MDedge Cardiology

Elite American soccer players have, on average, larger, thicker, and heavier hearts than the general population, according to a new study that provides clinicians with normative echocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) cutoffs to use when assessing the heart health of competitive athletes.

Nikada/Getty Images

To provide these age- and sex-specific reference values, a team from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, led by Timothy W. Churchill, MD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, analyzed data from 122 female and 116 male soccer players from the American national teams preparing for World Cup play and undergoing FIFA-mandated preparticipation screening.

The athletes frequently exceeded normal echocardiographic ranges for left ventricular (LV) mass, volume, and wall thickness – structural cardiac parameters responsive to exercise-induced remodeling – but with none showing pathologic findings that might indicate the need to restrict their participation in the sport.

Almost one-third (30%) of female athletes and 41% of male athletes exceeded the American Society of Echocardiography’s upper limit of normal for LV wall thickness, with a measure greater than 12 mm seen in 12% of men and 1% of women.

The majority (51% of females and 59% of males) exceeded normal ranges for body surface area–indexed LV mass, with 77% and 68%, respectively, having LV volumes above the normal range.

Dr. Baggish stressed in an interview, however, that these data tell a story about healthy hearts, not at-risk hearts.

“These are the healthiest, highest-performing elite soccer players that we have in the United States, and this is really a look at how adaptive the heart can be, how much it can grow and change in size, shape, structure, and function in response to sport,” said Dr. Baggish.

The mean age of screened athletes was 20 years (range, 15-40 years). The majority of the female players were White (71%), whereas the male players were more evenly divided between Black (34%), Hispanic (33%), and White (32%).

Screening was performed at U.S. Soccer training sites by experienced clinicians affiliated with the Massachusetts General Hospital cardiovascular performance program.

Interestingly, the study debunks the idea that women, on average, have smaller chamber sizes. “When we did body-size correction, the men and women actually looked pretty similar with respect to their ability to adapt to strenuous exercise,” noted Dr. Baggish.

They did see, however, that women were more likely than men to have abnormal ECG findings. Male athletes showed a higher prevalence of “normal” training-related ECG findings, whereas female athletes were more likely to have abnormal ECG patterns (11.5% vs. 0.0% in the male cohort), most often pathologic T-wave inversions (TWI) confined to the anterior precordial lead distribution.

“This is important because ECGs are the most common screening tool used and we wanted to alert people to the fact that these women who showed some abnormalities on ECG went on to have a total healthy-looking echo, so a false-positive ECG is something to consider,” said Dr. Baggish.

This excess in anterior TWIs has been seen in previous studies and is thought to be benign, although the mechanism remains unclear. Four of the nine female athletes with abnormal ECG findings on initial evaluation had normalized on repeat testing 2-4 years later. Serial data were available in only a subset of athletes.
 

Clarity needed after COVID

The data, published recently in JAMA Cardiology, are particularly valuable these days given concern over the effects of COVID-19 on the heart and return-to-play recommendations.

“Athletes who have had COVID are being sent for echocardiograms before they can return to play to check for COVID-induced heart disease – which is real – but what we’re seeing is that there’s confusion out there in terms of what is a COVID-related abnormality and what is a normal, adapted athletic heart,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In this paper, we provide a dataset of normal values – generated before COVID was on anyone’s radar – to let cardiologists know what’s ‘big good’ and not ‘big bad.’ ”
 

More sport-specific data needed

“Although these numbers are still small, this dataset is an important step forward in our understanding of athletic adaptations,” said Matthew Martinez, MD, in an interview. “Many factors impact physiologic athletic changes, and the study aids in our understanding of gender- and sport-specific changes in athletes.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health–Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, also in Morristown, and the chair of Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section Leadership Council for the American College of Cardiology, noted the relatively young mean age of screened athletes.

“The data represent collegiate-age athletes with some older groups mixed in, but it does not represent older established elite athlete changes,” he said.

Mean age was 21 years in the female players but only 18 years in the males because the men’s senior national team failed to qualify for the World Cup during the study period and was therefore not screened. The authors acknowledged the “dearth of older men in the cohort.”

There is, overall, little age-, sport-, and sex-specific normative data for differentiating training-related cardiovascular adaptations from potentially pathologic phenotypes, wrote the authors.

It exists for men playing in the National Football League and for both sexes participating in the National Basketball Association, but most other studies have mixed the sports and focused mainly on men. That said, Dr. Baggish does not consider these data to be applicable to all elite athletes.

“Soccer is kind of in a league of its own with respect to the mixed amount of explosive or resistant and aerobic work that these athletes have to do, and also it’s the most popular sport in the world, so we really wanted to focus on them,” said Dr. Baggish.

Although the findings are perhaps applicable to athletes from other team sports characterized by explosive spurts of high-intensity activity – like hockey, lacrosse, and field hockey – he would not suggest they be applied to, say, long-distance runners, cyclists, or other sports that require a similar type of aerobic output.

Dr. Baggish reported no relevant conflict of interest. Dr. Martinez is league cardiologist for Major League Soccer.

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

Elite American soccer players have, on average, larger, thicker, and heavier hearts than the general population, according to a new study that provides clinicians with normative echocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) cutoffs to use when assessing the heart health of competitive athletes.

Nikada/Getty Images

To provide these age- and sex-specific reference values, a team from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, led by Timothy W. Churchill, MD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, analyzed data from 122 female and 116 male soccer players from the American national teams preparing for World Cup play and undergoing FIFA-mandated preparticipation screening.

The athletes frequently exceeded normal echocardiographic ranges for left ventricular (LV) mass, volume, and wall thickness – structural cardiac parameters responsive to exercise-induced remodeling – but with none showing pathologic findings that might indicate the need to restrict their participation in the sport.

Almost one-third (30%) of female athletes and 41% of male athletes exceeded the American Society of Echocardiography’s upper limit of normal for LV wall thickness, with a measure greater than 12 mm seen in 12% of men and 1% of women.

The majority (51% of females and 59% of males) exceeded normal ranges for body surface area–indexed LV mass, with 77% and 68%, respectively, having LV volumes above the normal range.

Dr. Baggish stressed in an interview, however, that these data tell a story about healthy hearts, not at-risk hearts.

“These are the healthiest, highest-performing elite soccer players that we have in the United States, and this is really a look at how adaptive the heart can be, how much it can grow and change in size, shape, structure, and function in response to sport,” said Dr. Baggish.

The mean age of screened athletes was 20 years (range, 15-40 years). The majority of the female players were White (71%), whereas the male players were more evenly divided between Black (34%), Hispanic (33%), and White (32%).

Screening was performed at U.S. Soccer training sites by experienced clinicians affiliated with the Massachusetts General Hospital cardiovascular performance program.

Interestingly, the study debunks the idea that women, on average, have smaller chamber sizes. “When we did body-size correction, the men and women actually looked pretty similar with respect to their ability to adapt to strenuous exercise,” noted Dr. Baggish.

They did see, however, that women were more likely than men to have abnormal ECG findings. Male athletes showed a higher prevalence of “normal” training-related ECG findings, whereas female athletes were more likely to have abnormal ECG patterns (11.5% vs. 0.0% in the male cohort), most often pathologic T-wave inversions (TWI) confined to the anterior precordial lead distribution.

“This is important because ECGs are the most common screening tool used and we wanted to alert people to the fact that these women who showed some abnormalities on ECG went on to have a total healthy-looking echo, so a false-positive ECG is something to consider,” said Dr. Baggish.

This excess in anterior TWIs has been seen in previous studies and is thought to be benign, although the mechanism remains unclear. Four of the nine female athletes with abnormal ECG findings on initial evaluation had normalized on repeat testing 2-4 years later. Serial data were available in only a subset of athletes.
 

Clarity needed after COVID

The data, published recently in JAMA Cardiology, are particularly valuable these days given concern over the effects of COVID-19 on the heart and return-to-play recommendations.

“Athletes who have had COVID are being sent for echocardiograms before they can return to play to check for COVID-induced heart disease – which is real – but what we’re seeing is that there’s confusion out there in terms of what is a COVID-related abnormality and what is a normal, adapted athletic heart,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In this paper, we provide a dataset of normal values – generated before COVID was on anyone’s radar – to let cardiologists know what’s ‘big good’ and not ‘big bad.’ ”
 

More sport-specific data needed

“Although these numbers are still small, this dataset is an important step forward in our understanding of athletic adaptations,” said Matthew Martinez, MD, in an interview. “Many factors impact physiologic athletic changes, and the study aids in our understanding of gender- and sport-specific changes in athletes.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health–Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, also in Morristown, and the chair of Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section Leadership Council for the American College of Cardiology, noted the relatively young mean age of screened athletes.

“The data represent collegiate-age athletes with some older groups mixed in, but it does not represent older established elite athlete changes,” he said.

Mean age was 21 years in the female players but only 18 years in the males because the men’s senior national team failed to qualify for the World Cup during the study period and was therefore not screened. The authors acknowledged the “dearth of older men in the cohort.”

There is, overall, little age-, sport-, and sex-specific normative data for differentiating training-related cardiovascular adaptations from potentially pathologic phenotypes, wrote the authors.

It exists for men playing in the National Football League and for both sexes participating in the National Basketball Association, but most other studies have mixed the sports and focused mainly on men. That said, Dr. Baggish does not consider these data to be applicable to all elite athletes.

“Soccer is kind of in a league of its own with respect to the mixed amount of explosive or resistant and aerobic work that these athletes have to do, and also it’s the most popular sport in the world, so we really wanted to focus on them,” said Dr. Baggish.

Although the findings are perhaps applicable to athletes from other team sports characterized by explosive spurts of high-intensity activity – like hockey, lacrosse, and field hockey – he would not suggest they be applied to, say, long-distance runners, cyclists, or other sports that require a similar type of aerobic output.

Dr. Baggish reported no relevant conflict of interest. Dr. Martinez is league cardiologist for Major League Soccer.

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

Elite American soccer players have, on average, larger, thicker, and heavier hearts than the general population, according to a new study that provides clinicians with normative echocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) cutoffs to use when assessing the heart health of competitive athletes.

Nikada/Getty Images

To provide these age- and sex-specific reference values, a team from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, led by Timothy W. Churchill, MD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, analyzed data from 122 female and 116 male soccer players from the American national teams preparing for World Cup play and undergoing FIFA-mandated preparticipation screening.

The athletes frequently exceeded normal echocardiographic ranges for left ventricular (LV) mass, volume, and wall thickness – structural cardiac parameters responsive to exercise-induced remodeling – but with none showing pathologic findings that might indicate the need to restrict their participation in the sport.

Almost one-third (30%) of female athletes and 41% of male athletes exceeded the American Society of Echocardiography’s upper limit of normal for LV wall thickness, with a measure greater than 12 mm seen in 12% of men and 1% of women.

The majority (51% of females and 59% of males) exceeded normal ranges for body surface area–indexed LV mass, with 77% and 68%, respectively, having LV volumes above the normal range.

Dr. Baggish stressed in an interview, however, that these data tell a story about healthy hearts, not at-risk hearts.

“These are the healthiest, highest-performing elite soccer players that we have in the United States, and this is really a look at how adaptive the heart can be, how much it can grow and change in size, shape, structure, and function in response to sport,” said Dr. Baggish.

The mean age of screened athletes was 20 years (range, 15-40 years). The majority of the female players were White (71%), whereas the male players were more evenly divided between Black (34%), Hispanic (33%), and White (32%).

Screening was performed at U.S. Soccer training sites by experienced clinicians affiliated with the Massachusetts General Hospital cardiovascular performance program.

Interestingly, the study debunks the idea that women, on average, have smaller chamber sizes. “When we did body-size correction, the men and women actually looked pretty similar with respect to their ability to adapt to strenuous exercise,” noted Dr. Baggish.

They did see, however, that women were more likely than men to have abnormal ECG findings. Male athletes showed a higher prevalence of “normal” training-related ECG findings, whereas female athletes were more likely to have abnormal ECG patterns (11.5% vs. 0.0% in the male cohort), most often pathologic T-wave inversions (TWI) confined to the anterior precordial lead distribution.

“This is important because ECGs are the most common screening tool used and we wanted to alert people to the fact that these women who showed some abnormalities on ECG went on to have a total healthy-looking echo, so a false-positive ECG is something to consider,” said Dr. Baggish.

This excess in anterior TWIs has been seen in previous studies and is thought to be benign, although the mechanism remains unclear. Four of the nine female athletes with abnormal ECG findings on initial evaluation had normalized on repeat testing 2-4 years later. Serial data were available in only a subset of athletes.
 

Clarity needed after COVID

The data, published recently in JAMA Cardiology, are particularly valuable these days given concern over the effects of COVID-19 on the heart and return-to-play recommendations.

“Athletes who have had COVID are being sent for echocardiograms before they can return to play to check for COVID-induced heart disease – which is real – but what we’re seeing is that there’s confusion out there in terms of what is a COVID-related abnormality and what is a normal, adapted athletic heart,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In this paper, we provide a dataset of normal values – generated before COVID was on anyone’s radar – to let cardiologists know what’s ‘big good’ and not ‘big bad.’ ”
 

More sport-specific data needed

“Although these numbers are still small, this dataset is an important step forward in our understanding of athletic adaptations,” said Matthew Martinez, MD, in an interview. “Many factors impact physiologic athletic changes, and the study aids in our understanding of gender- and sport-specific changes in athletes.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health–Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, also in Morristown, and the chair of Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section Leadership Council for the American College of Cardiology, noted the relatively young mean age of screened athletes.

“The data represent collegiate-age athletes with some older groups mixed in, but it does not represent older established elite athlete changes,” he said.

Mean age was 21 years in the female players but only 18 years in the males because the men’s senior national team failed to qualify for the World Cup during the study period and was therefore not screened. The authors acknowledged the “dearth of older men in the cohort.”

There is, overall, little age-, sport-, and sex-specific normative data for differentiating training-related cardiovascular adaptations from potentially pathologic phenotypes, wrote the authors.

It exists for men playing in the National Football League and for both sexes participating in the National Basketball Association, but most other studies have mixed the sports and focused mainly on men. That said, Dr. Baggish does not consider these data to be applicable to all elite athletes.

“Soccer is kind of in a league of its own with respect to the mixed amount of explosive or resistant and aerobic work that these athletes have to do, and also it’s the most popular sport in the world, so we really wanted to focus on them,” said Dr. Baggish.

Although the findings are perhaps applicable to athletes from other team sports characterized by explosive spurts of high-intensity activity – like hockey, lacrosse, and field hockey – he would not suggest they be applied to, say, long-distance runners, cyclists, or other sports that require a similar type of aerobic output.

Dr. Baggish reported no relevant conflict of interest. Dr. Martinez is league cardiologist for Major League Soccer.

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

Heart transplant recipients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are about twice as likely to die from COVID-19 and should be immediately referred to a transplant center for care, according to transplant experts from Northern Italy.

In a COVID Rapid Report published Dec. 9 in JACC Heart Failure, a group led by Tomaso Bottio, MD, PhD, from the University of Padua, Italy, presented findings on 47 heart transplant recipients who tested positive for SARS-Cov-2 between Feb. 21 and June 30.

The investigators found a case fatality rate of 29.7%, compared with 15.4% in the general population. Prevalence of infection was also much higher at 18 cases (vs. 7) per 1,000 population.

“In our opinion, prompt referral to a heart transplant center is crucial for immunosuppressive therapy optimization and cardiologic follow-up,” Dr. Bottio said in an interview.

Beyond the need for careful adjustment of immunosuppression, graft function should be assessed to “avoid acute rejection or decompensation,” he added.

Dr. Bottio and colleagues tracked COVID-19 cases from among the 2,676 heart transplant recipients alive before the onset of the pandemic at seven heart transplant centers in Northern Italy.

Of the 47 recipients who contracted SARS-CoV-2, 38 required hospitalization while 9 remained at home and 14 died. Mean length of stay in hospital was 17.8 days, much longer in survivors than nonsurvivors (23.2 days vs. 8.5 days; P < .001).  

Nonsurvivors were significantly older than survivors (72 vs. 58 years; P = .002). Nonsurvivors were also more likely to present with diabetes (P = .04), extra-cardiac arteriopathy (P = .04), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (P = .04), more allograft vasculopathy (P = .04), and more symptoms of heart failure (P = .02).

Although the authors said the high case fatality rate was, unfortunately, expected, they did not expect so many patients to do well at home.

“What most surprised us was the proportion of a- or pauci-symptomatic heart transplanted patients who did well being treated at home without any therapy modifications,” Dr. Bottio shared. They were also surprised to see there were no cases of graft failure caused by infection-related myocarditis.

These findings from Northern Italy are not dissimilar from the 25% case fatality rate seen in a cohort of heart transplant recipients who caught COVID-19 in New York City early in the pandemic.

In another study, this time looking at a wider group of solid organ transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at two centers during the first 3 weeks of the outbreak in New York City, 16 of 90 patients (18%) died.
 

Treatment recommendations?

Recognizing that there is no randomized trial data informing the treatment of this vulnerable patient population, Dr. Bottio and colleagues suggested that, based on their experience, no change in immunosuppression is needed in those who are “pauci-symptomatic” (mildly symptomatic).

“On the other hand, in hospitalized patients a partial reduction in immunosuppressive therapy avoiding full discontinuation and risk of graft rejection seems to be a common strategy in facing the viral infection,” he said. “In addition, the introduction of corticosteroids could help to suspend the onset of the inflammatory cascade responsible for severe forms of the disease.”

Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be “fundamental,” he added, particularly in hospitalized patients, but “the role of specific antiviral therapies is still not fully understood in our population.”

Since July 1, they’ve seen an additional six patients with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. Five were asymptomatic and quarantined at home without changing their immunosuppressive therapy. One patient was hospitalized for pneumonia and had immunosuppressive therapy reduced.

Dr. Bottio and the study coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heart transplant recipients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are about twice as likely to die from COVID-19 and should be immediately referred to a transplant center for care, according to transplant experts from Northern Italy.

In a COVID Rapid Report published Dec. 9 in JACC Heart Failure, a group led by Tomaso Bottio, MD, PhD, from the University of Padua, Italy, presented findings on 47 heart transplant recipients who tested positive for SARS-Cov-2 between Feb. 21 and June 30.

The investigators found a case fatality rate of 29.7%, compared with 15.4% in the general population. Prevalence of infection was also much higher at 18 cases (vs. 7) per 1,000 population.

“In our opinion, prompt referral to a heart transplant center is crucial for immunosuppressive therapy optimization and cardiologic follow-up,” Dr. Bottio said in an interview.

Beyond the need for careful adjustment of immunosuppression, graft function should be assessed to “avoid acute rejection or decompensation,” he added.

Dr. Bottio and colleagues tracked COVID-19 cases from among the 2,676 heart transplant recipients alive before the onset of the pandemic at seven heart transplant centers in Northern Italy.

Of the 47 recipients who contracted SARS-CoV-2, 38 required hospitalization while 9 remained at home and 14 died. Mean length of stay in hospital was 17.8 days, much longer in survivors than nonsurvivors (23.2 days vs. 8.5 days; P < .001).  

Nonsurvivors were significantly older than survivors (72 vs. 58 years; P = .002). Nonsurvivors were also more likely to present with diabetes (P = .04), extra-cardiac arteriopathy (P = .04), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (P = .04), more allograft vasculopathy (P = .04), and more symptoms of heart failure (P = .02).

Although the authors said the high case fatality rate was, unfortunately, expected, they did not expect so many patients to do well at home.

“What most surprised us was the proportion of a- or pauci-symptomatic heart transplanted patients who did well being treated at home without any therapy modifications,” Dr. Bottio shared. They were also surprised to see there were no cases of graft failure caused by infection-related myocarditis.

These findings from Northern Italy are not dissimilar from the 25% case fatality rate seen in a cohort of heart transplant recipients who caught COVID-19 in New York City early in the pandemic.

In another study, this time looking at a wider group of solid organ transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at two centers during the first 3 weeks of the outbreak in New York City, 16 of 90 patients (18%) died.
 

Treatment recommendations?

Recognizing that there is no randomized trial data informing the treatment of this vulnerable patient population, Dr. Bottio and colleagues suggested that, based on their experience, no change in immunosuppression is needed in those who are “pauci-symptomatic” (mildly symptomatic).

“On the other hand, in hospitalized patients a partial reduction in immunosuppressive therapy avoiding full discontinuation and risk of graft rejection seems to be a common strategy in facing the viral infection,” he said. “In addition, the introduction of corticosteroids could help to suspend the onset of the inflammatory cascade responsible for severe forms of the disease.”

Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be “fundamental,” he added, particularly in hospitalized patients, but “the role of specific antiviral therapies is still not fully understood in our population.”

Since July 1, they’ve seen an additional six patients with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. Five were asymptomatic and quarantined at home without changing their immunosuppressive therapy. One patient was hospitalized for pneumonia and had immunosuppressive therapy reduced.

Dr. Bottio and the study coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heart transplant recipients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are about twice as likely to die from COVID-19 and should be immediately referred to a transplant center for care, according to transplant experts from Northern Italy.

In a COVID Rapid Report published Dec. 9 in JACC Heart Failure, a group led by Tomaso Bottio, MD, PhD, from the University of Padua, Italy, presented findings on 47 heart transplant recipients who tested positive for SARS-Cov-2 between Feb. 21 and June 30.

The investigators found a case fatality rate of 29.7%, compared with 15.4% in the general population. Prevalence of infection was also much higher at 18 cases (vs. 7) per 1,000 population.

“In our opinion, prompt referral to a heart transplant center is crucial for immunosuppressive therapy optimization and cardiologic follow-up,” Dr. Bottio said in an interview.

Beyond the need for careful adjustment of immunosuppression, graft function should be assessed to “avoid acute rejection or decompensation,” he added.

Dr. Bottio and colleagues tracked COVID-19 cases from among the 2,676 heart transplant recipients alive before the onset of the pandemic at seven heart transplant centers in Northern Italy.

Of the 47 recipients who contracted SARS-CoV-2, 38 required hospitalization while 9 remained at home and 14 died. Mean length of stay in hospital was 17.8 days, much longer in survivors than nonsurvivors (23.2 days vs. 8.5 days; P < .001).  

Nonsurvivors were significantly older than survivors (72 vs. 58 years; P = .002). Nonsurvivors were also more likely to present with diabetes (P = .04), extra-cardiac arteriopathy (P = .04), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (P = .04), more allograft vasculopathy (P = .04), and more symptoms of heart failure (P = .02).

Although the authors said the high case fatality rate was, unfortunately, expected, they did not expect so many patients to do well at home.

“What most surprised us was the proportion of a- or pauci-symptomatic heart transplanted patients who did well being treated at home without any therapy modifications,” Dr. Bottio shared. They were also surprised to see there were no cases of graft failure caused by infection-related myocarditis.

These findings from Northern Italy are not dissimilar from the 25% case fatality rate seen in a cohort of heart transplant recipients who caught COVID-19 in New York City early in the pandemic.

In another study, this time looking at a wider group of solid organ transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at two centers during the first 3 weeks of the outbreak in New York City, 16 of 90 patients (18%) died.
 

Treatment recommendations?

Recognizing that there is no randomized trial data informing the treatment of this vulnerable patient population, Dr. Bottio and colleagues suggested that, based on their experience, no change in immunosuppression is needed in those who are “pauci-symptomatic” (mildly symptomatic).

“On the other hand, in hospitalized patients a partial reduction in immunosuppressive therapy avoiding full discontinuation and risk of graft rejection seems to be a common strategy in facing the viral infection,” he said. “In addition, the introduction of corticosteroids could help to suspend the onset of the inflammatory cascade responsible for severe forms of the disease.”

Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be “fundamental,” he added, particularly in hospitalized patients, but “the role of specific antiviral therapies is still not fully understood in our population.”

Since July 1, they’ve seen an additional six patients with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. Five were asymptomatic and quarantined at home without changing their immunosuppressive therapy. One patient was hospitalized for pneumonia and had immunosuppressive therapy reduced.

Dr. Bottio and the study coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mortality rates for inpatients with COVID-19 dropped significantly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, but outcomes depend on the hospital where patients receive care, new data show.

“[T]he characteristic that is most associated with poor or worsening hospital outcomes is high or increasing community case rates,” write David A. Asch, MD, MBA, executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The relationship between COVID-19 mortality rates and local disease prevalence suggests that “hospitals do worse when they are burdened with cases and is consistent with imperatives to flatten the curve,” the authors continue. “As case rates of COVID-19 increase across the nation, hospital mortality outcomes may worsen.”

The researchers published their study online December 22 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The quick and substantial improvement in survival “is a tribute in part to new science — for example, the science that revealed the benefits of dexamethasone,” Asch told Medscape Medical News. “But it’s also a tribute to the doctors and nurses in the hospitals who developed experience. It’s a cliché to refer to them as heroes, but that is what they are. The science and the heroic experience continues on, and so I’m optimistic that we’ll see even more improvement over time.”

However, the data also indicate that “with lots of disease in the community, hospitals may have a harder time keeping patients alive,” Asch said.  “And of course the reason this is bad news is that community level case rates are rising all over, and in some cases at rapid rates. With that rise, we might be giving back some of our past gains in survival — just as the vaccine is beginning to be distributed.”
 

Examining mortality trends

The researchers analyzed administrative claims data from a large national health insurer. They included data from 38,517 adults who were admitted with COVID-19 to 955 US hospitals between January 1 and June 30 of this year. The investigators estimated hospitals’ risk-standardized rate of 30-day in-hospital mortality or referral to hospice, adjusted for patient-level characteristics.

Overall, 3179 patients (8.25%) died, and 1433 patients (3.7%) were referred to hospice. Risk-standardized mortality or hospice referral rates for individual hospitals ranged from 5.7% to 24.7%. The average rate was 9.1% in the best-performing quintile, compared with 15.7% in the worst-performing quintile.

In a subset of 398 hospitals that had at least 10 patients admitted for COVID-19 during early (January 1 through April 30) and later periods (between May 1 and June 30), rates in all but one hospital improved, and 94% improved by at least 25%. The average risk-standardized event rate declined from 16.6% to 9.3%.

“That rate of relative improvement is striking and encouraging, but perhaps not surprising,” Asch and coauthors write. “Early efforts at treating patients with COVID-19 were based on experience with previously known causes of severe respiratory illness. Later efforts could draw on experiences specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

For instance, doctors tried different inpatient management approaches, such as early vs late assisted ventilation, differences in oxygen flow, prone or supine positioning, and anticoagulation. “Those efforts varied in how systematically they were evaluated, but our results suggest that valuable experience was gained,” the authors note.

In addition, variation between hospitals could reflect differences in quality or different admission thresholds, they continue.

The study provides “a reason for optimism that our healthcare system has improved in our ability to care for persons with COVID-19,” write Leon Boudourakis, MD, MHS, and Amit Uppal, MD, in a related commentary. Boudourakis and Uppal are both affiliated with NYC Health + Hospitals in New York City and with SUNY Downstate and New York University School of Medicine, respectively.

Similar improvements in mortality rates have been reported in the United Kingdom and in a New York City hospital system, the editorialists note. The lower mortality rates may represent clinical, healthcare system, and epidemiologic trends.

“Since the first wave of serious COVID-19 cases, physicians have learned a great deal about the best ways to treat this serious infection,” they say. “Steroids may decrease mortality in patients with respiratory failure. Remdesivir may shorten hospitalizations of patients with serious illness. Anticoagulation and prone positioning may help certain patients. Using noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy may spare subsets of patients from the harms of intubation, such as ventilator-induced lung injury.»
 

Overwhelmed hospitals

“Hospitals do not perform as well when they are overwhelmed,” which may be a reason for the correlation between community prevalence and mortality rates, Boudourakis and Uppal suggested. “In particular, patients with a precarious respiratory status require expert, meticulous therapy to avoid intubation; those who undergo intubation or have kidney failure require nuanced and timely expert care with ventilatory adjustments and kidney replacement therapy, which are difficult to perform optimally when hospital capacity is strained.”

Although the death rate has fallen to about 9% for hospitalized patients, “9% is still high,” Asch said.

“Our results show that hospitals can’t do it on their own,” Asch said. “They need all of us to keep the community spread of the disease down. The right answer now is the right answer since the beginning of the pandemic: Keep your distance, wash your hands, and wear a mask.”

Asch, Boudourakis, and Uppal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A study coauthor reported personal fees and grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

Mortality rates for inpatients with COVID-19 dropped significantly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, but outcomes depend on the hospital where patients receive care, new data show.

“[T]he characteristic that is most associated with poor or worsening hospital outcomes is high or increasing community case rates,” write David A. Asch, MD, MBA, executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The relationship between COVID-19 mortality rates and local disease prevalence suggests that “hospitals do worse when they are burdened with cases and is consistent with imperatives to flatten the curve,” the authors continue. “As case rates of COVID-19 increase across the nation, hospital mortality outcomes may worsen.”

The researchers published their study online December 22 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The quick and substantial improvement in survival “is a tribute in part to new science — for example, the science that revealed the benefits of dexamethasone,” Asch told Medscape Medical News. “But it’s also a tribute to the doctors and nurses in the hospitals who developed experience. It’s a cliché to refer to them as heroes, but that is what they are. The science and the heroic experience continues on, and so I’m optimistic that we’ll see even more improvement over time.”

However, the data also indicate that “with lots of disease in the community, hospitals may have a harder time keeping patients alive,” Asch said.  “And of course the reason this is bad news is that community level case rates are rising all over, and in some cases at rapid rates. With that rise, we might be giving back some of our past gains in survival — just as the vaccine is beginning to be distributed.”
 

Examining mortality trends

The researchers analyzed administrative claims data from a large national health insurer. They included data from 38,517 adults who were admitted with COVID-19 to 955 US hospitals between January 1 and June 30 of this year. The investigators estimated hospitals’ risk-standardized rate of 30-day in-hospital mortality or referral to hospice, adjusted for patient-level characteristics.

Overall, 3179 patients (8.25%) died, and 1433 patients (3.7%) were referred to hospice. Risk-standardized mortality or hospice referral rates for individual hospitals ranged from 5.7% to 24.7%. The average rate was 9.1% in the best-performing quintile, compared with 15.7% in the worst-performing quintile.

In a subset of 398 hospitals that had at least 10 patients admitted for COVID-19 during early (January 1 through April 30) and later periods (between May 1 and June 30), rates in all but one hospital improved, and 94% improved by at least 25%. The average risk-standardized event rate declined from 16.6% to 9.3%.

“That rate of relative improvement is striking and encouraging, but perhaps not surprising,” Asch and coauthors write. “Early efforts at treating patients with COVID-19 were based on experience with previously known causes of severe respiratory illness. Later efforts could draw on experiences specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

For instance, doctors tried different inpatient management approaches, such as early vs late assisted ventilation, differences in oxygen flow, prone or supine positioning, and anticoagulation. “Those efforts varied in how systematically they were evaluated, but our results suggest that valuable experience was gained,” the authors note.

In addition, variation between hospitals could reflect differences in quality or different admission thresholds, they continue.

The study provides “a reason for optimism that our healthcare system has improved in our ability to care for persons with COVID-19,” write Leon Boudourakis, MD, MHS, and Amit Uppal, MD, in a related commentary. Boudourakis and Uppal are both affiliated with NYC Health + Hospitals in New York City and with SUNY Downstate and New York University School of Medicine, respectively.

Similar improvements in mortality rates have been reported in the United Kingdom and in a New York City hospital system, the editorialists note. The lower mortality rates may represent clinical, healthcare system, and epidemiologic trends.

“Since the first wave of serious COVID-19 cases, physicians have learned a great deal about the best ways to treat this serious infection,” they say. “Steroids may decrease mortality in patients with respiratory failure. Remdesivir may shorten hospitalizations of patients with serious illness. Anticoagulation and prone positioning may help certain patients. Using noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy may spare subsets of patients from the harms of intubation, such as ventilator-induced lung injury.»
 

Overwhelmed hospitals

“Hospitals do not perform as well when they are overwhelmed,” which may be a reason for the correlation between community prevalence and mortality rates, Boudourakis and Uppal suggested. “In particular, patients with a precarious respiratory status require expert, meticulous therapy to avoid intubation; those who undergo intubation or have kidney failure require nuanced and timely expert care with ventilatory adjustments and kidney replacement therapy, which are difficult to perform optimally when hospital capacity is strained.”

Although the death rate has fallen to about 9% for hospitalized patients, “9% is still high,” Asch said.

“Our results show that hospitals can’t do it on their own,” Asch said. “They need all of us to keep the community spread of the disease down. The right answer now is the right answer since the beginning of the pandemic: Keep your distance, wash your hands, and wear a mask.”

Asch, Boudourakis, and Uppal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A study coauthor reported personal fees and grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

Mortality rates for inpatients with COVID-19 dropped significantly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, but outcomes depend on the hospital where patients receive care, new data show.

“[T]he characteristic that is most associated with poor or worsening hospital outcomes is high or increasing community case rates,” write David A. Asch, MD, MBA, executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The relationship between COVID-19 mortality rates and local disease prevalence suggests that “hospitals do worse when they are burdened with cases and is consistent with imperatives to flatten the curve,” the authors continue. “As case rates of COVID-19 increase across the nation, hospital mortality outcomes may worsen.”

The researchers published their study online December 22 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The quick and substantial improvement in survival “is a tribute in part to new science — for example, the science that revealed the benefits of dexamethasone,” Asch told Medscape Medical News. “But it’s also a tribute to the doctors and nurses in the hospitals who developed experience. It’s a cliché to refer to them as heroes, but that is what they are. The science and the heroic experience continues on, and so I’m optimistic that we’ll see even more improvement over time.”

However, the data also indicate that “with lots of disease in the community, hospitals may have a harder time keeping patients alive,” Asch said.  “And of course the reason this is bad news is that community level case rates are rising all over, and in some cases at rapid rates. With that rise, we might be giving back some of our past gains in survival — just as the vaccine is beginning to be distributed.”
 

Examining mortality trends

The researchers analyzed administrative claims data from a large national health insurer. They included data from 38,517 adults who were admitted with COVID-19 to 955 US hospitals between January 1 and June 30 of this year. The investigators estimated hospitals’ risk-standardized rate of 30-day in-hospital mortality or referral to hospice, adjusted for patient-level characteristics.

Overall, 3179 patients (8.25%) died, and 1433 patients (3.7%) were referred to hospice. Risk-standardized mortality or hospice referral rates for individual hospitals ranged from 5.7% to 24.7%. The average rate was 9.1% in the best-performing quintile, compared with 15.7% in the worst-performing quintile.

In a subset of 398 hospitals that had at least 10 patients admitted for COVID-19 during early (January 1 through April 30) and later periods (between May 1 and June 30), rates in all but one hospital improved, and 94% improved by at least 25%. The average risk-standardized event rate declined from 16.6% to 9.3%.

“That rate of relative improvement is striking and encouraging, but perhaps not surprising,” Asch and coauthors write. “Early efforts at treating patients with COVID-19 were based on experience with previously known causes of severe respiratory illness. Later efforts could draw on experiences specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

For instance, doctors tried different inpatient management approaches, such as early vs late assisted ventilation, differences in oxygen flow, prone or supine positioning, and anticoagulation. “Those efforts varied in how systematically they were evaluated, but our results suggest that valuable experience was gained,” the authors note.

In addition, variation between hospitals could reflect differences in quality or different admission thresholds, they continue.

The study provides “a reason for optimism that our healthcare system has improved in our ability to care for persons with COVID-19,” write Leon Boudourakis, MD, MHS, and Amit Uppal, MD, in a related commentary. Boudourakis and Uppal are both affiliated with NYC Health + Hospitals in New York City and with SUNY Downstate and New York University School of Medicine, respectively.

Similar improvements in mortality rates have been reported in the United Kingdom and in a New York City hospital system, the editorialists note. The lower mortality rates may represent clinical, healthcare system, and epidemiologic trends.

“Since the first wave of serious COVID-19 cases, physicians have learned a great deal about the best ways to treat this serious infection,” they say. “Steroids may decrease mortality in patients with respiratory failure. Remdesivir may shorten hospitalizations of patients with serious illness. Anticoagulation and prone positioning may help certain patients. Using noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy may spare subsets of patients from the harms of intubation, such as ventilator-induced lung injury.»
 

Overwhelmed hospitals

“Hospitals do not perform as well when they are overwhelmed,” which may be a reason for the correlation between community prevalence and mortality rates, Boudourakis and Uppal suggested. “In particular, patients with a precarious respiratory status require expert, meticulous therapy to avoid intubation; those who undergo intubation or have kidney failure require nuanced and timely expert care with ventilatory adjustments and kidney replacement therapy, which are difficult to perform optimally when hospital capacity is strained.”

Although the death rate has fallen to about 9% for hospitalized patients, “9% is still high,” Asch said.

“Our results show that hospitals can’t do it on their own,” Asch said. “They need all of us to keep the community spread of the disease down. The right answer now is the right answer since the beginning of the pandemic: Keep your distance, wash your hands, and wear a mask.”

Asch, Boudourakis, and Uppal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A study coauthor reported personal fees and grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) evaluated Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine as highly effective with a favorable safety profile, based on interim data from an ongoing phase 3 trial.

The panel acknowledged that further studies will be required post issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to collect additional data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. A briefing document released by the FDA on Dec. 17, 2020, summarized interim results and included recommendations from VRBPAC on use of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine.

“On November 30, 2020, ModernaTX (the Sponsor) submitted an EUA request to FDA for an investigational COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273) intended to prevent COVID-19,” the committee wrote.
 

The mRNA-1273 vaccine trial

Among 30,351 individuals aged 18 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a randomized, stratified, observer-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 100 mcg of mRNA-1273 (n = 15,181) or saline placebo (n = 15,170) administered intramuscularly on day 1 and day 29.

The primary efficacy endpoint was efficacy of mRNA-1273 against PCR-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was to characterize the safety of the vaccine following one or two doses.
 

Efficacy

Among 27,817 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 7, 2020), 5 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after the second dose occurred among vaccine recipients and 90 case occurred among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.5% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 86.5%-97.8%).

“Subgroup analyses of the primary efficacy endpoint showed similar efficacy point estimates across age groups, genders, racial and ethnic groups, and participants with medical comorbidities associated with high risk of severe COVID-19,” they reported.

Data from the final scheduled analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint (data cutoff: Nov. 21, 2020; median follow-up of >2 months after dose 2), demonstrated 94.1% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 89.3%-96.8%), corresponding to 11 cases of COVID-19 in the vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group.

When stratified by age, the vaccine efficacy was 95.6% (95% CI, 90.6%-97.9%) for individuals 18-64 years of age and 86.4% (95% CI, 61.4%-95.5%) for those 65 years of age or older.

In addition, results from secondary analyses indicated benefit for mRNA-1273 in preventing severe COVID-19 cases, COVID-19 in those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and infection after the first dose, but these data were not conclusive.
 

Safety

Among 30,350 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 11, 2020; median follow-up of 7 weeks post second dose), no specific safety concerns were observed that would prevent issuance of an EUA.

Additional safety data (data cutoff: Nov. 25, 2020; median follow-up of 9 weeks post second dose) were provided on Dec. 7, 2020, but did not change the conclusions from the first interim analysis.

The most common vaccine-related adverse reactions were injection site pain (91.6%), fatigue (68.5%), headache (63.0%), muscle pain (59.6%), joint pain (44.8%), and chills (43.4%).

“The frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) was low (1.0% in the mRNA-1273 arm and 1.0% in the placebo arm), without meaningful imbalances between study arms,” they reported.

Myocardial infarction (0.03%), nephrolithiasis (0.02%), and cholecystitis (0.02%) were the most common SAEs that were numerically greater in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm; however, the small number of cases does not infer a casual relationship.

“The 2-dose vaccination regimen was highly effective in preventing PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days after receipt of the second dose,” the committee wrote. “[However], it is critical to continue to gather data about the vaccine even after it is made available under EUA.”

The associated phase 3 study was sponsored by ModernaTX.

SOURCE: FDA Briefing Document: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Published Dec. 17, 2020.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) evaluated Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine as highly effective with a favorable safety profile, based on interim data from an ongoing phase 3 trial.

The panel acknowledged that further studies will be required post issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to collect additional data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. A briefing document released by the FDA on Dec. 17, 2020, summarized interim results and included recommendations from VRBPAC on use of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine.

“On November 30, 2020, ModernaTX (the Sponsor) submitted an EUA request to FDA for an investigational COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273) intended to prevent COVID-19,” the committee wrote.
 

The mRNA-1273 vaccine trial

Among 30,351 individuals aged 18 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a randomized, stratified, observer-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 100 mcg of mRNA-1273 (n = 15,181) or saline placebo (n = 15,170) administered intramuscularly on day 1 and day 29.

The primary efficacy endpoint was efficacy of mRNA-1273 against PCR-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was to characterize the safety of the vaccine following one or two doses.
 

Efficacy

Among 27,817 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 7, 2020), 5 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after the second dose occurred among vaccine recipients and 90 case occurred among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.5% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 86.5%-97.8%).

“Subgroup analyses of the primary efficacy endpoint showed similar efficacy point estimates across age groups, genders, racial and ethnic groups, and participants with medical comorbidities associated with high risk of severe COVID-19,” they reported.

Data from the final scheduled analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint (data cutoff: Nov. 21, 2020; median follow-up of >2 months after dose 2), demonstrated 94.1% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 89.3%-96.8%), corresponding to 11 cases of COVID-19 in the vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group.

When stratified by age, the vaccine efficacy was 95.6% (95% CI, 90.6%-97.9%) for individuals 18-64 years of age and 86.4% (95% CI, 61.4%-95.5%) for those 65 years of age or older.

In addition, results from secondary analyses indicated benefit for mRNA-1273 in preventing severe COVID-19 cases, COVID-19 in those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and infection after the first dose, but these data were not conclusive.
 

Safety

Among 30,350 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 11, 2020; median follow-up of 7 weeks post second dose), no specific safety concerns were observed that would prevent issuance of an EUA.

Additional safety data (data cutoff: Nov. 25, 2020; median follow-up of 9 weeks post second dose) were provided on Dec. 7, 2020, but did not change the conclusions from the first interim analysis.

The most common vaccine-related adverse reactions were injection site pain (91.6%), fatigue (68.5%), headache (63.0%), muscle pain (59.6%), joint pain (44.8%), and chills (43.4%).

“The frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) was low (1.0% in the mRNA-1273 arm and 1.0% in the placebo arm), without meaningful imbalances between study arms,” they reported.

Myocardial infarction (0.03%), nephrolithiasis (0.02%), and cholecystitis (0.02%) were the most common SAEs that were numerically greater in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm; however, the small number of cases does not infer a casual relationship.

“The 2-dose vaccination regimen was highly effective in preventing PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days after receipt of the second dose,” the committee wrote. “[However], it is critical to continue to gather data about the vaccine even after it is made available under EUA.”

The associated phase 3 study was sponsored by ModernaTX.

SOURCE: FDA Briefing Document: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Published Dec. 17, 2020.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) evaluated Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine as highly effective with a favorable safety profile, based on interim data from an ongoing phase 3 trial.

The panel acknowledged that further studies will be required post issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to collect additional data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. A briefing document released by the FDA on Dec. 17, 2020, summarized interim results and included recommendations from VRBPAC on use of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine.

“On November 30, 2020, ModernaTX (the Sponsor) submitted an EUA request to FDA for an investigational COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273) intended to prevent COVID-19,” the committee wrote.
 

The mRNA-1273 vaccine trial

Among 30,351 individuals aged 18 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a randomized, stratified, observer-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 100 mcg of mRNA-1273 (n = 15,181) or saline placebo (n = 15,170) administered intramuscularly on day 1 and day 29.

The primary efficacy endpoint was efficacy of mRNA-1273 against PCR-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was to characterize the safety of the vaccine following one or two doses.
 

Efficacy

Among 27,817 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 7, 2020), 5 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after the second dose occurred among vaccine recipients and 90 case occurred among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.5% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 86.5%-97.8%).

“Subgroup analyses of the primary efficacy endpoint showed similar efficacy point estimates across age groups, genders, racial and ethnic groups, and participants with medical comorbidities associated with high risk of severe COVID-19,” they reported.

Data from the final scheduled analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint (data cutoff: Nov. 21, 2020; median follow-up of >2 months after dose 2), demonstrated 94.1% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 89.3%-96.8%), corresponding to 11 cases of COVID-19 in the vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group.

When stratified by age, the vaccine efficacy was 95.6% (95% CI, 90.6%-97.9%) for individuals 18-64 years of age and 86.4% (95% CI, 61.4%-95.5%) for those 65 years of age or older.

In addition, results from secondary analyses indicated benefit for mRNA-1273 in preventing severe COVID-19 cases, COVID-19 in those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and infection after the first dose, but these data were not conclusive.
 

Safety

Among 30,350 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 11, 2020; median follow-up of 7 weeks post second dose), no specific safety concerns were observed that would prevent issuance of an EUA.

Additional safety data (data cutoff: Nov. 25, 2020; median follow-up of 9 weeks post second dose) were provided on Dec. 7, 2020, but did not change the conclusions from the first interim analysis.

The most common vaccine-related adverse reactions were injection site pain (91.6%), fatigue (68.5%), headache (63.0%), muscle pain (59.6%), joint pain (44.8%), and chills (43.4%).

“The frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) was low (1.0% in the mRNA-1273 arm and 1.0% in the placebo arm), without meaningful imbalances between study arms,” they reported.

Myocardial infarction (0.03%), nephrolithiasis (0.02%), and cholecystitis (0.02%) were the most common SAEs that were numerically greater in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm; however, the small number of cases does not infer a casual relationship.

“The 2-dose vaccination regimen was highly effective in preventing PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days after receipt of the second dose,” the committee wrote. “[However], it is critical to continue to gather data about the vaccine even after it is made available under EUA.”

The associated phase 3 study was sponsored by ModernaTX.

SOURCE: FDA Briefing Document: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Published Dec. 17, 2020.

As the first American health care workers rolled up their sleeves for a COVID-19 vaccine, the images were instantly frozen in history, marking the triumph of scientific know-how and ingenuity. Cameras captured the first trucks pulling out of a warehouse in Portage, Mich., to the applause of workers and area residents. A day later, Boston Medical Center employees – some dressed in scrubs and wearing masks, face shields, and protective gowns – literally danced on the sidewalk when doses arrived. Some have photographed themselves getting the vaccine and posted it on social media, tagging it #MyCOVIDVax.

But the real story of the debut of COVID-19 vaccination is more methodical than monumental, a celebration of teamwork rather than of conquest. As hospitals waited for their first allotment, they reviewed their carefully drafted plans. They relied on each other, reaching across the usual divisions of competition and working collaboratively to share the limited supply. Their priority lists for the first vaccinations included environmental services workers who clean patient rooms and the critical care physicians who work to save lives.

“Health care workers have pulled together throughout this pandemic,” said Melanie Swift, MD, cochair of the COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation and Distribution Work Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’ve gone through the darkest of years relying so heavily on each other,” she said. “Now we’re pulling together to get out of it.”

Still, a rollout of this magnitude has hitches. Stanford issued an apology Dec. 18 after its medical residents protested a vaccine distribution plan that left out nearly all of its residents and fellows, many of whom regularly treat patients with COVID-19.

There have already been more than 287,000 COVID-19 cases and 953 deaths among health care workers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In its guidance, the agency pointed out that the “continued protection of them at work, at home, and in the community remains a national priority.” That means vaccinating a workforce of about 21 million people, often the largest group of employees in a community.

“It collectively takes all of us to vaccinate our teams to maintain that stability in our health care infrastructure across the metro Atlanta area,” Christy Norman, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services at Emory Healthcare, told reporters in a briefing as the health system awaited its first delivery.
 

Don’t waste a dose

One overriding imperative prevails: Hospitals don’t want to waste any doses. The storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine make that tricky.

Once vials are removed from the pizza-box-shaped containers in ultracold storage and placed in a refrigerator, they must be used within 5 days. Thawed five-dose vials must be brought to room temperature before they are diluted, and they can remain at room temperature for no more than 2 hours. Once they are diluted with 1.8 mL of a 0.9% sodium chloride injection, the vials must be used within 6 hours.

COVID-19 precautions require employees to stay physically distant while they wait their turn for vaccination, which means the process can’t mirror typical large-scale flu immunization programs.

To prioritize groups, the vaccination planners at Mayo conducted a thorough risk stratification, considering each employee’s duties. Do they work in a dedicated COVID-19 unit? Do they handle lab tests or collect swabs? Do they work in the ICU or emergency department?

“We have applied some principles to make sure that as we roll it out, we prioritize people who are at greatest risk of ongoing exposure and who are really critical to maintaining the COVID response and other essential health services,” said Dr. Swift, associate medical director of Mayo’s occupational health service.

Mayo employees who are eligible for the first doses can sign up for appointments through the medical record system. If it seems likely that some doses will be left over at the end of the vaccination period – perhaps because of missed appointments – supervisors in high-risk areas can refer other health care workers. Mayo gave its first vaccines on Dec. 18, but the vaccination program began in earnest the following week. With the pleasant surprise that each five-dose vial actually provides six doses, 474 vials will allow for the vaccination of 2,844 employees in the top-priority group. “It’s going to expand each week or few days as we get more and more vaccine,” Dr. Swift said.
 

Sharing vials with small rural hospitals

Minnesota is using a hub-and-spoke system to give small rural hospitals access to the Pfizer vaccine, even though they lack ultracold storage and can’t use a minimum order of 975 doses. Large hospitals, acting as hubs, are sharing their orders. (The minimum order for Moderna is 100 doses.)

In south-central Minnesota, for example, two hub hospitals each have six spoke hospitals. Five of the 14 hospitals are independent, and the rest are part of large hospital systems, but affiliation doesn’t matter, said Eric Weller, regional health care preparedness coordinator for the South Central Healthcare Coalition. “We are all working together. It doesn’t matter what system you’re from,” he said. “We’re working for the good of the community.”

Each hospital designed a process to provide vaccine education, prioritize groups, allocate appointments, register people for vaccination, obtain signed consent forms, administer vaccines in a COVID-safe way, and provide follow-up appointments for the second dose. “We’re using some of the lessons we learned during H1N1,” said Mr. Weller, referring to immunization during the 2009 influenza pandemic. “The difference is that during H1N1, you could have lines of people.”

Coordinating the appointments will be more important than ever. “One of the vaccination strategies is to get people in groups of five, so you use one vial on those five people and don’t waste it,” he said.

Logistics are somewhat different for the Moderna vaccine, which will come in 10-dose vials that can be refrigerated for up to 30 days.

Both vaccines may produce mild flulike symptoms, such as fatigue, headache, or muscle pain, particularly after the second dose. That’s a sign that the immune system is reacting to the vaccine, but it’s also another consideration in the vaccination plans, because health care workers might take a day or two off work. “We’re not going to vaccinate a whole department at one time. It will be staggered,” said Kevin Smith, MD, medical director of the occupational medicine program at ProMedica, a health care system based in Toledo, Ohio.

Dr. Smith said he plans to encourage employees to use V-Safe, an app created by the CDC to track adverse effects in people who receive the vaccine. He pointed out that a day or two of achiness will be better than coping with the symptoms of COVID-19. Some employees who recovered from the infection still feel fatigued or haven’t regained their sense of taste and smell. “We are still monitoring quite a few employees to make sure they get back to 100%,” he said.
 

Hope for ending the pandemic

Public health officials have worried about vaccine hesitancy, even among health care workers, but so far, that concern seems overshadowed by enthusiasm. Dr. Smith said his department has been fielding calls from employees who want to know when they will be able to get the vaccine. “I think everyone feels relief,” he said. “We’re at the beginning of the end.”

At Mayo, Dr. Swift is surveying staff to gauge the willingness to get the vaccine, but she already senses excitement among employees. “No doubt there are still people who are hesitant, but I’m feeling a shift,” she said. “I’m feeling this momentum building of health care workers coming on board and wanting to take this vaccine, which is good, because they will set an example for their patients.”

For Colleen Kelley, MD, an infectious disease physician at Emory University in Atlanta who was principal investigator for an Emory-affiliated Moderna clinical trial site, it has been an emotional time. “Things were looking very bleak and dark for a time, and then we started to get these efficacy results that were greater than anyone imagined,” she said.

Dr. Kelley spends time talking to journalists and educating physician colleagues and hospital employees about how the vaccine was developed so quickly and how it works. “Everyone asks me, ‘Should I get it? Are you going to get it?’ My answer is ‘yes’ and ‘yes,’ “ she said. “I am 1,000% confident that the benefits of widespread vaccination outweigh the risks of continued COVID and a continued pandemic.”

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

As the first American health care workers rolled up their sleeves for a COVID-19 vaccine, the images were instantly frozen in history, marking the triumph of scientific know-how and ingenuity. Cameras captured the first trucks pulling out of a warehouse in Portage, Mich., to the applause of workers and area residents. A day later, Boston Medical Center employees – some dressed in scrubs and wearing masks, face shields, and protective gowns – literally danced on the sidewalk when doses arrived. Some have photographed themselves getting the vaccine and posted it on social media, tagging it #MyCOVIDVax.

But the real story of the debut of COVID-19 vaccination is more methodical than monumental, a celebration of teamwork rather than of conquest. As hospitals waited for their first allotment, they reviewed their carefully drafted plans. They relied on each other, reaching across the usual divisions of competition and working collaboratively to share the limited supply. Their priority lists for the first vaccinations included environmental services workers who clean patient rooms and the critical care physicians who work to save lives.

“Health care workers have pulled together throughout this pandemic,” said Melanie Swift, MD, cochair of the COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation and Distribution Work Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’ve gone through the darkest of years relying so heavily on each other,” she said. “Now we’re pulling together to get out of it.”

Still, a rollout of this magnitude has hitches. Stanford issued an apology Dec. 18 after its medical residents protested a vaccine distribution plan that left out nearly all of its residents and fellows, many of whom regularly treat patients with COVID-19.

There have already been more than 287,000 COVID-19 cases and 953 deaths among health care workers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In its guidance, the agency pointed out that the “continued protection of them at work, at home, and in the community remains a national priority.” That means vaccinating a workforce of about 21 million people, often the largest group of employees in a community.

“It collectively takes all of us to vaccinate our teams to maintain that stability in our health care infrastructure across the metro Atlanta area,” Christy Norman, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services at Emory Healthcare, told reporters in a briefing as the health system awaited its first delivery.
 

Don’t waste a dose

One overriding imperative prevails: Hospitals don’t want to waste any doses. The storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine make that tricky.

Once vials are removed from the pizza-box-shaped containers in ultracold storage and placed in a refrigerator, they must be used within 5 days. Thawed five-dose vials must be brought to room temperature before they are diluted, and they can remain at room temperature for no more than 2 hours. Once they are diluted with 1.8 mL of a 0.9% sodium chloride injection, the vials must be used within 6 hours.

COVID-19 precautions require employees to stay physically distant while they wait their turn for vaccination, which means the process can’t mirror typical large-scale flu immunization programs.

To prioritize groups, the vaccination planners at Mayo conducted a thorough risk stratification, considering each employee’s duties. Do they work in a dedicated COVID-19 unit? Do they handle lab tests or collect swabs? Do they work in the ICU or emergency department?

“We have applied some principles to make sure that as we roll it out, we prioritize people who are at greatest risk of ongoing exposure and who are really critical to maintaining the COVID response and other essential health services,” said Dr. Swift, associate medical director of Mayo’s occupational health service.

Mayo employees who are eligible for the first doses can sign up for appointments through the medical record system. If it seems likely that some doses will be left over at the end of the vaccination period – perhaps because of missed appointments – supervisors in high-risk areas can refer other health care workers. Mayo gave its first vaccines on Dec. 18, but the vaccination program began in earnest the following week. With the pleasant surprise that each five-dose vial actually provides six doses, 474 vials will allow for the vaccination of 2,844 employees in the top-priority group. “It’s going to expand each week or few days as we get more and more vaccine,” Dr. Swift said.
 

Sharing vials with small rural hospitals

Minnesota is using a hub-and-spoke system to give small rural hospitals access to the Pfizer vaccine, even though they lack ultracold storage and can’t use a minimum order of 975 doses. Large hospitals, acting as hubs, are sharing their orders. (The minimum order for Moderna is 100 doses.)

In south-central Minnesota, for example, two hub hospitals each have six spoke hospitals. Five of the 14 hospitals are independent, and the rest are part of large hospital systems, but affiliation doesn’t matter, said Eric Weller, regional health care preparedness coordinator for the South Central Healthcare Coalition. “We are all working together. It doesn’t matter what system you’re from,” he said. “We’re working for the good of the community.”

Each hospital designed a process to provide vaccine education, prioritize groups, allocate appointments, register people for vaccination, obtain signed consent forms, administer vaccines in a COVID-safe way, and provide follow-up appointments for the second dose. “We’re using some of the lessons we learned during H1N1,” said Mr. Weller, referring to immunization during the 2009 influenza pandemic. “The difference is that during H1N1, you could have lines of people.”

Coordinating the appointments will be more important than ever. “One of the vaccination strategies is to get people in groups of five, so you use one vial on those five people and don’t waste it,” he said.

Logistics are somewhat different for the Moderna vaccine, which will come in 10-dose vials that can be refrigerated for up to 30 days.

Both vaccines may produce mild flulike symptoms, such as fatigue, headache, or muscle pain, particularly after the second dose. That’s a sign that the immune system is reacting to the vaccine, but it’s also another consideration in the vaccination plans, because health care workers might take a day or two off work. “We’re not going to vaccinate a whole department at one time. It will be staggered,” said Kevin Smith, MD, medical director of the occupational medicine program at ProMedica, a health care system based in Toledo, Ohio.

Dr. Smith said he plans to encourage employees to use V-Safe, an app created by the CDC to track adverse effects in people who receive the vaccine. He pointed out that a day or two of achiness will be better than coping with the symptoms of COVID-19. Some employees who recovered from the infection still feel fatigued or haven’t regained their sense of taste and smell. “We are still monitoring quite a few employees to make sure they get back to 100%,” he said.
 

Hope for ending the pandemic

Public health officials have worried about vaccine hesitancy, even among health care workers, but so far, that concern seems overshadowed by enthusiasm. Dr. Smith said his department has been fielding calls from employees who want to know when they will be able to get the vaccine. “I think everyone feels relief,” he said. “We’re at the beginning of the end.”

At Mayo, Dr. Swift is surveying staff to gauge the willingness to get the vaccine, but she already senses excitement among employees. “No doubt there are still people who are hesitant, but I’m feeling a shift,” she said. “I’m feeling this momentum building of health care workers coming on board and wanting to take this vaccine, which is good, because they will set an example for their patients.”

For Colleen Kelley, MD, an infectious disease physician at Emory University in Atlanta who was principal investigator for an Emory-affiliated Moderna clinical trial site, it has been an emotional time. “Things were looking very bleak and dark for a time, and then we started to get these efficacy results that were greater than anyone imagined,” she said.

Dr. Kelley spends time talking to journalists and educating physician colleagues and hospital employees about how the vaccine was developed so quickly and how it works. “Everyone asks me, ‘Should I get it? Are you going to get it?’ My answer is ‘yes’ and ‘yes,’ “ she said. “I am 1,000% confident that the benefits of widespread vaccination outweigh the risks of continued COVID and a continued pandemic.”

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

As the first American health care workers rolled up their sleeves for a COVID-19 vaccine, the images were instantly frozen in history, marking the triumph of scientific know-how and ingenuity. Cameras captured the first trucks pulling out of a warehouse in Portage, Mich., to the applause of workers and area residents. A day later, Boston Medical Center employees – some dressed in scrubs and wearing masks, face shields, and protective gowns – literally danced on the sidewalk when doses arrived. Some have photographed themselves getting the vaccine and posted it on social media, tagging it #MyCOVIDVax.

But the real story of the debut of COVID-19 vaccination is more methodical than monumental, a celebration of teamwork rather than of conquest. As hospitals waited for their first allotment, they reviewed their carefully drafted plans. They relied on each other, reaching across the usual divisions of competition and working collaboratively to share the limited supply. Their priority lists for the first vaccinations included environmental services workers who clean patient rooms and the critical care physicians who work to save lives.

“Health care workers have pulled together throughout this pandemic,” said Melanie Swift, MD, cochair of the COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation and Distribution Work Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’ve gone through the darkest of years relying so heavily on each other,” she said. “Now we’re pulling together to get out of it.”

Still, a rollout of this magnitude has hitches. Stanford issued an apology Dec. 18 after its medical residents protested a vaccine distribution plan that left out nearly all of its residents and fellows, many of whom regularly treat patients with COVID-19.

There have already been more than 287,000 COVID-19 cases and 953 deaths among health care workers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In its guidance, the agency pointed out that the “continued protection of them at work, at home, and in the community remains a national priority.” That means vaccinating a workforce of about 21 million people, often the largest group of employees in a community.

“It collectively takes all of us to vaccinate our teams to maintain that stability in our health care infrastructure across the metro Atlanta area,” Christy Norman, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services at Emory Healthcare, told reporters in a briefing as the health system awaited its first delivery.
 

Don’t waste a dose

One overriding imperative prevails: Hospitals don’t want to waste any doses. The storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine make that tricky.

Once vials are removed from the pizza-box-shaped containers in ultracold storage and placed in a refrigerator, they must be used within 5 days. Thawed five-dose vials must be brought to room temperature before they are diluted, and they can remain at room temperature for no more than 2 hours. Once they are diluted with 1.8 mL of a 0.9% sodium chloride injection, the vials must be used within 6 hours.

COVID-19 precautions require employees to stay physically distant while they wait their turn for vaccination, which means the process can’t mirror typical large-scale flu immunization programs.

To prioritize groups, the vaccination planners at Mayo conducted a thorough risk stratification, considering each employee’s duties. Do they work in a dedicated COVID-19 unit? Do they handle lab tests or collect swabs? Do they work in the ICU or emergency department?

“We have applied some principles to make sure that as we roll it out, we prioritize people who are at greatest risk of ongoing exposure and who are really critical to maintaining the COVID response and other essential health services,” said Dr. Swift, associate medical director of Mayo’s occupational health service.

Mayo employees who are eligible for the first doses can sign up for appointments through the medical record system. If it seems likely that some doses will be left over at the end of the vaccination period – perhaps because of missed appointments – supervisors in high-risk areas can refer other health care workers. Mayo gave its first vaccines on Dec. 18, but the vaccination program began in earnest the following week. With the pleasant surprise that each five-dose vial actually provides six doses, 474 vials will allow for the vaccination of 2,844 employees in the top-priority group. “It’s going to expand each week or few days as we get more and more vaccine,” Dr. Swift said.
 

Sharing vials with small rural hospitals

Minnesota is using a hub-and-spoke system to give small rural hospitals access to the Pfizer vaccine, even though they lack ultracold storage and can’t use a minimum order of 975 doses. Large hospitals, acting as hubs, are sharing their orders. (The minimum order for Moderna is 100 doses.)

In south-central Minnesota, for example, two hub hospitals each have six spoke hospitals. Five of the 14 hospitals are independent, and the rest are part of large hospital systems, but affiliation doesn’t matter, said Eric Weller, regional health care preparedness coordinator for the South Central Healthcare Coalition. “We are all working together. It doesn’t matter what system you’re from,” he said. “We’re working for the good of the community.”

Each hospital designed a process to provide vaccine education, prioritize groups, allocate appointments, register people for vaccination, obtain signed consent forms, administer vaccines in a COVID-safe way, and provide follow-up appointments for the second dose. “We’re using some of the lessons we learned during H1N1,” said Mr. Weller, referring to immunization during the 2009 influenza pandemic. “The difference is that during H1N1, you could have lines of people.”

Coordinating the appointments will be more important than ever. “One of the vaccination strategies is to get people in groups of five, so you use one vial on those five people and don’t waste it,” he said.

Logistics are somewhat different for the Moderna vaccine, which will come in 10-dose vials that can be refrigerated for up to 30 days.

Both vaccines may produce mild flulike symptoms, such as fatigue, headache, or muscle pain, particularly after the second dose. That’s a sign that the immune system is reacting to the vaccine, but it’s also another consideration in the vaccination plans, because health care workers might take a day or two off work. “We’re not going to vaccinate a whole department at one time. It will be staggered,” said Kevin Smith, MD, medical director of the occupational medicine program at ProMedica, a health care system based in Toledo, Ohio.

Dr. Smith said he plans to encourage employees to use V-Safe, an app created by the CDC to track adverse effects in people who receive the vaccine. He pointed out that a day or two of achiness will be better than coping with the symptoms of COVID-19. Some employees who recovered from the infection still feel fatigued or haven’t regained their sense of taste and smell. “We are still monitoring quite a few employees to make sure they get back to 100%,” he said.
 

Hope for ending the pandemic

Public health officials have worried about vaccine hesitancy, even among health care workers, but so far, that concern seems overshadowed by enthusiasm. Dr. Smith said his department has been fielding calls from employees who want to know when they will be able to get the vaccine. “I think everyone feels relief,” he said. “We’re at the beginning of the end.”

At Mayo, Dr. Swift is surveying staff to gauge the willingness to get the vaccine, but she already senses excitement among employees. “No doubt there are still people who are hesitant, but I’m feeling a shift,” she said. “I’m feeling this momentum building of health care workers coming on board and wanting to take this vaccine, which is good, because they will set an example for their patients.”

For Colleen Kelley, MD, an infectious disease physician at Emory University in Atlanta who was principal investigator for an Emory-affiliated Moderna clinical trial site, it has been an emotional time. “Things were looking very bleak and dark for a time, and then we started to get these efficacy results that were greater than anyone imagined,” she said.

Dr. Kelley spends time talking to journalists and educating physician colleagues and hospital employees about how the vaccine was developed so quickly and how it works. “Everyone asks me, ‘Should I get it? Are you going to get it?’ My answer is ‘yes’ and ‘yes,’ “ she said. “I am 1,000% confident that the benefits of widespread vaccination outweigh the risks of continued COVID and a continued pandemic.”

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

Parts of three linked studies investigating increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been “paused” because of futility and safety concerns, a statement from the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) confirms.

The trials involved are the REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC studies.

All three trials have paused enrollment of critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care unit support for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs did not reduce the need for organ support, the NHLBI statement notes.

The statement also says that a potential for harm in this subgroup could not be excluded, noting that increased bleeding is a known complication of full-dose anticoagulation. The trials are working urgently to undertake additional analyses, which will be made available as soon as possible.   

The three clinical trial platforms are working together to test the effects of full therapeutic doses of anticoagulants vs. lower prophylactic doses in COVID-19 patients.

Informed by the deliberations of the data safety monitoring boards of these trials, all of the trial sites have paused enrollment of the most critically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19. 

Enrollment continues in the trials for moderately ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the statement notes.  

“Whether the use of full-dose compared to low-dose anticoagulants leads to better outcomes in hospitalized patients with less COVID-19 severe disease remains a very important question,” the NHLBI statement says.

Patients who require full dose anticoagulants for another medical indication are not included in these trials.

The statement explains that COVID-19 is associated with significant inflammation and clinical and pathologic evidence of widespread blood clots. These trials were launched because clinicians have observed that many patients ill with COVID-19, including those who have died from the disease, formed blood clots throughout their bodies, even in their smallest blood vessels. This unusual clotting can cause multiple health complications, including lung failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. 

The three trials are the result of a collaboration between major international partners. The trials include: the Randomized, Embedded, Multi-factorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) Therapeutic Anticoagulation; Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-4 (ACTIV-4) Antithrombotics Inpatient; and Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC).

The trials, which span four continents, have the common goal of assessing the benefit of full doses of anticoagulants to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with a lower dose often used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.  

The trials are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (UK), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Parts of three linked studies investigating increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been “paused” because of futility and safety concerns, a statement from the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) confirms.

The trials involved are the REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC studies.

All three trials have paused enrollment of critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care unit support for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs did not reduce the need for organ support, the NHLBI statement notes.

The statement also says that a potential for harm in this subgroup could not be excluded, noting that increased bleeding is a known complication of full-dose anticoagulation. The trials are working urgently to undertake additional analyses, which will be made available as soon as possible.   

The three clinical trial platforms are working together to test the effects of full therapeutic doses of anticoagulants vs. lower prophylactic doses in COVID-19 patients.

Informed by the deliberations of the data safety monitoring boards of these trials, all of the trial sites have paused enrollment of the most critically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19. 

Enrollment continues in the trials for moderately ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the statement notes.  

“Whether the use of full-dose compared to low-dose anticoagulants leads to better outcomes in hospitalized patients with less COVID-19 severe disease remains a very important question,” the NHLBI statement says.

Patients who require full dose anticoagulants for another medical indication are not included in these trials.

The statement explains that COVID-19 is associated with significant inflammation and clinical and pathologic evidence of widespread blood clots. These trials were launched because clinicians have observed that many patients ill with COVID-19, including those who have died from the disease, formed blood clots throughout their bodies, even in their smallest blood vessels. This unusual clotting can cause multiple health complications, including lung failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. 

The three trials are the result of a collaboration between major international partners. The trials include: the Randomized, Embedded, Multi-factorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) Therapeutic Anticoagulation; Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-4 (ACTIV-4) Antithrombotics Inpatient; and Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC).

The trials, which span four continents, have the common goal of assessing the benefit of full doses of anticoagulants to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with a lower dose often used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.  

The trials are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (UK), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Parts of three linked studies investigating increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been “paused” because of futility and safety concerns, a statement from the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) confirms.

The trials involved are the REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC studies.

All three trials have paused enrollment of critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care unit support for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs did not reduce the need for organ support, the NHLBI statement notes.

The statement also says that a potential for harm in this subgroup could not be excluded, noting that increased bleeding is a known complication of full-dose anticoagulation. The trials are working urgently to undertake additional analyses, which will be made available as soon as possible.   

The three clinical trial platforms are working together to test the effects of full therapeutic doses of anticoagulants vs. lower prophylactic doses in COVID-19 patients.

Informed by the deliberations of the data safety monitoring boards of these trials, all of the trial sites have paused enrollment of the most critically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19. 

Enrollment continues in the trials for moderately ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the statement notes.  

“Whether the use of full-dose compared to low-dose anticoagulants leads to better outcomes in hospitalized patients with less COVID-19 severe disease remains a very important question,” the NHLBI statement says.

Patients who require full dose anticoagulants for another medical indication are not included in these trials.

The statement explains that COVID-19 is associated with significant inflammation and clinical and pathologic evidence of widespread blood clots. These trials were launched because clinicians have observed that many patients ill with COVID-19, including those who have died from the disease, formed blood clots throughout their bodies, even in their smallest blood vessels. This unusual clotting can cause multiple health complications, including lung failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. 

The three trials are the result of a collaboration between major international partners. The trials include: the Randomized, Embedded, Multi-factorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) Therapeutic Anticoagulation; Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-4 (ACTIV-4) Antithrombotics Inpatient; and Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC).

The trials, which span four continents, have the common goal of assessing the benefit of full doses of anticoagulants to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with a lower dose often used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.  

The trials are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (UK), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately one to two out of every thousand people suffer from venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) issued new guidelines for the management of VTE, including primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent events, earlier this year.

These guidelines, which were recently published in Blood Advances (Ortel T L et al. Blood Adv 2020 doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001830), include 28 recommendations.

How to treat uncomplicated patients

For uncomplicated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE), the guidelines suggest treating patients at home rather than in the hospital. This is especially important for family physicians to note as many of these patients will now be the responsibility of the primary care doctor to treat and follow. Patients treated at home can avoid the risk of nosocomial infections, especially in the days of COVID-19. Evidence also suggests that being treated at home was shown to reduce the risk of PE versus being treated in the hospital. It is, therefore, crucial that family physicians know which patients are low versus high risk.

Further, the guidelines suggest that these patients with low risk of complications are better treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists, such as Coumadin.

Medication-related suggestions

The guidelines also suggest that no DOAC is preferred over another. Since DOACs are relatively newer agents, family doctors need to become comfortable with their use. For proximal DVTs, anticoagulation alone can be used without thrombolytics.

Family physicians are often tasked with the decision on when to stop anticoagulation. The authors recommend against using diagnostic tests such as D-Dimer or ultrasound to decide when to stop these medications in low-risk patients. In patients at risk of recurrent VTE due to chronic medical conditions, it is suggested to continue anti-coagulants indefinitely. While anticoagulant therapy effectively reduces risk of VTE, it does increase the risk of bleeding events.

The guidelines are quite extensive and specific in their recommendations and family physicians need to understand them. We are often the first ones in the medical system to diagnose VTE, and it is quite possible to keep these patients home, thereby eliminating risks they may encounter by being hospitalized. In addition, the recommendation regarding the use of DOACs may ease some of the burden of monitoring patients on long-term Coumadin. These medications do not come without risks, and we must be comfortable evaluating for any complications. In our current health care system, different insurance companies have different formularies making it necessary for us to know all these medications.

In the past, the diagnosis of PE and even a DVT would mean a hospital stay. We now know, and these guidelines reaffirm, that this is not necessary in uncomplicated cases.

In addition to diagnosing VTE, family physicians are also tasked with following up with patients who were hospitalized or started on treatment by other physicians. We need to know the plan on when to stop the medication or when to reevaluate its use. Patients often bring this question to us, and these guidelines will help us answer that question.

Many patients who have more complicated medical conditions often see multiple specialists. The ASH recommendations help standardize the care of these patients across specialties.

What the recommendations are missing

As family doctors, we often treat patients with multiple comorbidities. These guidelines do not make recommendations for patients with cancer, who are at high risk of VTE events. Some patients also have conditions that increase their risk of bleeding or have contraindications to the use of anticoagulants. It would be helpful to have more recommendations for both of these types of patients in addition to the use of inferior vena cava filter in patients with proximal DVT. The document is also missing recommendations for pregnant patients, which would be useful.

Overall, these guidelines include much of what we already do in our practices while doing a great job of incorporating the newer DOACs. These guidelines are easy for family physicians to put into practice.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Each year in the United States, approximately one to two out of every thousand people suffer from venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) issued new guidelines for the management of VTE, including primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent events, earlier this year.

These guidelines, which were recently published in Blood Advances (Ortel T L et al. Blood Adv 2020 doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001830), include 28 recommendations.

How to treat uncomplicated patients

For uncomplicated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE), the guidelines suggest treating patients at home rather than in the hospital. This is especially important for family physicians to note as many of these patients will now be the responsibility of the primary care doctor to treat and follow. Patients treated at home can avoid the risk of nosocomial infections, especially in the days of COVID-19. Evidence also suggests that being treated at home was shown to reduce the risk of PE versus being treated in the hospital. It is, therefore, crucial that family physicians know which patients are low versus high risk.

Further, the guidelines suggest that these patients with low risk of complications are better treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists, such as Coumadin.

Medication-related suggestions

The guidelines also suggest that no DOAC is preferred over another. Since DOACs are relatively newer agents, family doctors need to become comfortable with their use. For proximal DVTs, anticoagulation alone can be used without thrombolytics.

Family physicians are often tasked with the decision on when to stop anticoagulation. The authors recommend against using diagnostic tests such as D-Dimer or ultrasound to decide when to stop these medications in low-risk patients. In patients at risk of recurrent VTE due to chronic medical conditions, it is suggested to continue anti-coagulants indefinitely. While anticoagulant therapy effectively reduces risk of VTE, it does increase the risk of bleeding events.

The guidelines are quite extensive and specific in their recommendations and family physicians need to understand them. We are often the first ones in the medical system to diagnose VTE, and it is quite possible to keep these patients home, thereby eliminating risks they may encounter by being hospitalized. In addition, the recommendation regarding the use of DOACs may ease some of the burden of monitoring patients on long-term Coumadin. These medications do not come without risks, and we must be comfortable evaluating for any complications. In our current health care system, different insurance companies have different formularies making it necessary for us to know all these medications.

In the past, the diagnosis of PE and even a DVT would mean a hospital stay. We now know, and these guidelines reaffirm, that this is not necessary in uncomplicated cases.

In addition to diagnosing VTE, family physicians are also tasked with following up with patients who were hospitalized or started on treatment by other physicians. We need to know the plan on when to stop the medication or when to reevaluate its use. Patients often bring this question to us, and these guidelines will help us answer that question.

Many patients who have more complicated medical conditions often see multiple specialists. The ASH recommendations help standardize the care of these patients across specialties.

What the recommendations are missing

As family doctors, we often treat patients with multiple comorbidities. These guidelines do not make recommendations for patients with cancer, who are at high risk of VTE events. Some patients also have conditions that increase their risk of bleeding or have contraindications to the use of anticoagulants. It would be helpful to have more recommendations for both of these types of patients in addition to the use of inferior vena cava filter in patients with proximal DVT. The document is also missing recommendations for pregnant patients, which would be useful.

Overall, these guidelines include much of what we already do in our practices while doing a great job of incorporating the newer DOACs. These guidelines are easy for family physicians to put into practice.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Each year in the United States, approximately one to two out of every thousand people suffer from venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) issued new guidelines for the management of VTE, including primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent events, earlier this year.

These guidelines, which were recently published in Blood Advances (Ortel T L et al. Blood Adv 2020 doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001830), include 28 recommendations.

How to treat uncomplicated patients

For uncomplicated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE), the guidelines suggest treating patients at home rather than in the hospital. This is especially important for family physicians to note as many of these patients will now be the responsibility of the primary care doctor to treat and follow. Patients treated at home can avoid the risk of nosocomial infections, especially in the days of COVID-19. Evidence also suggests that being treated at home was shown to reduce the risk of PE versus being treated in the hospital. It is, therefore, crucial that family physicians know which patients are low versus high risk.

Further, the guidelines suggest that these patients with low risk of complications are better treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists, such as Coumadin.

Medication-related suggestions

The guidelines also suggest that no DOAC is preferred over another. Since DOACs are relatively newer agents, family doctors need to become comfortable with their use. For proximal DVTs, anticoagulation alone can be used without thrombolytics.

Family physicians are often tasked with the decision on when to stop anticoagulation. The authors recommend against using diagnostic tests such as D-Dimer or ultrasound to decide when to stop these medications in low-risk patients. In patients at risk of recurrent VTE due to chronic medical conditions, it is suggested to continue anti-coagulants indefinitely. While anticoagulant therapy effectively reduces risk of VTE, it does increase the risk of bleeding events.

The guidelines are quite extensive and specific in their recommendations and family physicians need to understand them. We are often the first ones in the medical system to diagnose VTE, and it is quite possible to keep these patients home, thereby eliminating risks they may encounter by being hospitalized. In addition, the recommendation regarding the use of DOACs may ease some of the burden of monitoring patients on long-term Coumadin. These medications do not come without risks, and we must be comfortable evaluating for any complications. In our current health care system, different insurance companies have different formularies making it necessary for us to know all these medications.

In the past, the diagnosis of PE and even a DVT would mean a hospital stay. We now know, and these guidelines reaffirm, that this is not necessary in uncomplicated cases.

In addition to diagnosing VTE, family physicians are also tasked with following up with patients who were hospitalized or started on treatment by other physicians. We need to know the plan on when to stop the medication or when to reevaluate its use. Patients often bring this question to us, and these guidelines will help us answer that question.

Many patients who have more complicated medical conditions often see multiple specialists. The ASH recommendations help standardize the care of these patients across specialties.

What the recommendations are missing

As family doctors, we often treat patients with multiple comorbidities. These guidelines do not make recommendations for patients with cancer, who are at high risk of VTE events. Some patients also have conditions that increase their risk of bleeding or have contraindications to the use of anticoagulants. It would be helpful to have more recommendations for both of these types of patients in addition to the use of inferior vena cava filter in patients with proximal DVT. The document is also missing recommendations for pregnant patients, which would be useful.

Overall, these guidelines include much of what we already do in our practices while doing a great job of incorporating the newer DOACs. These guidelines are easy for family physicians to put into practice.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

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

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

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

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

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

Researchers have detected a highly contagious coronavirus variant in the United Kingdom, leading Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shut down parts of the country and triggering other nations to impose travel and shipping restrictions on England.

Mr. Johnson held a crisis meeting with ministers Monday after Saturday’s shutdown announcement. The prime minister said in a nationally televised address that this coronavirus variant may be “up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant” and was probably responsible for an increase in cases in southeastern England.

“There is still much we don’t know. While we are fairly certain the variant is transmitted more quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more lethal or causes more severe illness. Equally there is no evidence to suggest the vaccine will be any less effective against the new variant,” he said.

Public Health England says it is working to learn as much about the variant as possible. “We know that mortality is a lagging indicator, and we will need to continually monitor this over the coming weeks,” the agency says.

That scientific uncertainty about the variant’s threat shook European nations that were rushing to ship goods to England in advance of a Dec. 31 Brexit deadline. Under Brexit, which is short for “British exit,” the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on Jan. 31, 2020. Until then, the two sides will come up with new trade and security relationships.

European Union members Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands announced travel restrictions hours after Johnson’s speech.

Those restrictions created food uncertainty across the U.K., which imports about a quarter of its food from the EU, according to The New York Times. Long lines of trucks heading to ports in the U.K. came to a standstill on major roads such as the M20 near Kent and the Port of Dover.

Outside Europe, Canada, India, Iran, Israel, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey banned all incoming flights from the U.K. And more bans could come.
 

The U.S. reaction

The United States has not imposed any new limits on travel with the United Kingdom, although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has requested all passengers bound for John F. Kennedy International Airport from the U.K. be tested before boarding and a new travel ban be placed for Europe. He says the federal government must take action now to avoid a crisis situation like the one New York experienced in March and April.

“The United States has a number of flights coming in from the U.K. each day, and we have done absolutely nothing,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement on the governor’s webpage. “To me, this is reprehensible because this is what happened in the spring. How many times in life do you have to make the same mistake before you learn?”

Leading U.S. health officials have downplayed the dangers of the virus.

“We don’t know that it’s more dangerous, and very importantly, we have not seen a single mutation yet that would make it evade the vaccine,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, said Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “I can’t say that won’t happen in the future, but right now it looks like the vaccine will cover everything that we see.”

Dr. Giroir said the HHS and other U.S. government agencies will monitor the variant.

“Viruses mutate,” he said. “We’ve seen almost 4,000 different mutations among this virus. There is no indication that the mutation right now that they’re talking about is overcoming England.”
 

Where did the variant come from?

Public Health England says the coronavirus variant had existed in the U.K. since September and circulated at very low levels until mid-November.

“The increase in cases linked to the new variant first came to light in late November when PHE was investigating why infection rates in Kent were not falling despite national restrictions. We then discovered a cluster linked to this variant spreading rapidly into London and Essex,” the agency said.

Public Health England says there’s no evidence the new variant is resistant to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is now being given across the country to high-priority groups such as health care workers.

An article in The BMJ, a British medical journal, says the variant was first detected by Covid-19 Genomics UK, a consortium that tests the random genetic sequencing of positive COVID-19 samples around the U.K. The variant cases were mostly in the southeast of England.

A University of Birmingham professor said in a Dec. 15 briefing that the variant accounts for 20% of viruses sequenced in Norfolk, 10% in Essex, and 3% in Suffolk. “There are no data to suggest it had been imported from abroad, so it is likely to have evolved in the U.K.,” he said.

The variant is named VUI-202012/01, for the first “variant under investigation” in December 2020, BMJ says. It’s defined by a set of 17 mutations, with the most significant mutation in the spike protein the virus uses to bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

“Changes in this part of spike protein may, in theory, result in the virus becoming more infectious and spreading more easily between people,” the article says.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says the variant emerged during the time of year when people usually socialize more.

“There is no indication at this point of increased infection severity associated with the new variant,” the agency said. “A few cases with the new variant have to date been reported by Denmark and the Netherlands and, according to media reports, in Belgium.”

Mr. Johnson announced tighter restrictions on England’s hardest-hit areas, such as the southeast and east of England, where new coronavirus cases have continued to rise. And he said people must cut back on their Christmas socializing.

“In England, those living in tier 4 areas should not mix with anyone outside their own household at Christmas, though support bubbles will remain in place for those at particular risk of loneliness or isolation,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Researchers have detected a highly contagious coronavirus variant in the United Kingdom, leading Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shut down parts of the country and triggering other nations to impose travel and shipping restrictions on England.

Mr. Johnson held a crisis meeting with ministers Monday after Saturday’s shutdown announcement. The prime minister said in a nationally televised address that this coronavirus variant may be “up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant” and was probably responsible for an increase in cases in southeastern England.

“There is still much we don’t know. While we are fairly certain the variant is transmitted more quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more lethal or causes more severe illness. Equally there is no evidence to suggest the vaccine will be any less effective against the new variant,” he said.

Public Health England says it is working to learn as much about the variant as possible. “We know that mortality is a lagging indicator, and we will need to continually monitor this over the coming weeks,” the agency says.

That scientific uncertainty about the variant’s threat shook European nations that were rushing to ship goods to England in advance of a Dec. 31 Brexit deadline. Under Brexit, which is short for “British exit,” the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on Jan. 31, 2020. Until then, the two sides will come up with new trade and security relationships.

European Union members Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands announced travel restrictions hours after Johnson’s speech.

Those restrictions created food uncertainty across the U.K., which imports about a quarter of its food from the EU, according to The New York Times. Long lines of trucks heading to ports in the U.K. came to a standstill on major roads such as the M20 near Kent and the Port of Dover.

Outside Europe, Canada, India, Iran, Israel, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey banned all incoming flights from the U.K. And more bans could come.
 

The U.S. reaction

The United States has not imposed any new limits on travel with the United Kingdom, although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has requested all passengers bound for John F. Kennedy International Airport from the U.K. be tested before boarding and a new travel ban be placed for Europe. He says the federal government must take action now to avoid a crisis situation like the one New York experienced in March and April.

“The United States has a number of flights coming in from the U.K. each day, and we have done absolutely nothing,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement on the governor’s webpage. “To me, this is reprehensible because this is what happened in the spring. How many times in life do you have to make the same mistake before you learn?”

Leading U.S. health officials have downplayed the dangers of the virus.

“We don’t know that it’s more dangerous, and very importantly, we have not seen a single mutation yet that would make it evade the vaccine,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, said Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “I can’t say that won’t happen in the future, but right now it looks like the vaccine will cover everything that we see.”

Dr. Giroir said the HHS and other U.S. government agencies will monitor the variant.

“Viruses mutate,” he said. “We’ve seen almost 4,000 different mutations among this virus. There is no indication that the mutation right now that they’re talking about is overcoming England.”
 

Where did the variant come from?

Public Health England says the coronavirus variant had existed in the U.K. since September and circulated at very low levels until mid-November.

“The increase in cases linked to the new variant first came to light in late November when PHE was investigating why infection rates in Kent were not falling despite national restrictions. We then discovered a cluster linked to this variant spreading rapidly into London and Essex,” the agency said.

Public Health England says there’s no evidence the new variant is resistant to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is now being given across the country to high-priority groups such as health care workers.

An article in The BMJ, a British medical journal, says the variant was first detected by Covid-19 Genomics UK, a consortium that tests the random genetic sequencing of positive COVID-19 samples around the U.K. The variant cases were mostly in the southeast of England.

A University of Birmingham professor said in a Dec. 15 briefing that the variant accounts for 20% of viruses sequenced in Norfolk, 10% in Essex, and 3% in Suffolk. “There are no data to suggest it had been imported from abroad, so it is likely to have evolved in the U.K.,” he said.

The variant is named VUI-202012/01, for the first “variant under investigation” in December 2020, BMJ says. It’s defined by a set of 17 mutations, with the most significant mutation in the spike protein the virus uses to bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

“Changes in this part of spike protein may, in theory, result in the virus becoming more infectious and spreading more easily between people,” the article says.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says the variant emerged during the time of year when people usually socialize more.

“There is no indication at this point of increased infection severity associated with the new variant,” the agency said. “A few cases with the new variant have to date been reported by Denmark and the Netherlands and, according to media reports, in Belgium.”

Mr. Johnson announced tighter restrictions on England’s hardest-hit areas, such as the southeast and east of England, where new coronavirus cases have continued to rise. And he said people must cut back on their Christmas socializing.

“In England, those living in tier 4 areas should not mix with anyone outside their own household at Christmas, though support bubbles will remain in place for those at particular risk of loneliness or isolation,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Researchers have detected a highly contagious coronavirus variant in the United Kingdom, leading Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shut down parts of the country and triggering other nations to impose travel and shipping restrictions on England.

Mr. Johnson held a crisis meeting with ministers Monday after Saturday’s shutdown announcement. The prime minister said in a nationally televised address that this coronavirus variant may be “up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant” and was probably responsible for an increase in cases in southeastern England.

“There is still much we don’t know. While we are fairly certain the variant is transmitted more quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more lethal or causes more severe illness. Equally there is no evidence to suggest the vaccine will be any less effective against the new variant,” he said.

Public Health England says it is working to learn as much about the variant as possible. “We know that mortality is a lagging indicator, and we will need to continually monitor this over the coming weeks,” the agency says.

That scientific uncertainty about the variant’s threat shook European nations that were rushing to ship goods to England in advance of a Dec. 31 Brexit deadline. Under Brexit, which is short for “British exit,” the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on Jan. 31, 2020. Until then, the two sides will come up with new trade and security relationships.

European Union members Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands announced travel restrictions hours after Johnson’s speech.

Those restrictions created food uncertainty across the U.K., which imports about a quarter of its food from the EU, according to The New York Times. Long lines of trucks heading to ports in the U.K. came to a standstill on major roads such as the M20 near Kent and the Port of Dover.

Outside Europe, Canada, India, Iran, Israel, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey banned all incoming flights from the U.K. And more bans could come.
 

The U.S. reaction

The United States has not imposed any new limits on travel with the United Kingdom, although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has requested all passengers bound for John F. Kennedy International Airport from the U.K. be tested before boarding and a new travel ban be placed for Europe. He says the federal government must take action now to avoid a crisis situation like the one New York experienced in March and April.

“The United States has a number of flights coming in from the U.K. each day, and we have done absolutely nothing,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement on the governor’s webpage. “To me, this is reprehensible because this is what happened in the spring. How many times in life do you have to make the same mistake before you learn?”

Leading U.S. health officials have downplayed the dangers of the virus.

“We don’t know that it’s more dangerous, and very importantly, we have not seen a single mutation yet that would make it evade the vaccine,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, said Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “I can’t say that won’t happen in the future, but right now it looks like the vaccine will cover everything that we see.”

Dr. Giroir said the HHS and other U.S. government agencies will monitor the variant.

“Viruses mutate,” he said. “We’ve seen almost 4,000 different mutations among this virus. There is no indication that the mutation right now that they’re talking about is overcoming England.”
 

Where did the variant come from?

Public Health England says the coronavirus variant had existed in the U.K. since September and circulated at very low levels until mid-November.

“The increase in cases linked to the new variant first came to light in late November when PHE was investigating why infection rates in Kent were not falling despite national restrictions. We then discovered a cluster linked to this variant spreading rapidly into London and Essex,” the agency said.

Public Health England says there’s no evidence the new variant is resistant to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is now being given across the country to high-priority groups such as health care workers.

An article in The BMJ, a British medical journal, says the variant was first detected by Covid-19 Genomics UK, a consortium that tests the random genetic sequencing of positive COVID-19 samples around the U.K. The variant cases were mostly in the southeast of England.

A University of Birmingham professor said in a Dec. 15 briefing that the variant accounts for 20% of viruses sequenced in Norfolk, 10% in Essex, and 3% in Suffolk. “There are no data to suggest it had been imported from abroad, so it is likely to have evolved in the U.K.,” he said.

The variant is named VUI-202012/01, for the first “variant under investigation” in December 2020, BMJ says. It’s defined by a set of 17 mutations, with the most significant mutation in the spike protein the virus uses to bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

“Changes in this part of spike protein may, in theory, result in the virus becoming more infectious and spreading more easily between people,” the article says.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says the variant emerged during the time of year when people usually socialize more.

“There is no indication at this point of increased infection severity associated with the new variant,” the agency said. “A few cases with the new variant have to date been reported by Denmark and the Netherlands and, according to media reports, in Belgium.”

Mr. Johnson announced tighter restrictions on England’s hardest-hit areas, such as the southeast and east of England, where new coronavirus cases have continued to rise. And he said people must cut back on their Christmas socializing.

“In England, those living in tier 4 areas should not mix with anyone outside their own household at Christmas, though support bubbles will remain in place for those at particular risk of loneliness or isolation,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

About twice as many patients were admitted to hospitals in France for COVID-19 during a 2-month period than were admitted for seasonal influenza during a 3-month period the previous year, according to a study published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

In-hospital mortality was nearly three times higher for COVID-19 than for seasonal influenza, researchers found. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (9.7% vs. 4%) and had longer average ICU stays (15 days vs. 8 days).

“SARS-CoV-2 appears to have a higher potential for respiratory pathogenicity, leading to more respiratory complications in patients with fewer comorbidities, and it is associated with a higher risk of mortality, particularly in adolescents, although any conclusions for this age group must be treated with caution considering the small number of deaths,” wrote Lionel Piroth, MD, PhD, of the infectious diseases department, Dijon (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

The study “is the largest to date to compare the two diseases and confirms that COVID-19 is far more serious than the flu,” study author Catherine Quantin, MD, PhD, said in a news release. “The finding that the COVID-19 death rate was three times higher than for seasonal influenza is particularly striking when reminded that the 2018/2019 flu season had been the worst in the past five years in France in terms of number of deaths,” continued Dr. Quantin, who jointly led the research. She is affiliated with the University Hospital of Dijon and Inserm.

The investigators analyzed data from a national database and compared 89,530 COVID-19 hospital admissions between March 1 and April 30, 2020, with 45,819 seasonal flu hospital admissions between Dec. 1, 2018, and Feb. 28, 2019.

The death rate was 16.9% among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with 5.8% among patients hospitalized with influenza.

Fewer patients younger 18 years were hospitalized with COVID-19 than with seasonal influenza (1.4% vs. 19.5%; 1,227 vs. 8,942), but a larger proportion of those younger than 5 years required intensive care for COVID-19 (2.9% vs. 0.9%). The fatality rates in children younger than 5 years were similar for both groups (0.5% vs. 0.2%).

Among patients aged 11-17 years, 5 of 548 (1.1%) patients with COVID-19 died, compared with 1 of 804 (0.1%) patients with flu.

Testing practices for influenza likely varied across hospitals, whereas testing for COVID-19 may have been more standardized. This could be a limitation of the study, the researchers noted. In addition, flu seasons vary year to year, and influenza cases may depend on vaccination coverage and residual population immunity.

“The large sample size is an important strength of the study and it is assumed that the indication for hospital admission in the two periods was the same and thus does not bias the results,” Eskild Petersen, MD, DMsc, wrote in a comment accompanying the study. “The results ... clearly show that COVID-19 is more serious than seasonal influenza.”

Furthermore, this study and prior research show that “COVID-19 is not an innocent infection in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Petersen, who is affiliated with the University of Aarhus in Denmark and the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Emerging Infections Task Force.

The study was funded by the French National Research Agency. Two authors have various financial ties to several pharmaceutical companies, details of which are available in the journal article. Dr. Petersen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About twice as many patients were admitted to hospitals in France for COVID-19 during a 2-month period than were admitted for seasonal influenza during a 3-month period the previous year, according to a study published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

In-hospital mortality was nearly three times higher for COVID-19 than for seasonal influenza, researchers found. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (9.7% vs. 4%) and had longer average ICU stays (15 days vs. 8 days).

“SARS-CoV-2 appears to have a higher potential for respiratory pathogenicity, leading to more respiratory complications in patients with fewer comorbidities, and it is associated with a higher risk of mortality, particularly in adolescents, although any conclusions for this age group must be treated with caution considering the small number of deaths,” wrote Lionel Piroth, MD, PhD, of the infectious diseases department, Dijon (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

The study “is the largest to date to compare the two diseases and confirms that COVID-19 is far more serious than the flu,” study author Catherine Quantin, MD, PhD, said in a news release. “The finding that the COVID-19 death rate was three times higher than for seasonal influenza is particularly striking when reminded that the 2018/2019 flu season had been the worst in the past five years in France in terms of number of deaths,” continued Dr. Quantin, who jointly led the research. She is affiliated with the University Hospital of Dijon and Inserm.

The investigators analyzed data from a national database and compared 89,530 COVID-19 hospital admissions between March 1 and April 30, 2020, with 45,819 seasonal flu hospital admissions between Dec. 1, 2018, and Feb. 28, 2019.

The death rate was 16.9% among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with 5.8% among patients hospitalized with influenza.

Fewer patients younger 18 years were hospitalized with COVID-19 than with seasonal influenza (1.4% vs. 19.5%; 1,227 vs. 8,942), but a larger proportion of those younger than 5 years required intensive care for COVID-19 (2.9% vs. 0.9%). The fatality rates in children younger than 5 years were similar for both groups (0.5% vs. 0.2%).

Among patients aged 11-17 years, 5 of 548 (1.1%) patients with COVID-19 died, compared with 1 of 804 (0.1%) patients with flu.

Testing practices for influenza likely varied across hospitals, whereas testing for COVID-19 may have been more standardized. This could be a limitation of the study, the researchers noted. In addition, flu seasons vary year to year, and influenza cases may depend on vaccination coverage and residual population immunity.

“The large sample size is an important strength of the study and it is assumed that the indication for hospital admission in the two periods was the same and thus does not bias the results,” Eskild Petersen, MD, DMsc, wrote in a comment accompanying the study. “The results ... clearly show that COVID-19 is more serious than seasonal influenza.”

Furthermore, this study and prior research show that “COVID-19 is not an innocent infection in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Petersen, who is affiliated with the University of Aarhus in Denmark and the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Emerging Infections Task Force.

The study was funded by the French National Research Agency. Two authors have various financial ties to several pharmaceutical companies, details of which are available in the journal article. Dr. Petersen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About twice as many patients were admitted to hospitals in France for COVID-19 during a 2-month period than were admitted for seasonal influenza during a 3-month period the previous year, according to a study published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

In-hospital mortality was nearly three times higher for COVID-19 than for seasonal influenza, researchers found. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (9.7% vs. 4%) and had longer average ICU stays (15 days vs. 8 days).

“SARS-CoV-2 appears to have a higher potential for respiratory pathogenicity, leading to more respiratory complications in patients with fewer comorbidities, and it is associated with a higher risk of mortality, particularly in adolescents, although any conclusions for this age group must be treated with caution considering the small number of deaths,” wrote Lionel Piroth, MD, PhD, of the infectious diseases department, Dijon (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

The study “is the largest to date to compare the two diseases and confirms that COVID-19 is far more serious than the flu,” study author Catherine Quantin, MD, PhD, said in a news release. “The finding that the COVID-19 death rate was three times higher than for seasonal influenza is particularly striking when reminded that the 2018/2019 flu season had been the worst in the past five years in France in terms of number of deaths,” continued Dr. Quantin, who jointly led the research. She is affiliated with the University Hospital of Dijon and Inserm.

The investigators analyzed data from a national database and compared 89,530 COVID-19 hospital admissions between March 1 and April 30, 2020, with 45,819 seasonal flu hospital admissions between Dec. 1, 2018, and Feb. 28, 2019.

The death rate was 16.9% among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with 5.8% among patients hospitalized with influenza.

Fewer patients younger 18 years were hospitalized with COVID-19 than with seasonal influenza (1.4% vs. 19.5%; 1,227 vs. 8,942), but a larger proportion of those younger than 5 years required intensive care for COVID-19 (2.9% vs. 0.9%). The fatality rates in children younger than 5 years were similar for both groups (0.5% vs. 0.2%).

Among patients aged 11-17 years, 5 of 548 (1.1%) patients with COVID-19 died, compared with 1 of 804 (0.1%) patients with flu.

Testing practices for influenza likely varied across hospitals, whereas testing for COVID-19 may have been more standardized. This could be a limitation of the study, the researchers noted. In addition, flu seasons vary year to year, and influenza cases may depend on vaccination coverage and residual population immunity.

“The large sample size is an important strength of the study and it is assumed that the indication for hospital admission in the two periods was the same and thus does not bias the results,” Eskild Petersen, MD, DMsc, wrote in a comment accompanying the study. “The results ... clearly show that COVID-19 is more serious than seasonal influenza.”

Furthermore, this study and prior research show that “COVID-19 is not an innocent infection in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Petersen, who is affiliated with the University of Aarhus in Denmark and the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Emerging Infections Task Force.

The study was funded by the French National Research Agency. Two authors have various financial ties to several pharmaceutical companies, details of which are available in the journal article. Dr. Petersen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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