 7.5 million participants had a previous SUD diagnosis; of these, 722,370 had been diagnosed within the past year.

Tobacco use disorder was the most common diagnosis (n = 6,414,580), followed by alcohol (1,264,990), cannabis (490,420), opioid (471,520), and cocaine (222,680).

In addition, 12,030 (60% women) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 1,880 had both COVID-19 and an SUD.

Adjusted analyses revealed that those who had a recent diagnosis of SUD were at a significantly greater increased risk for COVID-19 than individuals without an SUD (adjusted odds ratio, 8.7; 95% confidence interval, 8.4-9.0; P < 10^–30).

This increased risk was greatest in participants with opioid use disorder (aOR, 10.2; 95% CI, 9.1-11.5; P < 10^–30), followed by those with tobacco use disorder (aOR, 8.2; 95% CI, 7.9 - 8.5; P < 10–30).

Alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis had aORs of 7.7, 6.5, and 5.3, respectively. The aOR for lifetime SUD and COVID-19 was 1.5.

Among all patients with COVID-19, hospitalization rates were significantly greater in those with an SUD (43.8%) versus those without (30.1%), as were death rates at 9.6% versus 6.6%, respectively.

Race was a significant risk factor. Black patients with a recent SUD diagnosis were twice as likely as White patients to develop COVID-19 (aOR, 2.2; P < 10^–30), and those specifically with opioid use disorder were four times more likely to develop the disease (aOR, 4.2  P < 10^–25).

Black patients with both COVID-19 and lifetime SUD also had greater hospitalization and death rates versus their White peers (50.7% vs. 35.2% and 13% vs. 8.6%, respectively).

“This surprised me,” Dr. Volkow noted. “You can see the emergence of the racial disparities even under these conditions of really negative outcomes.”
 

Vulnerable populations

Cancer; obesity; HIV; diabetes; cardiovascular disease; and chronic kidney, liver, and lung diseases, which are all risk factors for COVID-19, were more prevalent in the group of patients with a recent SUD diagnosis versus those without.

In addition, asthma, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and chronic kidney disease were more prevalent in the Black patents with a recent SUD than in the White patients.

Overall, the findings “identify individuals with SUD as a vulnerable population, especially African Americans with SUDs, who are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and its adverse outcomes,” the investigators wrote.

The results also highlight “the need to screen and treat individuals with SUD as part of the strategy to control the pandemic while ensuring no disparities in access to healthcare support,” they added.

Dr. Volkow noted that “marginalization” often occurs for individuals with addiction, making it more difficult for them to access health care services.

“It is incumbent upon clinicians to meet the unique challenges of caring for this vulnerable population, just as they would any other high-risk group,” she said.

“Patients should not just be treated for COVID, but should also be provided with treatment for their substance use disorder,” Dr. Volkow added.
 

‘Pretty convincing’

Andrew J. Saxon, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, called the findings interesting.

“I found it pretty convincing that people who have substance use disorders are probably at higher risk for getting COVID-19 infection and more complications once they are infected,” he said.

Dr. Saxon, who was not involved with the research, is also director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education and is a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Addiction Psychiatry.

He noted that an important point from the study was not just about a patient having an SUD being at increased risk for COVID-19 “and a more severe disease trajectory.” Other factors associated with having an SUD, such as increased comorbidities, also likely play a part.

Dr. Saxon agreed that the ongoing opioid epidemic combined with the pandemic led to a “perfect storm” of problems.

“We were making slow but some progress getting more people the medications they need [to treat opioid use disorder], but the pandemic coming along disrupted those efforts. A lot of health care entities had to shut down for a while, seeing patients only remotely,” which led to barriers as many clinicians needed to learn how to proceed using telehealth options, said Dr. Saxon.
 

Universal screening?

Asked whether physicians should screen all patients for SUDs, Dr. Saxon said it’s a complicated question.

“Screening for tobacco and alcohol has a really good evidence base and practices should be doing that. The stigma is there but it’s a lot less than with illegal substances,” he said.

Screening for illegal substances or misuse of prescription substances may not be a good idea in health care settings “when it’s something they can’t do anything about. If you’re going to screen, you would have to have either referral processes in place or treatment available in your facility,” Dr. Saxon said.

Opioid use disorder is “especially amenable to treatment in a primary care or health care setting with prescribers,” he noted.

However, stimulant or cannabis use disorders “require fairly intensive behavioral interventions that are not easy to deliver in many health care settings. And we don›t have the workforce trained up to provide those treatments as widely as they should be,” said Dr. Saxon.

“Unless there’s some way to treat the issue, what’s the point of screening for it? That just creates frustration for patients and clinicians, as well,” he said. “It’s something we’re moving toward but we’re not quite there yet.”

The report authors and Dr. Saxon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Substance use disorders (SUD), particularly opioid addiction and smoking, are tied to an increased risk for COVID-19 and serious adverse outcomes including hospitalization and death, new research suggests.

A study funded by the National Institutes of Health assessed electronic health records of more than 73 million patients in the United States. Although only 10.3% of the participants had an SUD, “they represented 15.6% of the COVID-19 cases,” the investigators reported.

In addition, those with a recent diagnosis of SUD were eight times more likely to develop COVID-19 versus those without such a diagnosis. For specific SUDs, the greatest risk was for those with an opioid addiction followed by those who were addicted to cigarettes.

Is nicotine protective?

Dr. Volkow, her fellow senior author Rong Xu, PhD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and their team conducted the study because data released before the pandemic showed a significant increase in opioid overdose in 2019. “We were in an opioid crisis where we again saw an increase in mortality associated with overdose – and then COVID comes along. So the question was how are people who are already struggling faring? And if they were getting infected [with the coronavirus], what happened to them?”

Patients with SUDs have multiple medical comorbidities that are known risk factors for COVID-19, Dr. Volkow noted.

However, the only specific SUD that has been previously studied in this context is tobacco use disorder, she said. A report from Chinese investigators released early in the pandemic showed that smokers were more likely to be infected by coronavirus and more likely to die from COVID-19.

Interestingly, a cross-sectional study published in April suggested that smoking may be protective against COVID, and Dr. Volkow noted that a clinical study currently being conducted in France is assessing whether wearing a nicotine patch has the potential to prevent the virus.

“That’s very different from looking at a chronic smoker,” she pointed out. “It’s a potential that nicotine as a chemical [could be] a preventive measure as opposed to saying smoking will prevent you from getting COVID.”

Patients with SUDs, said Dr. Volkow, “are likely to be at greater risk because of the effects of drugs in the metabolic system and the interfering with oxygenation in the pulmonary vessels.”

The retrospective case-control study included EHR data from 73.1 million patients. In the study population, 54% were women, 55% were White, 10% Black, 2% Asian, 1% Hispanic/Latino, and the others were classified as other or unknown.

EHRs were collected through June 15 at 360 hospitals in all 50 states and were deidentified to ensure privacy. SUDs included alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, opioid, and cocaine.
 

Racial disparities

Results showed that about 7.5 million participants had a previous SUD diagnosis; of these, 722,370 had been diagnosed within the past year.

Tobacco use disorder was the most common diagnosis (n = 6,414,580), followed by alcohol (1,264,990), cannabis (490,420), opioid (471,520), and cocaine (222,680).

In addition, 12,030 (60% women) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 1,880 had both COVID-19 and an SUD.

Adjusted analyses revealed that those who had a recent diagnosis of SUD were at a significantly greater increased risk for COVID-19 than individuals without an SUD (adjusted odds ratio, 8.7; 95% confidence interval, 8.4-9.0; P < 10^–30).

This increased risk was greatest in participants with opioid use disorder (aOR, 10.2; 95% CI, 9.1-11.5; P < 10^–30), followed by those with tobacco use disorder (aOR, 8.2; 95% CI, 7.9 - 8.5; P < 10–30).

Alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis had aORs of 7.7, 6.5, and 5.3, respectively. The aOR for lifetime SUD and COVID-19 was 1.5.

Among all patients with COVID-19, hospitalization rates were significantly greater in those with an SUD (43.8%) versus those without (30.1%), as were death rates at 9.6% versus 6.6%, respectively.

Race was a significant risk factor. Black patients with a recent SUD diagnosis were twice as likely as White patients to develop COVID-19 (aOR, 2.2; P < 10^–30), and those specifically with opioid use disorder were four times more likely to develop the disease (aOR, 4.2  P < 10^–25).

Black patients with both COVID-19 and lifetime SUD also had greater hospitalization and death rates versus their White peers (50.7% vs. 35.2% and 13% vs. 8.6%, respectively).

“This surprised me,” Dr. Volkow noted. “You can see the emergence of the racial disparities even under these conditions of really negative outcomes.”
 

Vulnerable populations

Cancer; obesity; HIV; diabetes; cardiovascular disease; and chronic kidney, liver, and lung diseases, which are all risk factors for COVID-19, were more prevalent in the group of patients with a recent SUD diagnosis versus those without.

In addition, asthma, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and chronic kidney disease were more prevalent in the Black patents with a recent SUD than in the White patients.

Overall, the findings “identify individuals with SUD as a vulnerable population, especially African Americans with SUDs, who are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and its adverse outcomes,” the investigators wrote.

The results also highlight “the need to screen and treat individuals with SUD as part of the strategy to control the pandemic while ensuring no disparities in access to healthcare support,” they added.

Dr. Volkow noted that “marginalization” often occurs for individuals with addiction, making it more difficult for them to access health care services.

“It is incumbent upon clinicians to meet the unique challenges of caring for this vulnerable population, just as they would any other high-risk group,” she said.

“Patients should not just be treated for COVID, but should also be provided with treatment for their substance use disorder,” Dr. Volkow added.
 

‘Pretty convincing’

Andrew J. Saxon, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, called the findings interesting.

“I found it pretty convincing that people who have substance use disorders are probably at higher risk for getting COVID-19 infection and more complications once they are infected,” he said.

Dr. Saxon, who was not involved with the research, is also director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education and is a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Addiction Psychiatry.

He noted that an important point from the study was not just about a patient having an SUD being at increased risk for COVID-19 “and a more severe disease trajectory.” Other factors associated with having an SUD, such as increased comorbidities, also likely play a part.

Dr. Saxon agreed that the ongoing opioid epidemic combined with the pandemic led to a “perfect storm” of problems.

“We were making slow but some progress getting more people the medications they need [to treat opioid use disorder], but the pandemic coming along disrupted those efforts. A lot of health care entities had to shut down for a while, seeing patients only remotely,” which led to barriers as many clinicians needed to learn how to proceed using telehealth options, said Dr. Saxon.
 

Universal screening?

Asked whether physicians should screen all patients for SUDs, Dr. Saxon said it’s a complicated question.

“Screening for tobacco and alcohol has a really good evidence base and practices should be doing that. The stigma is there but it’s a lot less than with illegal substances,” he said.

Screening for illegal substances or misuse of prescription substances may not be a good idea in health care settings “when it’s something they can’t do anything about. If you’re going to screen, you would have to have either referral processes in place or treatment available in your facility,” Dr. Saxon said.

Opioid use disorder is “especially amenable to treatment in a primary care or health care setting with prescribers,” he noted.

However, stimulant or cannabis use disorders “require fairly intensive behavioral interventions that are not easy to deliver in many health care settings. And we don›t have the workforce trained up to provide those treatments as widely as they should be,” said Dr. Saxon.

“Unless there’s some way to treat the issue, what’s the point of screening for it? That just creates frustration for patients and clinicians, as well,” he said. “It’s something we’re moving toward but we’re not quite there yet.”

The report authors and Dr. Saxon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Substance use disorders (SUD), particularly opioid addiction and smoking, are tied to an increased risk for COVID-19 and serious adverse outcomes including hospitalization and death, new research suggests.

A study funded by the National Institutes of Health assessed electronic health records of more than 73 million patients in the United States. Although only 10.3% of the participants had an SUD, “they represented 15.6% of the COVID-19 cases,” the investigators reported.

In addition, those with a recent diagnosis of SUD were eight times more likely to develop COVID-19 versus those without such a diagnosis. For specific SUDs, the greatest risk was for those with an opioid addiction followed by those who were addicted to cigarettes.

Is nicotine protective?

Dr. Volkow, her fellow senior author Rong Xu, PhD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and their team conducted the study because data released before the pandemic showed a significant increase in opioid overdose in 2019. “We were in an opioid crisis where we again saw an increase in mortality associated with overdose – and then COVID comes along. So the question was how are people who are already struggling faring? And if they were getting infected [with the coronavirus], what happened to them?”

Patients with SUDs have multiple medical comorbidities that are known risk factors for COVID-19, Dr. Volkow noted.

However, the only specific SUD that has been previously studied in this context is tobacco use disorder, she said. A report from Chinese investigators released early in the pandemic showed that smokers were more likely to be infected by coronavirus and more likely to die from COVID-19.

Interestingly, a cross-sectional study published in April suggested that smoking may be protective against COVID, and Dr. Volkow noted that a clinical study currently being conducted in France is assessing whether wearing a nicotine patch has the potential to prevent the virus.

“That’s very different from looking at a chronic smoker,” she pointed out. “It’s a potential that nicotine as a chemical [could be] a preventive measure as opposed to saying smoking will prevent you from getting COVID.”

Patients with SUDs, said Dr. Volkow, “are likely to be at greater risk because of the effects of drugs in the metabolic system and the interfering with oxygenation in the pulmonary vessels.”

The retrospective case-control study included EHR data from 73.1 million patients. In the study population, 54% were women, 55% were White, 10% Black, 2% Asian, 1% Hispanic/Latino, and the others were classified as other or unknown.

EHRs were collected through June 15 at 360 hospitals in all 50 states and were deidentified to ensure privacy. SUDs included alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, opioid, and cocaine.
 

Racial disparities

Results showed that about 7.5 million participants had a previous SUD diagnosis; of these, 722,370 had been diagnosed within the past year.

Tobacco use disorder was the most common diagnosis (n = 6,414,580), followed by alcohol (1,264,990), cannabis (490,420), opioid (471,520), and cocaine (222,680).

In addition, 12,030 (60% women) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 1,880 had both COVID-19 and an SUD.

Adjusted analyses revealed that those who had a recent diagnosis of SUD were at a significantly greater increased risk for COVID-19 than individuals without an SUD (adjusted odds ratio, 8.7; 95% confidence interval, 8.4-9.0; P < 10^–30).

This increased risk was greatest in participants with opioid use disorder (aOR, 10.2; 95% CI, 9.1-11.5; P < 10^–30), followed by those with tobacco use disorder (aOR, 8.2; 95% CI, 7.9 - 8.5; P < 10–30).

Alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis had aORs of 7.7, 6.5, and 5.3, respectively. The aOR for lifetime SUD and COVID-19 was 1.5.

Among all patients with COVID-19, hospitalization rates were significantly greater in those with an SUD (43.8%) versus those without (30.1%), as were death rates at 9.6% versus 6.6%, respectively.

Race was a significant risk factor. Black patients with a recent SUD diagnosis were twice as likely as White patients to develop COVID-19 (aOR, 2.2; P < 10^–30), and those specifically with opioid use disorder were four times more likely to develop the disease (aOR, 4.2  P < 10^–25).

Black patients with both COVID-19 and lifetime SUD also had greater hospitalization and death rates versus their White peers (50.7% vs. 35.2% and 13% vs. 8.6%, respectively).

“This surprised me,” Dr. Volkow noted. “You can see the emergence of the racial disparities even under these conditions of really negative outcomes.”
 

Vulnerable populations

Cancer; obesity; HIV; diabetes; cardiovascular disease; and chronic kidney, liver, and lung diseases, which are all risk factors for COVID-19, were more prevalent in the group of patients with a recent SUD diagnosis versus those without.

In addition, asthma, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and chronic kidney disease were more prevalent in the Black patents with a recent SUD than in the White patients.

Overall, the findings “identify individuals with SUD as a vulnerable population, especially African Americans with SUDs, who are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and its adverse outcomes,” the investigators wrote.

The results also highlight “the need to screen and treat individuals with SUD as part of the strategy to control the pandemic while ensuring no disparities in access to healthcare support,” they added.

Dr. Volkow noted that “marginalization” often occurs for individuals with addiction, making it more difficult for them to access health care services.

“It is incumbent upon clinicians to meet the unique challenges of caring for this vulnerable population, just as they would any other high-risk group,” she said.

“Patients should not just be treated for COVID, but should also be provided with treatment for their substance use disorder,” Dr. Volkow added.
 

‘Pretty convincing’

Andrew J. Saxon, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, called the findings interesting.

“I found it pretty convincing that people who have substance use disorders are probably at higher risk for getting COVID-19 infection and more complications once they are infected,” he said.

Dr. Saxon, who was not involved with the research, is also director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education and is a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Addiction Psychiatry.

He noted that an important point from the study was not just about a patient having an SUD being at increased risk for COVID-19 “and a more severe disease trajectory.” Other factors associated with having an SUD, such as increased comorbidities, also likely play a part.

Dr. Saxon agreed that the ongoing opioid epidemic combined with the pandemic led to a “perfect storm” of problems.

“We were making slow but some progress getting more people the medications they need [to treat opioid use disorder], but the pandemic coming along disrupted those efforts. A lot of health care entities had to shut down for a while, seeing patients only remotely,” which led to barriers as many clinicians needed to learn how to proceed using telehealth options, said Dr. Saxon.
 

Universal screening?

Asked whether physicians should screen all patients for SUDs, Dr. Saxon said it’s a complicated question.

“Screening for tobacco and alcohol has a really good evidence base and practices should be doing that. The stigma is there but it’s a lot less than with illegal substances,” he said.

Screening for illegal substances or misuse of prescription substances may not be a good idea in health care settings “when it’s something they can’t do anything about. If you’re going to screen, you would have to have either referral processes in place or treatment available in your facility,” Dr. Saxon said.

Opioid use disorder is “especially amenable to treatment in a primary care or health care setting with prescribers,” he noted.

However, stimulant or cannabis use disorders “require fairly intensive behavioral interventions that are not easy to deliver in many health care settings. And we don›t have the workforce trained up to provide those treatments as widely as they should be,” said Dr. Saxon.

“Unless there’s some way to treat the issue, what’s the point of screening for it? That just creates frustration for patients and clinicians, as well,” he said. “It’s something we’re moving toward but we’re not quite there yet.”

The report authors and Dr. Saxon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.

Current and former users of e-cigarettes are more likely to report sleep deprivation, compared with those who have never used e-cigarettes, according to the first study to evaluate the association in a large, nationally representative population of young adults.

“The e-cigarette use and sleep deprivation association seems to have a dose-response nature as the point estimate of the association increased with increased exposure to e-cigarette,” Sina Kianersi, DVM, and associates at Indiana University, Bloomington, said in Addictive Behaviors.

Sleep deprivation was 49% more prevalent among everyday users of e-cigarettes, compared with nonusers. Prevalence ratios for former users (1.31) and occasional users (1.25) also showed significantly higher sleep deprivation, compared with nonusers, they reported based on a bivariate analysis of data from young adults aged 18-24 years who participated in the 2017 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys.

After adjustment for multiple confounders, young adults who currently used e-cigarettes every day were 42% more likely to report sleep deprivation than those who never used e-cigarettes, a difference that was statistically significant. The prevalence of sleep deprivation among those who used e-cigarettes on some days was not significantly higher (prevalence ratio, 1.08), but the ratio between former users and never users was a significant 1.17, the investigators said.

“The nicotine in the inhaled e-cigarette aerosols may have negative effects on sleep architecture and disturb the neurotransmitters that regulate sleep cycle,” they suggested, and since higher doses of nicotine produce greater reductions in sleep duration, “those who use e-cigarette on a daily basis might consume higher doses of nicotine, compared to some days, former, and never users, and therefore get fewer hours of sleep.”

Nicotine withdrawal, on the other hand, has been found to increase sleep duration in a dose-dependent manner, which “could explain the smaller [prevalence ratios] observed for the association between e-cigarette use and sleep deprivation among former and some days e-cigarette users,” Dr. Kianersi and associates added.

The bivariate analysis involved 18,945 survey respondents, of whom 16,427 were included in the fully adjusted model using 12 confounding factors.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kianersi S et al. Addict Behav. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106646.

Current and former users of e-cigarettes are more likely to report sleep deprivation, compared with those who have never used e-cigarettes, according to the first study to evaluate the association in a large, nationally representative population of young adults.

“The e-cigarette use and sleep deprivation association seems to have a dose-response nature as the point estimate of the association increased with increased exposure to e-cigarette,” Sina Kianersi, DVM, and associates at Indiana University, Bloomington, said in Addictive Behaviors.

Sleep deprivation was 49% more prevalent among everyday users of e-cigarettes, compared with nonusers. Prevalence ratios for former users (1.31) and occasional users (1.25) also showed significantly higher sleep deprivation, compared with nonusers, they reported based on a bivariate analysis of data from young adults aged 18-24 years who participated in the 2017 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys.

After adjustment for multiple confounders, young adults who currently used e-cigarettes every day were 42% more likely to report sleep deprivation than those who never used e-cigarettes, a difference that was statistically significant. The prevalence of sleep deprivation among those who used e-cigarettes on some days was not significantly higher (prevalence ratio, 1.08), but the ratio between former users and never users was a significant 1.17, the investigators said.

“The nicotine in the inhaled e-cigarette aerosols may have negative effects on sleep architecture and disturb the neurotransmitters that regulate sleep cycle,” they suggested, and since higher doses of nicotine produce greater reductions in sleep duration, “those who use e-cigarette on a daily basis might consume higher doses of nicotine, compared to some days, former, and never users, and therefore get fewer hours of sleep.”

Nicotine withdrawal, on the other hand, has been found to increase sleep duration in a dose-dependent manner, which “could explain the smaller [prevalence ratios] observed for the association between e-cigarette use and sleep deprivation among former and some days e-cigarette users,” Dr. Kianersi and associates added.

The bivariate analysis involved 18,945 survey respondents, of whom 16,427 were included in the fully adjusted model using 12 confounding factors.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kianersi S et al. Addict Behav. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106646.

Current and former users of e-cigarettes are more likely to report sleep deprivation, compared with those who have never used e-cigarettes, according to the first study to evaluate the association in a large, nationally representative population of young adults.

“The e-cigarette use and sleep deprivation association seems to have a dose-response nature as the point estimate of the association increased with increased exposure to e-cigarette,” Sina Kianersi, DVM, and associates at Indiana University, Bloomington, said in Addictive Behaviors.

Sleep deprivation was 49% more prevalent among everyday users of e-cigarettes, compared with nonusers. Prevalence ratios for former users (1.31) and occasional users (1.25) also showed significantly higher sleep deprivation, compared with nonusers, they reported based on a bivariate analysis of data from young adults aged 18-24 years who participated in the 2017 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys.

After adjustment for multiple confounders, young adults who currently used e-cigarettes every day were 42% more likely to report sleep deprivation than those who never used e-cigarettes, a difference that was statistically significant. The prevalence of sleep deprivation among those who used e-cigarettes on some days was not significantly higher (prevalence ratio, 1.08), but the ratio between former users and never users was a significant 1.17, the investigators said.

“The nicotine in the inhaled e-cigarette aerosols may have negative effects on sleep architecture and disturb the neurotransmitters that regulate sleep cycle,” they suggested, and since higher doses of nicotine produce greater reductions in sleep duration, “those who use e-cigarette on a daily basis might consume higher doses of nicotine, compared to some days, former, and never users, and therefore get fewer hours of sleep.”

Nicotine withdrawal, on the other hand, has been found to increase sleep duration in a dose-dependent manner, which “could explain the smaller [prevalence ratios] observed for the association between e-cigarette use and sleep deprivation among former and some days e-cigarette users,” Dr. Kianersi and associates added.

The bivariate analysis involved 18,945 survey respondents, of whom 16,427 were included in the fully adjusted model using 12 confounding factors.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kianersi S et al. Addict Behav. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106646.