Emergency Medicine

Opioid overdoses have shot up by almost 10-fold at a Virginia ED since March, a new report finds. The report provides more evidence that the coronavirus pandemic is sparking a severe medical crisis among illicit drug users.

“Health care providers should closely monitor the number of overdoses coming into their hospitals and in the surrounding community during this time,” study lead author and postdoctoral research fellow Taylor Ochalek, PhD, said in an interview. “If they do notice an increasing trend of overdoses, they should spread awareness in the community to the general public, and offer resources and information for those that may be seeking help and/or may be at a high risk of overdosing.”

Dr. Ochalek presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

According to the report, opioid overdoses at the VCU Medical Center in Richmond, Va., grew from an average of six a month from February to December 2019 to 50, 57, and 63 in March, April, and May 2020. Of the 171 cases in the later time frame, the average age was 44 years, 72% were male, and 82% were African American.

“The steep increase in overdoses began primarily in March,” said Dr. Ochalek, of Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. “This timing coincides with the Virginia governor’s state of emergency declaration, stay-at-home order, and closure of nonessential businesses order.”

The researchers did not provide details about the types of opioids used, the patient outcomes, or whether the patients tested positive for COVID-19. It’s unclear whether the pandemic directly spawned a higher number of overdoses, but there are growing signs of a stark nationwide trend.

“Nationwide, federal and local officials are reporting alarming spikes in drug overdoses – a hidden epidemic within the coronavirus pandemic,” the Washington Post reported on July 1, pointing to increases in Kentucky, Virginia, and the Chicago area.

Meanwhile, the federal Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program, which tracks overdoses nationwide, issued 191% more “spike alerts” in January to April 2020 than in the same time period in 2019. However, the spike alerts began to increase in January, weeks before the pandemic began to take hold.

The findings are consistent with trends in Houston, where overdose calls were up 31% in the first 3 months of 2020, compared with 2019, said psychologist James Bray, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, in an interview. More recent data suggest that the numbers are rising even higher, said Dr. Bray, who works with Houston first responders and has analyzed data.

Possible causes include “stress due to economic problems, increased anxiety over COVID infection, and more relational stress due to social distancing and quarantining,” Dr. Bray said.

Another potential factor is the disruption in the illicit drug supply chain because of limits on crossings at the southern border, said ED physician Scott Weiner, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “As a result, opioids of extremely variable potency have infiltrated markets, and people using drugs may not be used to the new doses, especially if they are high-potency fentanyl analogues.”

Moving forward, Dr. Bray said, “people need continued access to treatment. Telehealth and other virtual services need to be provided so that people can continue to have access to treatment even during the pandemic.”

Dr. Weiner also emphasized the importance of treatment for patients who overdose on opioids. “In my previous work, we discovered that about 1 in 20 patients who are treated in an emergency department and survive would die within 1 year. That number will likely increase drastically during COVID,” he said. “When a patient presents after overdose, we must intervene aggressively with buprenorphine and other harm-reduction techniques to save these lives.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ochalek, Dr. Weiner, and Dr. Bray reported no relevant disclosures.

Opioid overdoses have shot up by almost 10-fold at a Virginia ED since March, a new report finds. The report provides more evidence that the coronavirus pandemic is sparking a severe medical crisis among illicit drug users.

“Health care providers should closely monitor the number of overdoses coming into their hospitals and in the surrounding community during this time,” study lead author and postdoctoral research fellow Taylor Ochalek, PhD, said in an interview. “If they do notice an increasing trend of overdoses, they should spread awareness in the community to the general public, and offer resources and information for those that may be seeking help and/or may be at a high risk of overdosing.”

Dr. Ochalek presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

According to the report, opioid overdoses at the VCU Medical Center in Richmond, Va., grew from an average of six a month from February to December 2019 to 50, 57, and 63 in March, April, and May 2020. Of the 171 cases in the later time frame, the average age was 44 years, 72% were male, and 82% were African American.

“The steep increase in overdoses began primarily in March,” said Dr. Ochalek, of Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. “This timing coincides with the Virginia governor’s state of emergency declaration, stay-at-home order, and closure of nonessential businesses order.”

The researchers did not provide details about the types of opioids used, the patient outcomes, or whether the patients tested positive for COVID-19. It’s unclear whether the pandemic directly spawned a higher number of overdoses, but there are growing signs of a stark nationwide trend.

“Nationwide, federal and local officials are reporting alarming spikes in drug overdoses – a hidden epidemic within the coronavirus pandemic,” the Washington Post reported on July 1, pointing to increases in Kentucky, Virginia, and the Chicago area.

Meanwhile, the federal Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program, which tracks overdoses nationwide, issued 191% more “spike alerts” in January to April 2020 than in the same time period in 2019. However, the spike alerts began to increase in January, weeks before the pandemic began to take hold.

The findings are consistent with trends in Houston, where overdose calls were up 31% in the first 3 months of 2020, compared with 2019, said psychologist James Bray, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, in an interview. More recent data suggest that the numbers are rising even higher, said Dr. Bray, who works with Houston first responders and has analyzed data.

Possible causes include “stress due to economic problems, increased anxiety over COVID infection, and more relational stress due to social distancing and quarantining,” Dr. Bray said.

Another potential factor is the disruption in the illicit drug supply chain because of limits on crossings at the southern border, said ED physician Scott Weiner, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “As a result, opioids of extremely variable potency have infiltrated markets, and people using drugs may not be used to the new doses, especially if they are high-potency fentanyl analogues.”

Moving forward, Dr. Bray said, “people need continued access to treatment. Telehealth and other virtual services need to be provided so that people can continue to have access to treatment even during the pandemic.”

Dr. Weiner also emphasized the importance of treatment for patients who overdose on opioids. “In my previous work, we discovered that about 1 in 20 patients who are treated in an emergency department and survive would die within 1 year. That number will likely increase drastically during COVID,” he said. “When a patient presents after overdose, we must intervene aggressively with buprenorphine and other harm-reduction techniques to save these lives.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ochalek, Dr. Weiner, and Dr. Bray reported no relevant disclosures.

Opioid overdoses have shot up by almost 10-fold at a Virginia ED since March, a new report finds. The report provides more evidence that the coronavirus pandemic is sparking a severe medical crisis among illicit drug users.

“Health care providers should closely monitor the number of overdoses coming into their hospitals and in the surrounding community during this time,” study lead author and postdoctoral research fellow Taylor Ochalek, PhD, said in an interview. “If they do notice an increasing trend of overdoses, they should spread awareness in the community to the general public, and offer resources and information for those that may be seeking help and/or may be at a high risk of overdosing.”

Dr. Ochalek presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

According to the report, opioid overdoses at the VCU Medical Center in Richmond, Va., grew from an average of six a month from February to December 2019 to 50, 57, and 63 in March, April, and May 2020. Of the 171 cases in the later time frame, the average age was 44 years, 72% were male, and 82% were African American.

“The steep increase in overdoses began primarily in March,” said Dr. Ochalek, of Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. “This timing coincides with the Virginia governor’s state of emergency declaration, stay-at-home order, and closure of nonessential businesses order.”

The researchers did not provide details about the types of opioids used, the patient outcomes, or whether the patients tested positive for COVID-19. It’s unclear whether the pandemic directly spawned a higher number of overdoses, but there are growing signs of a stark nationwide trend.

“Nationwide, federal and local officials are reporting alarming spikes in drug overdoses – a hidden epidemic within the coronavirus pandemic,” the Washington Post reported on July 1, pointing to increases in Kentucky, Virginia, and the Chicago area.

Meanwhile, the federal Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program, which tracks overdoses nationwide, issued 191% more “spike alerts” in January to April 2020 than in the same time period in 2019. However, the spike alerts began to increase in January, weeks before the pandemic began to take hold.

The findings are consistent with trends in Houston, where overdose calls were up 31% in the first 3 months of 2020, compared with 2019, said psychologist James Bray, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, in an interview. More recent data suggest that the numbers are rising even higher, said Dr. Bray, who works with Houston first responders and has analyzed data.

Possible causes include “stress due to economic problems, increased anxiety over COVID infection, and more relational stress due to social distancing and quarantining,” Dr. Bray said.

Another potential factor is the disruption in the illicit drug supply chain because of limits on crossings at the southern border, said ED physician Scott Weiner, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “As a result, opioids of extremely variable potency have infiltrated markets, and people using drugs may not be used to the new doses, especially if they are high-potency fentanyl analogues.”

Moving forward, Dr. Bray said, “people need continued access to treatment. Telehealth and other virtual services need to be provided so that people can continue to have access to treatment even during the pandemic.”

Dr. Weiner also emphasized the importance of treatment for patients who overdose on opioids. “In my previous work, we discovered that about 1 in 20 patients who are treated in an emergency department and survive would die within 1 year. That number will likely increase drastically during COVID,” he said. “When a patient presents after overdose, we must intervene aggressively with buprenorphine and other harm-reduction techniques to save these lives.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ochalek, Dr. Weiner, and Dr. Bray reported no relevant disclosures.

Nearly 40% of hundreds of opioid abusers at several emergency departments tested positive for stimulants, and they were more likely to be white than other users, a new study finds. Reflecting national trends, patients in the Midwest and West Coast regions were more likely to show signs of stimulant use.

Stimulant/opioid users were also “younger, with unstable housing, mostly unemployed, and reported high rates of recent incarcerations,” said substance use researcher and study lead author Marek Chawarski, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “They also reported higher rates of injection drug use during 1 month prior to the study admission and had higher rates of HCV infection. And higher proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS)–positive patients presented in the emergency departments (EDs) for an injury or with drug overdose.”

Dr. Chawarski, who presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, said in an interview that the study is the first to analyze stimulant use in ED patients with opioid use disorder.

The researchers analyzed data for the period 2017-2019 from EDs in Baltimore, New York, Cincinnati, and Seattle. Out of 396 patients, 150 (38%) were positive for amphetamine-type stimulants.

Patients in the Midwest and West Coast were more likely to test positive (38%). The rates of stimulant use were 6% in Baltimore, 7% in New York, 32% in Cincinnati, and 80% in Seattle.

In general, stimulant use is higher in the Midwest and West Coast, said epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., in an interview. “This is due to a number of supply-side, historical, and cultural reasons. New England, Appalachia, and large urban centers on the East Coast are the historical hot spots for opioid use, while states west of the Mississippi River have lower rates of opioid overdose, but a much higher prevalence of ATS use and stimulant-related morbidity and mortality.”

Those who showed signs of stimulant use were more likely to be white (69%) vs. the nonusers (46%), and were more likely to have unstable housing (67% vs. 49%).

Those who used stimulants also were more likely to be suffering from an overdose (23% vs. 13%) and to report injecting drugs in the last month (79% vs. 47%). More had unstable housing (67% vs. 49%, P < .05 for all comparisons).

Dr. Chawarski said there are many reasons why users might use more than one kind of drug. For example, they may take one drug to “alleviate problems created by the use of one substance with taking another substance and multiple other reasons,” he said. “Polysubstance use can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. It can pose greater treatment challenges, both for the patients and treatment providers, and often is more difficult to overcome.”

Links between opioid and stimulant use are not new. Last year, a study of 2,244 opioid-related overdose deaths in Massachusetts from 2014 to 2015 found that 36% of patients also showed signs of stimulant use. “Persons older than 24 years, nonrural residents, those with comorbid mental illness, non-Hispanic black residents, and persons with recent homelessness were more likely than their counterparts to die with opioids and stimulants than opioids alone,” the researchers reported (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200:59-63).

Dr. Marshall said the study findings are not surprising. However, he said, they do indicate “ongoing, intentional consumption of opioids. The trends and characteristics we are seeing here suggests a large population of persons who are intentionally using both stimulants and opioids, many of whom are also injecting.”

He added that the study sample is probably higher risk than the general population since they’re presenting to the emergency department, so the findings might not reflect the use of stimulants in the general opioid-misusing population.

Dr. Marshall added that “there have been several instances in modern U.S. history during which increases in stimulant use follow a rise in opioid use, so the pattern we are seeing isn’t entirely surprising.”

“What we don’t know,” he added, “is the extent to which overdoses involving both an opioid and a stimulant are due to fentanyl contamination of the methamphetamine supply or intentional concurrent use – e.g., ‘speedballing’ or ‘goof balling’ – or some other pattern of polysubstance use, such as using an opioid to come down off a methamphetamine high.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the study. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with two of the study coauthors.

Nearly 40% of hundreds of opioid abusers at several emergency departments tested positive for stimulants, and they were more likely to be white than other users, a new study finds. Reflecting national trends, patients in the Midwest and West Coast regions were more likely to show signs of stimulant use.

Stimulant/opioid users were also “younger, with unstable housing, mostly unemployed, and reported high rates of recent incarcerations,” said substance use researcher and study lead author Marek Chawarski, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “They also reported higher rates of injection drug use during 1 month prior to the study admission and had higher rates of HCV infection. And higher proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS)–positive patients presented in the emergency departments (EDs) for an injury or with drug overdose.”

Dr. Chawarski, who presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, said in an interview that the study is the first to analyze stimulant use in ED patients with opioid use disorder.

The researchers analyzed data for the period 2017-2019 from EDs in Baltimore, New York, Cincinnati, and Seattle. Out of 396 patients, 150 (38%) were positive for amphetamine-type stimulants.

Patients in the Midwest and West Coast were more likely to test positive (38%). The rates of stimulant use were 6% in Baltimore, 7% in New York, 32% in Cincinnati, and 80% in Seattle.

In general, stimulant use is higher in the Midwest and West Coast, said epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., in an interview. “This is due to a number of supply-side, historical, and cultural reasons. New England, Appalachia, and large urban centers on the East Coast are the historical hot spots for opioid use, while states west of the Mississippi River have lower rates of opioid overdose, but a much higher prevalence of ATS use and stimulant-related morbidity and mortality.”

Those who showed signs of stimulant use were more likely to be white (69%) vs. the nonusers (46%), and were more likely to have unstable housing (67% vs. 49%).

Those who used stimulants also were more likely to be suffering from an overdose (23% vs. 13%) and to report injecting drugs in the last month (79% vs. 47%). More had unstable housing (67% vs. 49%, P < .05 for all comparisons).

Dr. Chawarski said there are many reasons why users might use more than one kind of drug. For example, they may take one drug to “alleviate problems created by the use of one substance with taking another substance and multiple other reasons,” he said. “Polysubstance use can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. It can pose greater treatment challenges, both for the patients and treatment providers, and often is more difficult to overcome.”

Links between opioid and stimulant use are not new. Last year, a study of 2,244 opioid-related overdose deaths in Massachusetts from 2014 to 2015 found that 36% of patients also showed signs of stimulant use. “Persons older than 24 years, nonrural residents, those with comorbid mental illness, non-Hispanic black residents, and persons with recent homelessness were more likely than their counterparts to die with opioids and stimulants than opioids alone,” the researchers reported (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200:59-63).

Dr. Marshall said the study findings are not surprising. However, he said, they do indicate “ongoing, intentional consumption of opioids. The trends and characteristics we are seeing here suggests a large population of persons who are intentionally using both stimulants and opioids, many of whom are also injecting.”

He added that the study sample is probably higher risk than the general population since they’re presenting to the emergency department, so the findings might not reflect the use of stimulants in the general opioid-misusing population.

Dr. Marshall added that “there have been several instances in modern U.S. history during which increases in stimulant use follow a rise in opioid use, so the pattern we are seeing isn’t entirely surprising.”

“What we don’t know,” he added, “is the extent to which overdoses involving both an opioid and a stimulant are due to fentanyl contamination of the methamphetamine supply or intentional concurrent use – e.g., ‘speedballing’ or ‘goof balling’ – or some other pattern of polysubstance use, such as using an opioid to come down off a methamphetamine high.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the study. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with two of the study coauthors.

Nearly 40% of hundreds of opioid abusers at several emergency departments tested positive for stimulants, and they were more likely to be white than other users, a new study finds. Reflecting national trends, patients in the Midwest and West Coast regions were more likely to show signs of stimulant use.

Stimulant/opioid users were also “younger, with unstable housing, mostly unemployed, and reported high rates of recent incarcerations,” said substance use researcher and study lead author Marek Chawarski, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “They also reported higher rates of injection drug use during 1 month prior to the study admission and had higher rates of HCV infection. And higher proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS)–positive patients presented in the emergency departments (EDs) for an injury or with drug overdose.”

Dr. Chawarski, who presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, said in an interview that the study is the first to analyze stimulant use in ED patients with opioid use disorder.

The researchers analyzed data for the period 2017-2019 from EDs in Baltimore, New York, Cincinnati, and Seattle. Out of 396 patients, 150 (38%) were positive for amphetamine-type stimulants.

Patients in the Midwest and West Coast were more likely to test positive (38%). The rates of stimulant use were 6% in Baltimore, 7% in New York, 32% in Cincinnati, and 80% in Seattle.

In general, stimulant use is higher in the Midwest and West Coast, said epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., in an interview. “This is due to a number of supply-side, historical, and cultural reasons. New England, Appalachia, and large urban centers on the East Coast are the historical hot spots for opioid use, while states west of the Mississippi River have lower rates of opioid overdose, but a much higher prevalence of ATS use and stimulant-related morbidity and mortality.”

Those who showed signs of stimulant use were more likely to be white (69%) vs. the nonusers (46%), and were more likely to have unstable housing (67% vs. 49%).

Those who used stimulants also were more likely to be suffering from an overdose (23% vs. 13%) and to report injecting drugs in the last month (79% vs. 47%). More had unstable housing (67% vs. 49%, P < .05 for all comparisons).

Dr. Chawarski said there are many reasons why users might use more than one kind of drug. For example, they may take one drug to “alleviate problems created by the use of one substance with taking another substance and multiple other reasons,” he said. “Polysubstance use can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. It can pose greater treatment challenges, both for the patients and treatment providers, and often is more difficult to overcome.”

Links between opioid and stimulant use are not new. Last year, a study of 2,244 opioid-related overdose deaths in Massachusetts from 2014 to 2015 found that 36% of patients also showed signs of stimulant use. “Persons older than 24 years, nonrural residents, those with comorbid mental illness, non-Hispanic black residents, and persons with recent homelessness were more likely than their counterparts to die with opioids and stimulants than opioids alone,” the researchers reported (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200:59-63).

Dr. Marshall said the study findings are not surprising. However, he said, they do indicate “ongoing, intentional consumption of opioids. The trends and characteristics we are seeing here suggests a large population of persons who are intentionally using both stimulants and opioids, many of whom are also injecting.”

He added that the study sample is probably higher risk than the general population since they’re presenting to the emergency department, so the findings might not reflect the use of stimulants in the general opioid-misusing population.

Dr. Marshall added that “there have been several instances in modern U.S. history during which increases in stimulant use follow a rise in opioid use, so the pattern we are seeing isn’t entirely surprising.”

“What we don’t know,” he added, “is the extent to which overdoses involving both an opioid and a stimulant are due to fentanyl contamination of the methamphetamine supply or intentional concurrent use – e.g., ‘speedballing’ or ‘goof balling’ – or some other pattern of polysubstance use, such as using an opioid to come down off a methamphetamine high.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the study. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with two of the study coauthors.

Captopril appears to be associated with a higher rate of pulmonary adverse reactions in patients with diabetes than that of other ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and therefore may not be the best choice for patients with diabetes and COVID-19, a new study suggests.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association.

The authors, led by Emma G. Stafford, PharmD, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Pharmacy, note that diabetes seems to confer a higher risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 infection and there is conflicting data on the contribution of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, commonly used medications in diabetes, on the mortality and morbidity of COVID-19.

“In light of the recent COVID-19 outbreak, more research is needed to understand the effects that diabetes (and its medications) may have on the respiratory system and how that could affect the management of diseases such as COVID-19,” they say.

“Although ACE inhibitors and ARBs are generally considered to have similar adverse event profiles, evaluation of postmarketing adverse events may shed light on minute differences that could have important clinical impacts,” they add.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed data from multiple publicly available data sources on adverse drug reactions in patients with diabetes taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs. The data included all adverse drug events (ADEs) reported nationally to the US Food and Drug Administration and internationally to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA).

Results showed that captopril, the first ACE inhibitor approved back in 1981, has a higher incidence of pulmonary ADEs in patients with diabetes as compared with other ACE-inhibitor drugs (P = .005) as well as a statistically significant difference in pulmonary events compared with ARBs (P = .012).

“These analyses suggest that pharmacists and clinicians will need to consider the specific medication’s adverse event profile, particularly captopril, on how it may affect infections and other acute disease states that alter pulmonary function, such as COVID-19,” the authors conclude.

They say that the high incidence of pulmonary adverse drug effects with captopril “highlights the fact that the drugs belonging in one class are not identical and that its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics can affect the patients’ health especially during acute processes like COVID-19.”

“This is especially important as current observational studies of COVID-19 patients tend to group drugs within a class and are not analyzing the potential differences within each class,” they add.

They note that ACE inhibitors can be broadly classified into 3 structural classes: sulfhydryl-, dicarboxyl-, and phosphorous- containing molecules. Notably, captopril is the only currently available ACE inhibitor belonging to the sulfhydryl-containing class and may explain the higher incidence of adverse drug effects observed, they comment.

“Health care providers have been left with many questions when treating patients with COVID-19, including how ACE inhibitors or ARBs may affect their clinical course. Results from this study may be helpful when prescribing or continuing ACE inhibitors or ARBs for patients with diabetes and infections or illnesses that may affect pulmonary function, such as COVID-19,” they conclude.

Questioning safety in COVID-19 an “overreach”

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at State University of New York, said he thought the current article appears to overreach in questioning captopril’s safety in the COVID-19 setting.

“Captopril was the first ACE inhibitor available for clinical use. In early prescribing its dosage was not well understood and it might have been administered in excessive amounts,” Weber notes.

“There were some renal and other adverse effects reported that at first were attributed to the fact that captopril, unlike any other popular ACE inhibitors, contained a sulfhydryl (SH) group in its molecule,” he said. “It is not clear whether this feature could be responsible for the increased pulmonary side effects and potential danger to COVID-19 patients now reported with captopril in this new pharmacy article.”

But he adds: “The article contains no evidence that the effect of captopril or any other ACE inhibitor on the pulmonary ACE-2 enzyme has a deleterious effect on outcomes of COVID-19 disease. In any case, captopril — which should be prescribed in a twice-daily dose — is not frequently prescribed these days since newer ACE inhibitors are effective with just once-daily dosing.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Captopril appears to be associated with a higher rate of pulmonary adverse reactions in patients with diabetes than that of other ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and therefore may not be the best choice for patients with diabetes and COVID-19, a new study suggests.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association.

The authors, led by Emma G. Stafford, PharmD, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Pharmacy, note that diabetes seems to confer a higher risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 infection and there is conflicting data on the contribution of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, commonly used medications in diabetes, on the mortality and morbidity of COVID-19.

“In light of the recent COVID-19 outbreak, more research is needed to understand the effects that diabetes (and its medications) may have on the respiratory system and how that could affect the management of diseases such as COVID-19,” they say.

“Although ACE inhibitors and ARBs are generally considered to have similar adverse event profiles, evaluation of postmarketing adverse events may shed light on minute differences that could have important clinical impacts,” they add.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed data from multiple publicly available data sources on adverse drug reactions in patients with diabetes taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs. The data included all adverse drug events (ADEs) reported nationally to the US Food and Drug Administration and internationally to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA).

Results showed that captopril, the first ACE inhibitor approved back in 1981, has a higher incidence of pulmonary ADEs in patients with diabetes as compared with other ACE-inhibitor drugs (P = .005) as well as a statistically significant difference in pulmonary events compared with ARBs (P = .012).

“These analyses suggest that pharmacists and clinicians will need to consider the specific medication’s adverse event profile, particularly captopril, on how it may affect infections and other acute disease states that alter pulmonary function, such as COVID-19,” the authors conclude.

They say that the high incidence of pulmonary adverse drug effects with captopril “highlights the fact that the drugs belonging in one class are not identical and that its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics can affect the patients’ health especially during acute processes like COVID-19.”

“This is especially important as current observational studies of COVID-19 patients tend to group drugs within a class and are not analyzing the potential differences within each class,” they add.

They note that ACE inhibitors can be broadly classified into 3 structural classes: sulfhydryl-, dicarboxyl-, and phosphorous- containing molecules. Notably, captopril is the only currently available ACE inhibitor belonging to the sulfhydryl-containing class and may explain the higher incidence of adverse drug effects observed, they comment.

“Health care providers have been left with many questions when treating patients with COVID-19, including how ACE inhibitors or ARBs may affect their clinical course. Results from this study may be helpful when prescribing or continuing ACE inhibitors or ARBs for patients with diabetes and infections or illnesses that may affect pulmonary function, such as COVID-19,” they conclude.

Questioning safety in COVID-19 an “overreach”

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at State University of New York, said he thought the current article appears to overreach in questioning captopril’s safety in the COVID-19 setting.

“Captopril was the first ACE inhibitor available for clinical use. In early prescribing its dosage was not well understood and it might have been administered in excessive amounts,” Weber notes.

“There were some renal and other adverse effects reported that at first were attributed to the fact that captopril, unlike any other popular ACE inhibitors, contained a sulfhydryl (SH) group in its molecule,” he said. “It is not clear whether this feature could be responsible for the increased pulmonary side effects and potential danger to COVID-19 patients now reported with captopril in this new pharmacy article.”

But he adds: “The article contains no evidence that the effect of captopril or any other ACE inhibitor on the pulmonary ACE-2 enzyme has a deleterious effect on outcomes of COVID-19 disease. In any case, captopril — which should be prescribed in a twice-daily dose — is not frequently prescribed these days since newer ACE inhibitors are effective with just once-daily dosing.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Captopril appears to be associated with a higher rate of pulmonary adverse reactions in patients with diabetes than that of other ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and therefore may not be the best choice for patients with diabetes and COVID-19, a new study suggests.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association.

The authors, led by Emma G. Stafford, PharmD, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Pharmacy, note that diabetes seems to confer a higher risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 infection and there is conflicting data on the contribution of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, commonly used medications in diabetes, on the mortality and morbidity of COVID-19.

“In light of the recent COVID-19 outbreak, more research is needed to understand the effects that diabetes (and its medications) may have on the respiratory system and how that could affect the management of diseases such as COVID-19,” they say.

“Although ACE inhibitors and ARBs are generally considered to have similar adverse event profiles, evaluation of postmarketing adverse events may shed light on minute differences that could have important clinical impacts,” they add.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed data from multiple publicly available data sources on adverse drug reactions in patients with diabetes taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs. The data included all adverse drug events (ADEs) reported nationally to the US Food and Drug Administration and internationally to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA).

Results showed that captopril, the first ACE inhibitor approved back in 1981, has a higher incidence of pulmonary ADEs in patients with diabetes as compared with other ACE-inhibitor drugs (P = .005) as well as a statistically significant difference in pulmonary events compared with ARBs (P = .012).

“These analyses suggest that pharmacists and clinicians will need to consider the specific medication’s adverse event profile, particularly captopril, on how it may affect infections and other acute disease states that alter pulmonary function, such as COVID-19,” the authors conclude.

They say that the high incidence of pulmonary adverse drug effects with captopril “highlights the fact that the drugs belonging in one class are not identical and that its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics can affect the patients’ health especially during acute processes like COVID-19.”

“This is especially important as current observational studies of COVID-19 patients tend to group drugs within a class and are not analyzing the potential differences within each class,” they add.

They note that ACE inhibitors can be broadly classified into 3 structural classes: sulfhydryl-, dicarboxyl-, and phosphorous- containing molecules. Notably, captopril is the only currently available ACE inhibitor belonging to the sulfhydryl-containing class and may explain the higher incidence of adverse drug effects observed, they comment.

“Health care providers have been left with many questions when treating patients with COVID-19, including how ACE inhibitors or ARBs may affect their clinical course. Results from this study may be helpful when prescribing or continuing ACE inhibitors or ARBs for patients with diabetes and infections or illnesses that may affect pulmonary function, such as COVID-19,” they conclude.

Questioning safety in COVID-19 an “overreach”

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at State University of New York, said he thought the current article appears to overreach in questioning captopril’s safety in the COVID-19 setting.

“Captopril was the first ACE inhibitor available for clinical use. In early prescribing its dosage was not well understood and it might have been administered in excessive amounts,” Weber notes.

“There were some renal and other adverse effects reported that at first were attributed to the fact that captopril, unlike any other popular ACE inhibitors, contained a sulfhydryl (SH) group in its molecule,” he said. “It is not clear whether this feature could be responsible for the increased pulmonary side effects and potential danger to COVID-19 patients now reported with captopril in this new pharmacy article.”

But he adds: “The article contains no evidence that the effect of captopril or any other ACE inhibitor on the pulmonary ACE-2 enzyme has a deleterious effect on outcomes of COVID-19 disease. In any case, captopril — which should be prescribed in a twice-daily dose — is not frequently prescribed these days since newer ACE inhibitors are effective with just once-daily dosing.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tirofiban is far superior to cangrelor at achieving rapid and potent inhibition of platelet aggregation in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation MI.

Frontline Medical News

And cangrelor, in turn, is superior to oral prasugrel, according to the randomized FABOLUS FASTER trial, Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Moreover, contrary to conventional wisdom, chewed prasugrel (Effient) proved no better than swallowing the tablets whole for platelet inhibition, said Dr. Valgimigli, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).

He explained that standard administration of the newer oral P2Y12 inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor (Brilinta) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation MI (STEMI) does not provide optimal early inhibition of platelet aggregation. The parenteral antiplatelet drugs tirofiban and cangrelor have been shown to provide faster and more prolonged inhibition of platelet aggregation than the oral P2Y12 inhibitors.

But there has been no head-to-head comparative data for the glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitor tirofiban (Aggrastat) and the P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor (Kengreal) in the setting of primary PCI for STEMI. This was the impetus for FABOLUS FASTER, the first study to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of the two parenteral antiplatelet agents. The trial also looked at how these potent parenteral drugs, compared with chewed prasugrel, another previously unexamined yet highly practical issue.

The three-center, multinational, open-label FABOLUS FASTER trial randomized 122 patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI to one of three arms: a standard intravenous bolus and 2-hour infusion of either the P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor (Kengreal) or the glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitor tirofiban (Aggrastat), followed in either case by 60 mg of oral prasugrel, or a third arm in which patients didn’t receive either drug but were instead randomized to a 60-mg loading dose of chewed or whole prasugrel tablets.

The primary study endpoint was inhibition of platelet aggregation at 30 minutes as measured by light transmittance aggregometry in response to 20 mcmol/L of adenosine diphosphate (ADP).

Tirofiban was the unequivocal winner with 95% inhibition, as compared with 34.1% with cangrelor, 10.5% with chewed prasugrel, and 6.3% with prasugrel swallowed whole, even though the concentration of prasugrel’s active metabolite was far greater at 62.3 ng/mL after prasugrel was chewed, compared with 17.1 ng/mL when swallowed in integral tablet form.

The rate of nonresponsiveness to tirofiban as defined by greater than 59% platelet aggregation was zero for tirofiban during its 2-hour infusion, then a scant 8% thereafter during repeated testing at 3 and 4-6 hours. In contrast, the cangrelor nonresponsiveness rate was 50%-58% during the 2-hour infusion, rising to 82% at 3 hours.

FABOLUS FASTER, while not powered for clinical endpoints, might nevertheless have important clinical implications, according to Dr. Valgimigli. First, the superiority of the intravenous drugs tirofiban and cangrelor over prasugrel for early, strong platelet inhibition underscores the importance of giving parenteral antiplatelet drugs over oral therapy during the acute phase of STEMI therapy. Moreover, tirofiban’s outstanding performance – and the high residual platelet reactivity associated with cangrelor – makes a strong case for large comparative, randomized trials of the two drugs, with hard clinical endpoints.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Discussant Christoph K. Naber, MD, PhD, opined that he personally doesn’t consider the FABOLUS FASTER results practice changing, for a couple of reasons.

“Platelet inhibition measured by ADP in vitro is not necessarily related to true effects in vivo. We know that platelets are activated by multiple mechanisms, and the ADP pathway is just one of them,” said Dr. Naber, an interventional cardiologist at the Wilhemshaven (Germany) Clinic.

Also, there’s a good reason why no glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors are approved for treatment of STEMI, and why tirofiban, despite its impressive antiplatelet effects, is currently largely reserved for bailout situations, such as complex lesions with large thrombus burden. It’s because tirofiban’s potent antiplatelet activity is accompanied by a high risk of bleeding, he added.

However, Dr. Valgimigli noted that this conviction about excessive bleeding risk is mainly based on older studies in which glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors were administered for prolonged duration through femoral access sites. He argued that it’s time for large clinical trials examining the risk/benefit ratio of short infusion of these agents in the contemporary practice of primary PCI for STEMI.

Simultaneously with Dr. Valgimigli’s presentation, the FABOLUS FASTER results were published online (Circulation. 2020 Jun 27; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046928).

Dr. Valgimigli reported that Medicure, the sponsor of the FABOLUS FASTER trial, provided an institutional research grant to conduct the study. He also disclosed receiving research grants and personal fees outside the scope of this study from a dozen pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Dr. Naber reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

Tirofiban is far superior to cangrelor at achieving rapid and potent inhibition of platelet aggregation in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation MI.

Frontline Medical News

And cangrelor, in turn, is superior to oral prasugrel, according to the randomized FABOLUS FASTER trial, Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Moreover, contrary to conventional wisdom, chewed prasugrel (Effient) proved no better than swallowing the tablets whole for platelet inhibition, said Dr. Valgimigli, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).

He explained that standard administration of the newer oral P2Y12 inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor (Brilinta) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation MI (STEMI) does not provide optimal early inhibition of platelet aggregation. The parenteral antiplatelet drugs tirofiban and cangrelor have been shown to provide faster and more prolonged inhibition of platelet aggregation than the oral P2Y12 inhibitors.

But there has been no head-to-head comparative data for the glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitor tirofiban (Aggrastat) and the P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor (Kengreal) in the setting of primary PCI for STEMI. This was the impetus for FABOLUS FASTER, the first study to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of the two parenteral antiplatelet agents. The trial also looked at how these potent parenteral drugs, compared with chewed prasugrel, another previously unexamined yet highly practical issue.

The three-center, multinational, open-label FABOLUS FASTER trial randomized 122 patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI to one of three arms: a standard intravenous bolus and 2-hour infusion of either the P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor (Kengreal) or the glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitor tirofiban (Aggrastat), followed in either case by 60 mg of oral prasugrel, or a third arm in which patients didn’t receive either drug but were instead randomized to a 60-mg loading dose of chewed or whole prasugrel tablets.

The primary study endpoint was inhibition of platelet aggregation at 30 minutes as measured by light transmittance aggregometry in response to 20 mcmol/L of adenosine diphosphate (ADP).

Tirofiban was the unequivocal winner with 95% inhibition, as compared with 34.1% with cangrelor, 10.5% with chewed prasugrel, and 6.3% with prasugrel swallowed whole, even though the concentration of prasugrel’s active metabolite was far greater at 62.3 ng/mL after prasugrel was chewed, compared with 17.1 ng/mL when swallowed in integral tablet form.

The rate of nonresponsiveness to tirofiban as defined by greater than 59% platelet aggregation was zero for tirofiban during its 2-hour infusion, then a scant 8% thereafter during repeated testing at 3 and 4-6 hours. In contrast, the cangrelor nonresponsiveness rate was 50%-58% during the 2-hour infusion, rising to 82% at 3 hours.

FABOLUS FASTER, while not powered for clinical endpoints, might nevertheless have important clinical implications, according to Dr. Valgimigli. First, the superiority of the intravenous drugs tirofiban and cangrelor over prasugrel for early, strong platelet inhibition underscores the importance of giving parenteral antiplatelet drugs over oral therapy during the acute phase of STEMI therapy. Moreover, tirofiban’s outstanding performance – and the high residual platelet reactivity associated with cangrelor – makes a strong case for large comparative, randomized trials of the two drugs, with hard clinical endpoints.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Discussant Christoph K. Naber, MD, PhD, opined that he personally doesn’t consider the FABOLUS FASTER results practice changing, for a couple of reasons.

“Platelet inhibition measured by ADP in vitro is not necessarily related to true effects in vivo. We know that platelets are activated by multiple mechanisms, and the ADP pathway is just one of them,” said Dr. Naber, an interventional cardiologist at the Wilhemshaven (Germany) Clinic.

Also, there’s a good reason why no glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors are approved for treatment of STEMI, and why tirofiban, despite its impressive antiplatelet effects, is currently largely reserved for bailout situations, such as complex lesions with large thrombus burden. It’s because tirofiban’s potent antiplatelet activity is accompanied by a high risk of bleeding, he added.

However, Dr. Valgimigli noted that this conviction about excessive bleeding risk is mainly based on older studies in which glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors were administered for prolonged duration through femoral access sites. He argued that it’s time for large clinical trials examining the risk/benefit ratio of short infusion of these agents in the contemporary practice of primary PCI for STEMI.

Simultaneously with Dr. Valgimigli’s presentation, the FABOLUS FASTER results were published online (Circulation. 2020 Jun 27; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046928).

Dr. Valgimigli reported that Medicure, the sponsor of the FABOLUS FASTER trial, provided an institutional research grant to conduct the study. He also disclosed receiving research grants and personal fees outside the scope of this study from a dozen pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Dr. Naber reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

Tirofiban is far superior to cangrelor at achieving rapid and potent inhibition of platelet aggregation in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation MI.

Frontline Medical News

And cangrelor, in turn, is superior to oral prasugrel, according to the randomized FABOLUS FASTER trial, Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Moreover, contrary to conventional wisdom, chewed prasugrel (Effient) proved no better than swallowing the tablets whole for platelet inhibition, said Dr. Valgimigli, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).

He explained that standard administration of the newer oral P2Y12 inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor (Brilinta) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation MI (STEMI) does not provide optimal early inhibition of platelet aggregation. The parenteral antiplatelet drugs tirofiban and cangrelor have been shown to provide faster and more prolonged inhibition of platelet aggregation than the oral P2Y12 inhibitors.

But there has been no head-to-head comparative data for the glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitor tirofiban (Aggrastat) and the P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor (Kengreal) in the setting of primary PCI for STEMI. This was the impetus for FABOLUS FASTER, the first study to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of the two parenteral antiplatelet agents. The trial also looked at how these potent parenteral drugs, compared with chewed prasugrel, another previously unexamined yet highly practical issue.

The three-center, multinational, open-label FABOLUS FASTER trial randomized 122 patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI to one of three arms: a standard intravenous bolus and 2-hour infusion of either the P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor (Kengreal) or the glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitor tirofiban (Aggrastat), followed in either case by 60 mg of oral prasugrel, or a third arm in which patients didn’t receive either drug but were instead randomized to a 60-mg loading dose of chewed or whole prasugrel tablets.

The primary study endpoint was inhibition of platelet aggregation at 30 minutes as measured by light transmittance aggregometry in response to 20 mcmol/L of adenosine diphosphate (ADP).

Tirofiban was the unequivocal winner with 95% inhibition, as compared with 34.1% with cangrelor, 10.5% with chewed prasugrel, and 6.3% with prasugrel swallowed whole, even though the concentration of prasugrel’s active metabolite was far greater at 62.3 ng/mL after prasugrel was chewed, compared with 17.1 ng/mL when swallowed in integral tablet form.

The rate of nonresponsiveness to tirofiban as defined by greater than 59% platelet aggregation was zero for tirofiban during its 2-hour infusion, then a scant 8% thereafter during repeated testing at 3 and 4-6 hours. In contrast, the cangrelor nonresponsiveness rate was 50%-58% during the 2-hour infusion, rising to 82% at 3 hours.

FABOLUS FASTER, while not powered for clinical endpoints, might nevertheless have important clinical implications, according to Dr. Valgimigli. First, the superiority of the intravenous drugs tirofiban and cangrelor over prasugrel for early, strong platelet inhibition underscores the importance of giving parenteral antiplatelet drugs over oral therapy during the acute phase of STEMI therapy. Moreover, tirofiban’s outstanding performance – and the high residual platelet reactivity associated with cangrelor – makes a strong case for large comparative, randomized trials of the two drugs, with hard clinical endpoints.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Discussant Christoph K. Naber, MD, PhD, opined that he personally doesn’t consider the FABOLUS FASTER results practice changing, for a couple of reasons.

“Platelet inhibition measured by ADP in vitro is not necessarily related to true effects in vivo. We know that platelets are activated by multiple mechanisms, and the ADP pathway is just one of them,” said Dr. Naber, an interventional cardiologist at the Wilhemshaven (Germany) Clinic.

Also, there’s a good reason why no glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors are approved for treatment of STEMI, and why tirofiban, despite its impressive antiplatelet effects, is currently largely reserved for bailout situations, such as complex lesions with large thrombus burden. It’s because tirofiban’s potent antiplatelet activity is accompanied by a high risk of bleeding, he added.

However, Dr. Valgimigli noted that this conviction about excessive bleeding risk is mainly based on older studies in which glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors were administered for prolonged duration through femoral access sites. He argued that it’s time for large clinical trials examining the risk/benefit ratio of short infusion of these agents in the contemporary practice of primary PCI for STEMI.

Simultaneously with Dr. Valgimigli’s presentation, the FABOLUS FASTER results were published online (Circulation. 2020 Jun 27; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046928).

Dr. Valgimigli reported that Medicure, the sponsor of the FABOLUS FASTER trial, provided an institutional research grant to conduct the study. He also disclosed receiving research grants and personal fees outside the scope of this study from a dozen pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Dr. Naber reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

Do not rely on more traditional signs and symptoms of COVID-19 like fever and dyspnea when assessing patients with Cushing’s syndrome for the novel coronavirus, Rosario Pivonello, MD, PhD, and colleagues urged.

Physicians evaluating patients with Cushing’s syndrome for COVID-19 “should be suspicious of any change in health status of their patients with Cushing’s syndrome, rather than relying on fever and [dyspnea] as typical features,” Dr. Pivonello, an endocrinologist with the University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, and colleagues wrote in a commentary published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

COVID-19 symptoms are a unique concern among patients with Cushing’s syndrome because many of the cardiometabolic and immune impairments that place someone at higher risk of more severe disease or mortality for the novel coronavirus – such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and immunodeficiency syndromes – are also shared with Cushing’s syndrome.

Increased cardiovascular risk factors and susceptibility to severe infection are “two leading causes of death” for patients with Cushing’s syndrome, Dr. Pivonello and colleagues noted.

The immunocompromised state of patients with Cushing’s syndrome may make detection of COVID-19 infection difficult, the authors say. For example, fever is a common symptom of patients with COVID-19, but in patients with active Cushing’s syndrome, “low-grade chronic inflammation and the poor immune response might limit febrile response in the early phase of infection,” Dr. Pivonello and colleagues wrote.

In other cases, because Cushing’s syndrome and COVID-19 have overlapping symptoms, it may be difficult to attribute a particular symptom to either disease. Dyspnea is a common symptom of COVID-19, but may present in Cushing’s syndrome because of “cardiac insufficiency or weakness of respiratory muscles,” the authors wrote. Instead, physicians should look to other COVID-19 symptoms, such as cough, dysgeusia, anosmia, and diarrhea, for signs of the disease.

Patients with Cushing’s syndrome may also be predisposed to a more severe course of COVID-19 because of the prevalence of obesity, hypertension, or diabetes in these patients, which have been identified as comorbidities that increase the likelihood of severe COVID-19 and progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). “However, a key element in the development of ARDS during COVID-19 is the exaggerated cellular response induced by the cytokine increase, leading to massive alveolar–capillary wall damage and a decline in gas exchange,” Dr. Pivonello and colleagues wrote. “Because patients with Cushing’s syndrome might not mount a normal cytokine response, these patients might [paradoxically] be less prone to develop severe ARDS with COVID-19.”

As both Cushing’s syndrome and COVID-19 are associated with hypercoagulability, the authors “strongly advise” using low-molecular-weight heparin in hospitalized patients with active Cushing’s syndrome who develop COVID-19. In both diseases, there is also a risk of longer duration of viral infections and opportunistic infections such as atypical bacterial and invasive fungal infections. For this reason, the authors also recommended patients with Cushing’s syndrome who have COVID-19 be placed on prolonged antiviral and broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment as a prophylactic measure.

During the pandemic, avoiding surgery for Cushing’s syndrome should be considered to reduce the likelihood of acquiring COVID-19 in a hospital setting, the authors wrote. Medical therapy can be temporarily used where appropriate, such as using ketoconazole, metyrapone, osilodrostat, and etomidate to lower cortisol levels. They acknowledge that some cases of malignant Cushing’s syndrome may require “expeditious definitive diagnosis and proper surgical resolution.”

After remission, while infection risk should be significantly lowered, other comorbidities like obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and thromboembolic diathesis may remain. “Because these are features associated with an increased death risk in patients with COVID-19, patients with Cushing’s syndrome in remission should be considered a high-risk population and consequently adopt adequate self-protection strategies to [minimize] contagion risk,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Pivonello reported relationships with Novartis, Strongbridge Biopharma, HRA Pharma, Ipsen, Shire, and Pfizer, Corcept Therapeutics, IBSA Farmaceutici, Ferring, and Italfarmaco in the form of receiving grants and/or personal fees. One coauthor reported receiving grants and/or nonfinancial support from Takeda, Ipsen, Shire, Pfizer, and Corcept Therapeutics. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from Novartis and Strongbridge, and grants from Millendo Therapeutics. Another coauthor reported receiving grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Ipsen, Shire, Pfizer, Italfarmaco, Lilly, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pivonello R et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Jun 9. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30215-1.

Do not rely on more traditional signs and symptoms of COVID-19 like fever and dyspnea when assessing patients with Cushing’s syndrome for the novel coronavirus, Rosario Pivonello, MD, PhD, and colleagues urged.

Physicians evaluating patients with Cushing’s syndrome for COVID-19 “should be suspicious of any change in health status of their patients with Cushing’s syndrome, rather than relying on fever and [dyspnea] as typical features,” Dr. Pivonello, an endocrinologist with the University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, and colleagues wrote in a commentary published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

COVID-19 symptoms are a unique concern among patients with Cushing’s syndrome because many of the cardiometabolic and immune impairments that place someone at higher risk of more severe disease or mortality for the novel coronavirus – such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and immunodeficiency syndromes – are also shared with Cushing’s syndrome.

Increased cardiovascular risk factors and susceptibility to severe infection are “two leading causes of death” for patients with Cushing’s syndrome, Dr. Pivonello and colleagues noted.

The immunocompromised state of patients with Cushing’s syndrome may make detection of COVID-19 infection difficult, the authors say. For example, fever is a common symptom of patients with COVID-19, but in patients with active Cushing’s syndrome, “low-grade chronic inflammation and the poor immune response might limit febrile response in the early phase of infection,” Dr. Pivonello and colleagues wrote.

In other cases, because Cushing’s syndrome and COVID-19 have overlapping symptoms, it may be difficult to attribute a particular symptom to either disease. Dyspnea is a common symptom of COVID-19, but may present in Cushing’s syndrome because of “cardiac insufficiency or weakness of respiratory muscles,” the authors wrote. Instead, physicians should look to other COVID-19 symptoms, such as cough, dysgeusia, anosmia, and diarrhea, for signs of the disease.

Patients with Cushing’s syndrome may also be predisposed to a more severe course of COVID-19 because of the prevalence of obesity, hypertension, or diabetes in these patients, which have been identified as comorbidities that increase the likelihood of severe COVID-19 and progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). “However, a key element in the development of ARDS during COVID-19 is the exaggerated cellular response induced by the cytokine increase, leading to massive alveolar–capillary wall damage and a decline in gas exchange,” Dr. Pivonello and colleagues wrote. “Because patients with Cushing’s syndrome might not mount a normal cytokine response, these patients might [paradoxically] be less prone to develop severe ARDS with COVID-19.”

As both Cushing’s syndrome and COVID-19 are associated with hypercoagulability, the authors “strongly advise” using low-molecular-weight heparin in hospitalized patients with active Cushing’s syndrome who develop COVID-19. In both diseases, there is also a risk of longer duration of viral infections and opportunistic infections such as atypical bacterial and invasive fungal infections. For this reason, the authors also recommended patients with Cushing’s syndrome who have COVID-19 be placed on prolonged antiviral and broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment as a prophylactic measure.

During the pandemic, avoiding surgery for Cushing’s syndrome should be considered to reduce the likelihood of acquiring COVID-19 in a hospital setting, the authors wrote. Medical therapy can be temporarily used where appropriate, such as using ketoconazole, metyrapone, osilodrostat, and etomidate to lower cortisol levels. They acknowledge that some cases of malignant Cushing’s syndrome may require “expeditious definitive diagnosis and proper surgical resolution.”

After remission, while infection risk should be significantly lowered, other comorbidities like obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and thromboembolic diathesis may remain. “Because these are features associated with an increased death risk in patients with COVID-19, patients with Cushing’s syndrome in remission should be considered a high-risk population and consequently adopt adequate self-protection strategies to [minimize] contagion risk,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Pivonello reported relationships with Novartis, Strongbridge Biopharma, HRA Pharma, Ipsen, Shire, and Pfizer, Corcept Therapeutics, IBSA Farmaceutici, Ferring, and Italfarmaco in the form of receiving grants and/or personal fees. One coauthor reported receiving grants and/or nonfinancial support from Takeda, Ipsen, Shire, Pfizer, and Corcept Therapeutics. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from Novartis and Strongbridge, and grants from Millendo Therapeutics. Another coauthor reported receiving grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Ipsen, Shire, Pfizer, Italfarmaco, Lilly, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pivonello R et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Jun 9. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30215-1.

Do not rely on more traditional signs and symptoms of COVID-19 like fever and dyspnea when assessing patients with Cushing’s syndrome for the novel coronavirus, Rosario Pivonello, MD, PhD, and colleagues urged.

Physicians evaluating patients with Cushing’s syndrome for COVID-19 “should be suspicious of any change in health status of their patients with Cushing’s syndrome, rather than relying on fever and [dyspnea] as typical features,” Dr. Pivonello, an endocrinologist with the University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, and colleagues wrote in a commentary published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

COVID-19 symptoms are a unique concern among patients with Cushing’s syndrome because many of the cardiometabolic and immune impairments that place someone at higher risk of more severe disease or mortality for the novel coronavirus – such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and immunodeficiency syndromes – are also shared with Cushing’s syndrome.

Increased cardiovascular risk factors and susceptibility to severe infection are “two leading causes of death” for patients with Cushing’s syndrome, Dr. Pivonello and colleagues noted.

The immunocompromised state of patients with Cushing’s syndrome may make detection of COVID-19 infection difficult, the authors say. For example, fever is a common symptom of patients with COVID-19, but in patients with active Cushing’s syndrome, “low-grade chronic inflammation and the poor immune response might limit febrile response in the early phase of infection,” Dr. Pivonello and colleagues wrote.

In other cases, because Cushing’s syndrome and COVID-19 have overlapping symptoms, it may be difficult to attribute a particular symptom to either disease. Dyspnea is a common symptom of COVID-19, but may present in Cushing’s syndrome because of “cardiac insufficiency or weakness of respiratory muscles,” the authors wrote. Instead, physicians should look to other COVID-19 symptoms, such as cough, dysgeusia, anosmia, and diarrhea, for signs of the disease.

Patients with Cushing’s syndrome may also be predisposed to a more severe course of COVID-19 because of the prevalence of obesity, hypertension, or diabetes in these patients, which have been identified as comorbidities that increase the likelihood of severe COVID-19 and progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). “However, a key element in the development of ARDS during COVID-19 is the exaggerated cellular response induced by the cytokine increase, leading to massive alveolar–capillary wall damage and a decline in gas exchange,” Dr. Pivonello and colleagues wrote. “Because patients with Cushing’s syndrome might not mount a normal cytokine response, these patients might [paradoxically] be less prone to develop severe ARDS with COVID-19.”

As both Cushing’s syndrome and COVID-19 are associated with hypercoagulability, the authors “strongly advise” using low-molecular-weight heparin in hospitalized patients with active Cushing’s syndrome who develop COVID-19. In both diseases, there is also a risk of longer duration of viral infections and opportunistic infections such as atypical bacterial and invasive fungal infections. For this reason, the authors also recommended patients with Cushing’s syndrome who have COVID-19 be placed on prolonged antiviral and broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment as a prophylactic measure.

During the pandemic, avoiding surgery for Cushing’s syndrome should be considered to reduce the likelihood of acquiring COVID-19 in a hospital setting, the authors wrote. Medical therapy can be temporarily used where appropriate, such as using ketoconazole, metyrapone, osilodrostat, and etomidate to lower cortisol levels. They acknowledge that some cases of malignant Cushing’s syndrome may require “expeditious definitive diagnosis and proper surgical resolution.”

After remission, while infection risk should be significantly lowered, other comorbidities like obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and thromboembolic diathesis may remain. “Because these are features associated with an increased death risk in patients with COVID-19, patients with Cushing’s syndrome in remission should be considered a high-risk population and consequently adopt adequate self-protection strategies to [minimize] contagion risk,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Pivonello reported relationships with Novartis, Strongbridge Biopharma, HRA Pharma, Ipsen, Shire, and Pfizer, Corcept Therapeutics, IBSA Farmaceutici, Ferring, and Italfarmaco in the form of receiving grants and/or personal fees. One coauthor reported receiving grants and/or nonfinancial support from Takeda, Ipsen, Shire, Pfizer, and Corcept Therapeutics. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from Novartis and Strongbridge, and grants from Millendo Therapeutics. Another coauthor reported receiving grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Ipsen, Shire, Pfizer, Italfarmaco, Lilly, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pivonello R et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Jun 9. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30215-1.

Do you want to know what keeps us up at night? As 4th-year medical students born, raised, and living in Haiti, we worry about the impact of COVID-19 on our patients.

The pandemic has shaken the world, and Haiti is no exception.

Courtesy Schneider Dorcela

It has taken several months for the disease to spread, and it began with two confirmed cases, one from France and the other from Belgium, on March 19.¹ Much of the spread of COVID-19 in Haiti has been tied to workers returning from the Dominican Republic. As of June 29, Haiti had 5,975 confirmed cases and 105 deaths.² Of course, those numbers sound minuscule, compared with those in the United States, where the number of deaths from COVID-19 surpassed 100,000 several weeks ago. But the population of Haiti is 30 times smaller than that of the United States, and Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. We have watched in horror as the virus has ravaged marginalized groups in the United States and worry that it will do the same in our own country.

Just as the Haitian Ministry of Health worked with various groups to reach the 1-year free of cholera mark in Haiti, groups such as Doctors Without Borders must mobilize to rein in COVID-19.
 

Community transmission rapid

After the first two cases were confirmed, a state of health emergency was immediately declared. Haitian President Jovenel Moïse and other government officials called for the implementation of several measures aimed at limiting the spread of COVID-19.

Schools, universities, clinical training programs, vocational centers, factories, airports, and ports, except for the transport of goods, were all ordered to close until further notice. Gatherings of larger than 10 people were banned. A curfew from 8 p.m. EST time to 5 a.m. EST was imposed. Measures such as those encouraged by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as hand washing, physical distancing, and staying at home were also encouraged by the Haitian Ministry of Health. Mask wearing in public places was deemed mandatory.

The latest testing data show that community spread has been occurring among the Haitian population at a rapid rate. According to Jean William Pape, MD, Haiti’s top infectious diseases expert and founder of GHESKIO, an iconic infectious disease center that cares for people with HIV-AIDS and tuberculosis, a COVID-19 simulation from Cornell University in New York shows that about 35% of the Haitian population will be infected by the end of August 2020. A simulation by the University of Oxford (England) paints an even more dire picture. That simulation shows that 86% of the population could be infected, More than 9,000 additional hospital beds would be needed, and 20,000 people would be likely to die from COVID-19, Dr. Pape said in an interview with Haiti’s Nouvelliste newspaper.³
 

Medical response

We know that there is a global shortage of health care workers^,4 and Haiti is no exception. According to a 2018 report from the Haitian Ministry of Health, the country has 11,775 health care professionals, including about 3,354 medical doctors, to care for more than 11 million people. That translates to about 23.4 physicians per 100,000.⁵

The pandemic has led some members of this already anemic health care workforce to stay home because of a lack of personal protective equipment. Others, because of reduced hospital or clinic budgets, have been furloughed, making the COVID-19 national health emergency even harder to manage. The rationing of electricity and limited access to clean water⁶ in some areas are other complications that undermine our ability to provide quality care.

But a severe health care shortage is not the only challenge facing Haiti. It spends about $131 U.S. per capita, which makes Haiti one of most vulnerable among low- and middle-income countries in the world. As a poor country,⁷ its health care infrastructure is among the most inadequate and weakest. Prior to COVID-19, medical advocacy groups already had started movements and strikes demanding that the government improve the health care system. The country’s precarious health care infrastructure includes a lack of hospital beds, and basic medical supplies and equipment, such as oxygen and ventilators.⁸ The emergence of COVID-19 has only exacerbated the situation.

Clinical training programs have been suspended, many doctors and nurses are on quarantine, and some hospitals and clinics are closing. We have witnessed makeshift voodoo clinics built by Haitian voodoo leaders to receive, hospitalize, and treat COVID-19 patients through rituals and herbal remedies. In some areas of the country, residents have protested against the opening of several COVID-19 treatment and management centers.
 

Unique cultural challenges

Public health officials around the world are facing challenges persuading citizens to engage in behaviors that could protect them from the virus.

Just as in America, where many people opt to not wear face coverings^9,10 despite the public health risks, deep distrust of the Haitian government has undermined the messages of President Moïse and public healthofficials about the role of masks in limiting the spread of COVID.We see large numbers of unmasked people on the streets in the informal markets every day. Crammed tap-taps and overloaded motorcycles are moving everywhere. This also could be tied to cultural attitudes about COVID that persist among some Haitians.For example, many people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19 are afraid of going to the hospital to get tested and receive care, and resort to going to the voodoo clinics. Along with rituals, voodoo priests have been serving up teas with ingredients, including moringa, eucalyptus, ginger, and honey to those seeking COVID-19 care in the centers. The voodoo priests claim that the teas they serve strengthen the immune system.

In addition, it is difficult for poor people who live in small quarters with several other people to adhere to physical distancing.¹¹
 

Stigma and violence

Other barriers in the fight against COVID-19 in Haiti are stigma and violence. If widespread testing were available, some Haitians would opt not to do so – despite clear signs and symptoms of the infection. Some people who would get tested if they could are afraid to do so because of fears tied to being attacked by neighbors.

When Haitian University professor Bellamy Nelson and his girlfriend returned to Haiti from the United States in March and began experiencing some pain and fever, he experienced attacks from neighbors, he said in an interview. He said neighbors threatened to burn down his house. When an ambulance arrived at his house to transport him to a hospital, it had to drive through back roads to avoid people armed with rocks, fire, and machetes, he told us. No hospital wanted to admit him. Eventually, Professor Nelson self-quarantined at home, he said.

In another incident, a national ambulance center in Gonaïves, a town toward the northern region of Haiti, reportedly was vandalized, because COVID-19 equipment and supplies used to treat people had been stored there. Hospital Bernard Mevs, along with many other hospitals, was forced by the area’s residents to suspend the plan to open a center for COVID-19 management. Threats to burn down the hospitals caused the leaders of the hospitals to back down and give up a plan to build a 20-bed COVID-19 response center.
 

Maternal health

Another concern we have about the pandemic is the risk it could be to pregnant women. On average, 94,000 deaths occur annually in Haiti. Out of this number, maternal mortality accounts for 1,000. In 2017, for every 100,000 live births for women of reproductive age from 15 to 49 years old, 480 women died. In contrast, in the Dominican Republic, 95 women died per 100,000 that same year. In the United States, 19 died, and in Norway, no more than 2 died that year.¹²

Some of the primary factors contributing to the crisis are limited accessibility, inadequate health care facilities, and an inadequate number of trained health care practitioners; low percentages of skilled attendants at deliveries and of prenatal and postnatal visits; and high numbers of high-risk deliveries in nonqualified health facilities.

During the COVID-19 national health emergency, with most hospitals reducing their health care personnel either because of budget-related reasons or because they are on quarantine, this maternal-fetal health crisis has escalated.

One of the biggest hospitals in Jacmel, a town in the southern region of Haiti, has stopped its prenatal care program. In Delmas, the city with the highest incidence and prevalence of COVID-19, Hôpital Universitaire de la Paix has reduced this program to 50% of its capacity and gynecologic care has been completely suspended. Hôpital St. Luc, one of the first hospitals in the western region of Haiti to open its doors to care for COVID-19 patients, has recently shut down the entire maternal-fetal department.

So, access to prenatal and postnatal care, including the ability to deliver babies in health care institutions, is significantly reduced because of COVID-19. This leaves thousands of already vulnerable pregnant women at risk and having to deliver domestically with little to no health care professional assistance. We worry that, in light of the data, more women and babies will die because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

A call to action

Despite these conditions, there are reasons for hope. Various groups, both from the international community and locally have mobilized to respond to the pandemic.

International health care organizations such as Doctors Without Borders and Partners in Health, and local groups such as GHESKIO, the St. Luke Foundation for Haiti, and others have been collaborating with the Haitian Ministry of Health to devise and strategic plans and deploy valuable resources with the common goal of saving lives from COVID-19.

GHESKIO, for example, under Dr. Pape’s leadership, currently has one of the three COVID-19 testing centers in the country. It also has two COVID-19 treatment centers in full operation, in Port-au-Prince, the capital city, managing and treating 520 patients with confirmed COVID-19. GHESKIO, which has been in the front lines of previous major infectious disease outbreaks,¹³ has trained about 200 clinicians from both public and private health care institutions to care for COVID-19 patients.

Doctors Without Borders has been investing in efforts to support the Ministry of Health by converting and renovating its Burn Center in Drouillard, a small section of the city of Cité Soleil, one of the country’s biggest slums. In May, as part of its COVID-19 response, it launched a 20-bed capacity center that can accommodate up to 45 beds to care for patients who have tested positive for COVID-19.

Partners in Health, the Boston-based nonprofit health care organization cofounded in 1987 by American anthropologist and infectious disease specialist, Paul Farmer, MD, and the largest nonprofit health care provider in Haiti, also joined the Ministry of Health through its national and public health efforts to tackle COVID-19 in Haiti. Partners in Health, through its sister organization, Zanmi Lasante, has pioneered the movement of diagnosing and treating people with HIV-AIDS and TB. Since the late 1990s, its efforts against both infectious diseases have helped 15,000 HIV-positive patients begin and remain on treatment. And every year, 1,500 TB patients have started treatment on the path to a cure.

Early in the pandemic in Haiti, Partners in Health, through its state-of-the-art 300-bed university hospital (Hôpital Universitaire de Mirebalais de Mirebalais), was the first to open a COVID-19 center with a 20-bed capacity and has been caring for COVID-19 patients since then. In June, Partners in Health supported and inaugurated the renovation of the internal medicine department at one of its affiliated community hospitals, Hôpital Saint-Nicolas de Saint Marc. That department will have a 24-bed capacity that can extend up to 36 beds to manage and treat COVID-19 patients.

In total, currently, 26 COVID-19 centers with a capacity of 1,011 beds are available to serve, manage, and treat Haitian patients affected with COVID-19. But are those efforts enough? No.

Haiti, as a weak state even before COVID-19, continues to need funding from the international community so it can strengthen its health care infrastructure to be effective and strong in fighting against COVID-19.

In addition, we would like to see preventive initiatives implemented on the local level. Our family has taken on a role that, we think, could help conquer COVID-19 if others followed suit on a large scale.

As part of our contribution in tackling COVID-19, the two of us have launched a small-scale community experiment. We have educated our family in Delmas about COVID-19 and subsequently launched an awareness campaign in the community. We dispatched small groups that go door to door in the community to educate neighbors about the disease in an effort to help them understand that COVID-19 is real and it is normal for people that feel they may have the disease to seek medical care. This approach helps suppress the transmission of the virus. This pilot project could be reproduced in several other communities. It is easy to operate, rapid, effective, and cost-free. The community has been very receptive to and grateful for our efforts.

Like other countries across the world, Haiti was not ready for COVID-19. But we are confident that, with help from the international community, organizations such as GHESKIO,¹⁴ and with due diligence on the local level, we are strong and resilient enough to beat COVID. We must act together – quickly.

 

References

1. Sénat JD. Coronavirus: 2 cas confirmés en Haïti, Jovenel Moïse décrète l’état d’ur-gence sanitaire. 2020 Le Nouvelliste.

2. Haitian Ministry of Health.

3. “Entre appel a la solidarite et de sombres previsions, le Dr William Pape fait le point.” Le Nouvelliste.

4. Darzi A and Evans T. Lancet. 2016 Nov-Dec 26. 388;10060:2576-7.

5. Rapport Statistique 2018. 2019 Republic of Haiti.

6. Sentlinger K. “Water Crisis in Haiti.” The Water Project.

7. The World Bank in Haiti. worldbank.org.

8. Cenat JM. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1016/jtmaid.2020.101684.

9. Block D. “Why some Americans resist wearing face masks.” voanews.com. 2020 May 31.

10. Panceski B and Douglas J. “Masks could help stop coronavirus. So why are they still controversial?” wsj.com. Updated 29 Jun 2020.

11. Bojarski S. “Social distancing: A luxury Haiti’s poor cannot afford. The Haitian Times. 2020 Apr.

12. World Health Organization, UNICEF, World Bank Group, and the U.N. Population Division. Maternal mortality ratio, Haiti.

13. Feliciano I and Kargbo C. “As COVID cases surge, Haiti’s Dr. Pape is on the front line again.” PBS NewsHour Weekend. 2020 Jun 13.

14. Liautaud B and Deschamps MM. New Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 16.
 

Mr. Dorcela is a senior medical student at Faculté des Sciences de la Santé Université Quisqueya in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. He also is a medical intern at Unité de Médecine Familiale Hôpital Saint Nicolas in Saint-Marc. Mr. Dorcela has no disclosures. Mr. St. Jean, who is Mr. Dorcela’s brother, is also a senior medical student at Faculté des Sciences de la Santé Université Quisqueya in Port-au-Prince. He has no disclosures.

Do you want to know what keeps us up at night? As 4th-year medical students born, raised, and living in Haiti, we worry about the impact of COVID-19 on our patients.

The pandemic has shaken the world, and Haiti is no exception.

Courtesy Schneider Dorcela

It has taken several months for the disease to spread, and it began with two confirmed cases, one from France and the other from Belgium, on March 19.¹ Much of the spread of COVID-19 in Haiti has been tied to workers returning from the Dominican Republic. As of June 29, Haiti had 5,975 confirmed cases and 105 deaths.² Of course, those numbers sound minuscule, compared with those in the United States, where the number of deaths from COVID-19 surpassed 100,000 several weeks ago. But the population of Haiti is 30 times smaller than that of the United States, and Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. We have watched in horror as the virus has ravaged marginalized groups in the United States and worry that it will do the same in our own country.

Just as the Haitian Ministry of Health worked with various groups to reach the 1-year free of cholera mark in Haiti, groups such as Doctors Without Borders must mobilize to rein in COVID-19.
 

Community transmission rapid

After the first two cases were confirmed, a state of health emergency was immediately declared. Haitian President Jovenel Moïse and other government officials called for the implementation of several measures aimed at limiting the spread of COVID-19.

Schools, universities, clinical training programs, vocational centers, factories, airports, and ports, except for the transport of goods, were all ordered to close until further notice. Gatherings of larger than 10 people were banned. A curfew from 8 p.m. EST time to 5 a.m. EST was imposed. Measures such as those encouraged by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as hand washing, physical distancing, and staying at home were also encouraged by the Haitian Ministry of Health. Mask wearing in public places was deemed mandatory.

The latest testing data show that community spread has been occurring among the Haitian population at a rapid rate. According to Jean William Pape, MD, Haiti’s top infectious diseases expert and founder of GHESKIO, an iconic infectious disease center that cares for people with HIV-AIDS and tuberculosis, a COVID-19 simulation from Cornell University in New York shows that about 35% of the Haitian population will be infected by the end of August 2020. A simulation by the University of Oxford (England) paints an even more dire picture. That simulation shows that 86% of the population could be infected, More than 9,000 additional hospital beds would be needed, and 20,000 people would be likely to die from COVID-19, Dr. Pape said in an interview with Haiti’s Nouvelliste newspaper.³
 

Medical response

We know that there is a global shortage of health care workers^,4 and Haiti is no exception. According to a 2018 report from the Haitian Ministry of Health, the country has 11,775 health care professionals, including about 3,354 medical doctors, to care for more than 11 million people. That translates to about 23.4 physicians per 100,000.⁵

The pandemic has led some members of this already anemic health care workforce to stay home because of a lack of personal protective equipment. Others, because of reduced hospital or clinic budgets, have been furloughed, making the COVID-19 national health emergency even harder to manage. The rationing of electricity and limited access to clean water⁶ in some areas are other complications that undermine our ability to provide quality care.

But a severe health care shortage is not the only challenge facing Haiti. It spends about $131 U.S. per capita, which makes Haiti one of most vulnerable among low- and middle-income countries in the world. As a poor country,⁷ its health care infrastructure is among the most inadequate and weakest. Prior to COVID-19, medical advocacy groups already had started movements and strikes demanding that the government improve the health care system. The country’s precarious health care infrastructure includes a lack of hospital beds, and basic medical supplies and equipment, such as oxygen and ventilators.⁸ The emergence of COVID-19 has only exacerbated the situation.

Clinical training programs have been suspended, many doctors and nurses are on quarantine, and some hospitals and clinics are closing. We have witnessed makeshift voodoo clinics built by Haitian voodoo leaders to receive, hospitalize, and treat COVID-19 patients through rituals and herbal remedies. In some areas of the country, residents have protested against the opening of several COVID-19 treatment and management centers.
 

Unique cultural challenges

Public health officials around the world are facing challenges persuading citizens to engage in behaviors that could protect them from the virus.

Just as in America, where many people opt to not wear face coverings^9,10 despite the public health risks, deep distrust of the Haitian government has undermined the messages of President Moïse and public healthofficials about the role of masks in limiting the spread of COVID.We see large numbers of unmasked people on the streets in the informal markets every day. Crammed tap-taps and overloaded motorcycles are moving everywhere. This also could be tied to cultural attitudes about COVID that persist among some Haitians.For example, many people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19 are afraid of going to the hospital to get tested and receive care, and resort to going to the voodoo clinics. Along with rituals, voodoo priests have been serving up teas with ingredients, including moringa, eucalyptus, ginger, and honey to those seeking COVID-19 care in the centers. The voodoo priests claim that the teas they serve strengthen the immune system.

In addition, it is difficult for poor people who live in small quarters with several other people to adhere to physical distancing.¹¹
 

Stigma and violence

Other barriers in the fight against COVID-19 in Haiti are stigma and violence. If widespread testing were available, some Haitians would opt not to do so – despite clear signs and symptoms of the infection. Some people who would get tested if they could are afraid to do so because of fears tied to being attacked by neighbors.

When Haitian University professor Bellamy Nelson and his girlfriend returned to Haiti from the United States in March and began experiencing some pain and fever, he experienced attacks from neighbors, he said in an interview. He said neighbors threatened to burn down his house. When an ambulance arrived at his house to transport him to a hospital, it had to drive through back roads to avoid people armed with rocks, fire, and machetes, he told us. No hospital wanted to admit him. Eventually, Professor Nelson self-quarantined at home, he said.

In another incident, a national ambulance center in Gonaïves, a town toward the northern region of Haiti, reportedly was vandalized, because COVID-19 equipment and supplies used to treat people had been stored there. Hospital Bernard Mevs, along with many other hospitals, was forced by the area’s residents to suspend the plan to open a center for COVID-19 management. Threats to burn down the hospitals caused the leaders of the hospitals to back down and give up a plan to build a 20-bed COVID-19 response center.
 

Maternal health

Another concern we have about the pandemic is the risk it could be to pregnant women. On average, 94,000 deaths occur annually in Haiti. Out of this number, maternal mortality accounts for 1,000. In 2017, for every 100,000 live births for women of reproductive age from 15 to 49 years old, 480 women died. In contrast, in the Dominican Republic, 95 women died per 100,000 that same year. In the United States, 19 died, and in Norway, no more than 2 died that year.¹²

Some of the primary factors contributing to the crisis are limited accessibility, inadequate health care facilities, and an inadequate number of trained health care practitioners; low percentages of skilled attendants at deliveries and of prenatal and postnatal visits; and high numbers of high-risk deliveries in nonqualified health facilities.

During the COVID-19 national health emergency, with most hospitals reducing their health care personnel either because of budget-related reasons or because they are on quarantine, this maternal-fetal health crisis has escalated.

One of the biggest hospitals in Jacmel, a town in the southern region of Haiti, has stopped its prenatal care program. In Delmas, the city with the highest incidence and prevalence of COVID-19, Hôpital Universitaire de la Paix has reduced this program to 50% of its capacity and gynecologic care has been completely suspended. Hôpital St. Luc, one of the first hospitals in the western region of Haiti to open its doors to care for COVID-19 patients, has recently shut down the entire maternal-fetal department.

So, access to prenatal and postnatal care, including the ability to deliver babies in health care institutions, is significantly reduced because of COVID-19. This leaves thousands of already vulnerable pregnant women at risk and having to deliver domestically with little to no health care professional assistance. We worry that, in light of the data, more women and babies will die because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

A call to action

Despite these conditions, there are reasons for hope. Various groups, both from the international community and locally have mobilized to respond to the pandemic.

International health care organizations such as Doctors Without Borders and Partners in Health, and local groups such as GHESKIO, the St. Luke Foundation for Haiti, and others have been collaborating with the Haitian Ministry of Health to devise and strategic plans and deploy valuable resources with the common goal of saving lives from COVID-19.

GHESKIO, for example, under Dr. Pape’s leadership, currently has one of the three COVID-19 testing centers in the country. It also has two COVID-19 treatment centers in full operation, in Port-au-Prince, the capital city, managing and treating 520 patients with confirmed COVID-19. GHESKIO, which has been in the front lines of previous major infectious disease outbreaks,¹³ has trained about 200 clinicians from both public and private health care institutions to care for COVID-19 patients.

Doctors Without Borders has been investing in efforts to support the Ministry of Health by converting and renovating its Burn Center in Drouillard, a small section of the city of Cité Soleil, one of the country’s biggest slums. In May, as part of its COVID-19 response, it launched a 20-bed capacity center that can accommodate up to 45 beds to care for patients who have tested positive for COVID-19.

Partners in Health, the Boston-based nonprofit health care organization cofounded in 1987 by American anthropologist and infectious disease specialist, Paul Farmer, MD, and the largest nonprofit health care provider in Haiti, also joined the Ministry of Health through its national and public health efforts to tackle COVID-19 in Haiti. Partners in Health, through its sister organization, Zanmi Lasante, has pioneered the movement of diagnosing and treating people with HIV-AIDS and TB. Since the late 1990s, its efforts against both infectious diseases have helped 15,000 HIV-positive patients begin and remain on treatment. And every year, 1,500 TB patients have started treatment on the path to a cure.

Early in the pandemic in Haiti, Partners in Health, through its state-of-the-art 300-bed university hospital (Hôpital Universitaire de Mirebalais de Mirebalais), was the first to open a COVID-19 center with a 20-bed capacity and has been caring for COVID-19 patients since then. In June, Partners in Health supported and inaugurated the renovation of the internal medicine department at one of its affiliated community hospitals, Hôpital Saint-Nicolas de Saint Marc. That department will have a 24-bed capacity that can extend up to 36 beds to manage and treat COVID-19 patients.

In total, currently, 26 COVID-19 centers with a capacity of 1,011 beds are available to serve, manage, and treat Haitian patients affected with COVID-19. But are those efforts enough? No.

Haiti, as a weak state even before COVID-19, continues to need funding from the international community so it can strengthen its health care infrastructure to be effective and strong in fighting against COVID-19.

In addition, we would like to see preventive initiatives implemented on the local level. Our family has taken on a role that, we think, could help conquer COVID-19 if others followed suit on a large scale.

As part of our contribution in tackling COVID-19, the two of us have launched a small-scale community experiment. We have educated our family in Delmas about COVID-19 and subsequently launched an awareness campaign in the community. We dispatched small groups that go door to door in the community to educate neighbors about the disease in an effort to help them understand that COVID-19 is real and it is normal for people that feel they may have the disease to seek medical care. This approach helps suppress the transmission of the virus. This pilot project could be reproduced in several other communities. It is easy to operate, rapid, effective, and cost-free. The community has been very receptive to and grateful for our efforts.

Like other countries across the world, Haiti was not ready for COVID-19. But we are confident that, with help from the international community, organizations such as GHESKIO,¹⁴ and with due diligence on the local level, we are strong and resilient enough to beat COVID. We must act together – quickly.

 

References

1. Sénat JD. Coronavirus: 2 cas confirmés en Haïti, Jovenel Moïse décrète l’état d’ur-gence sanitaire. 2020 Le Nouvelliste.

2. Haitian Ministry of Health.

3. “Entre appel a la solidarite et de sombres previsions, le Dr William Pape fait le point.” Le Nouvelliste.

4. Darzi A and Evans T. Lancet. 2016 Nov-Dec 26. 388;10060:2576-7.

5. Rapport Statistique 2018. 2019 Republic of Haiti.

6. Sentlinger K. “Water Crisis in Haiti.” The Water Project.

7. The World Bank in Haiti. worldbank.org.

8. Cenat JM. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1016/jtmaid.2020.101684.

9. Block D. “Why some Americans resist wearing face masks.” voanews.com. 2020 May 31.

10. Panceski B and Douglas J. “Masks could help stop coronavirus. So why are they still controversial?” wsj.com. Updated 29 Jun 2020.

11. Bojarski S. “Social distancing: A luxury Haiti’s poor cannot afford. The Haitian Times. 2020 Apr.

12. World Health Organization, UNICEF, World Bank Group, and the U.N. Population Division. Maternal mortality ratio, Haiti.

13. Feliciano I and Kargbo C. “As COVID cases surge, Haiti’s Dr. Pape is on the front line again.” PBS NewsHour Weekend. 2020 Jun 13.

14. Liautaud B and Deschamps MM. New Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 16.
 

Mr. Dorcela is a senior medical student at Faculté des Sciences de la Santé Université Quisqueya in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. He also is a medical intern at Unité de Médecine Familiale Hôpital Saint Nicolas in Saint-Marc. Mr. Dorcela has no disclosures. Mr. St. Jean, who is Mr. Dorcela’s brother, is also a senior medical student at Faculté des Sciences de la Santé Université Quisqueya in Port-au-Prince. He has no disclosures.

Do you want to know what keeps us up at night? As 4th-year medical students born, raised, and living in Haiti, we worry about the impact of COVID-19 on our patients.

The pandemic has shaken the world, and Haiti is no exception.

Courtesy Schneider Dorcela

It has taken several months for the disease to spread, and it began with two confirmed cases, one from France and the other from Belgium, on March 19.¹ Much of the spread of COVID-19 in Haiti has been tied to workers returning from the Dominican Republic. As of June 29, Haiti had 5,975 confirmed cases and 105 deaths.² Of course, those numbers sound minuscule, compared with those in the United States, where the number of deaths from COVID-19 surpassed 100,000 several weeks ago. But the population of Haiti is 30 times smaller than that of the United States, and Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. We have watched in horror as the virus has ravaged marginalized groups in the United States and worry that it will do the same in our own country.

Just as the Haitian Ministry of Health worked with various groups to reach the 1-year free of cholera mark in Haiti, groups such as Doctors Without Borders must mobilize to rein in COVID-19.
 

Community transmission rapid

After the first two cases were confirmed, a state of health emergency was immediately declared. Haitian President Jovenel Moïse and other government officials called for the implementation of several measures aimed at limiting the spread of COVID-19.

Schools, universities, clinical training programs, vocational centers, factories, airports, and ports, except for the transport of goods, were all ordered to close until further notice. Gatherings of larger than 10 people were banned. A curfew from 8 p.m. EST time to 5 a.m. EST was imposed. Measures such as those encouraged by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as hand washing, physical distancing, and staying at home were also encouraged by the Haitian Ministry of Health. Mask wearing in public places was deemed mandatory.

The latest testing data show that community spread has been occurring among the Haitian population at a rapid rate. According to Jean William Pape, MD, Haiti’s top infectious diseases expert and founder of GHESKIO, an iconic infectious disease center that cares for people with HIV-AIDS and tuberculosis, a COVID-19 simulation from Cornell University in New York shows that about 35% of the Haitian population will be infected by the end of August 2020. A simulation by the University of Oxford (England) paints an even more dire picture. That simulation shows that 86% of the population could be infected, More than 9,000 additional hospital beds would be needed, and 20,000 people would be likely to die from COVID-19, Dr. Pape said in an interview with Haiti’s Nouvelliste newspaper.³
 

Medical response

We know that there is a global shortage of health care workers^,4 and Haiti is no exception. According to a 2018 report from the Haitian Ministry of Health, the country has 11,775 health care professionals, including about 3,354 medical doctors, to care for more than 11 million people. That translates to about 23.4 physicians per 100,000.⁵

The pandemic has led some members of this already anemic health care workforce to stay home because of a lack of personal protective equipment. Others, because of reduced hospital or clinic budgets, have been furloughed, making the COVID-19 national health emergency even harder to manage. The rationing of electricity and limited access to clean water⁶ in some areas are other complications that undermine our ability to provide quality care.

But a severe health care shortage is not the only challenge facing Haiti. It spends about $131 U.S. per capita, which makes Haiti one of most vulnerable among low- and middle-income countries in the world. As a poor country,⁷ its health care infrastructure is among the most inadequate and weakest. Prior to COVID-19, medical advocacy groups already had started movements and strikes demanding that the government improve the health care system. The country’s precarious health care infrastructure includes a lack of hospital beds, and basic medical supplies and equipment, such as oxygen and ventilators.⁸ The emergence of COVID-19 has only exacerbated the situation.

Clinical training programs have been suspended, many doctors and nurses are on quarantine, and some hospitals and clinics are closing. We have witnessed makeshift voodoo clinics built by Haitian voodoo leaders to receive, hospitalize, and treat COVID-19 patients through rituals and herbal remedies. In some areas of the country, residents have protested against the opening of several COVID-19 treatment and management centers.
 

Unique cultural challenges

Public health officials around the world are facing challenges persuading citizens to engage in behaviors that could protect them from the virus.

Just as in America, where many people opt to not wear face coverings^9,10 despite the public health risks, deep distrust of the Haitian government has undermined the messages of President Moïse and public healthofficials about the role of masks in limiting the spread of COVID.We see large numbers of unmasked people on the streets in the informal markets every day. Crammed tap-taps and overloaded motorcycles are moving everywhere. This also could be tied to cultural attitudes about COVID that persist among some Haitians.For example, many people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19 are afraid of going to the hospital to get tested and receive care, and resort to going to the voodoo clinics. Along with rituals, voodoo priests have been serving up teas with ingredients, including moringa, eucalyptus, ginger, and honey to those seeking COVID-19 care in the centers. The voodoo priests claim that the teas they serve strengthen the immune system.

In addition, it is difficult for poor people who live in small quarters with several other people to adhere to physical distancing.¹¹
 

Stigma and violence

Other barriers in the fight against COVID-19 in Haiti are stigma and violence. If widespread testing were available, some Haitians would opt not to do so – despite clear signs and symptoms of the infection. Some people who would get tested if they could are afraid to do so because of fears tied to being attacked by neighbors.

When Haitian University professor Bellamy Nelson and his girlfriend returned to Haiti from the United States in March and began experiencing some pain and fever, he experienced attacks from neighbors, he said in an interview. He said neighbors threatened to burn down his house. When an ambulance arrived at his house to transport him to a hospital, it had to drive through back roads to avoid people armed with rocks, fire, and machetes, he told us. No hospital wanted to admit him. Eventually, Professor Nelson self-quarantined at home, he said.

In another incident, a national ambulance center in Gonaïves, a town toward the northern region of Haiti, reportedly was vandalized, because COVID-19 equipment and supplies used to treat people had been stored there. Hospital Bernard Mevs, along with many other hospitals, was forced by the area’s residents to suspend the plan to open a center for COVID-19 management. Threats to burn down the hospitals caused the leaders of the hospitals to back down and give up a plan to build a 20-bed COVID-19 response center.
 

Maternal health

Another concern we have about the pandemic is the risk it could be to pregnant women. On average, 94,000 deaths occur annually in Haiti. Out of this number, maternal mortality accounts for 1,000. In 2017, for every 100,000 live births for women of reproductive age from 15 to 49 years old, 480 women died. In contrast, in the Dominican Republic, 95 women died per 100,000 that same year. In the United States, 19 died, and in Norway, no more than 2 died that year.¹²

Some of the primary factors contributing to the crisis are limited accessibility, inadequate health care facilities, and an inadequate number of trained health care practitioners; low percentages of skilled attendants at deliveries and of prenatal and postnatal visits; and high numbers of high-risk deliveries in nonqualified health facilities.

During the COVID-19 national health emergency, with most hospitals reducing their health care personnel either because of budget-related reasons or because they are on quarantine, this maternal-fetal health crisis has escalated.

One of the biggest hospitals in Jacmel, a town in the southern region of Haiti, has stopped its prenatal care program. In Delmas, the city with the highest incidence and prevalence of COVID-19, Hôpital Universitaire de la Paix has reduced this program to 50% of its capacity and gynecologic care has been completely suspended. Hôpital St. Luc, one of the first hospitals in the western region of Haiti to open its doors to care for COVID-19 patients, has recently shut down the entire maternal-fetal department.

So, access to prenatal and postnatal care, including the ability to deliver babies in health care institutions, is significantly reduced because of COVID-19. This leaves thousands of already vulnerable pregnant women at risk and having to deliver domestically with little to no health care professional assistance. We worry that, in light of the data, more women and babies will die because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

A call to action

Despite these conditions, there are reasons for hope. Various groups, both from the international community and locally have mobilized to respond to the pandemic.

International health care organizations such as Doctors Without Borders and Partners in Health, and local groups such as GHESKIO, the St. Luke Foundation for Haiti, and others have been collaborating with the Haitian Ministry of Health to devise and strategic plans and deploy valuable resources with the common goal of saving lives from COVID-19.

GHESKIO, for example, under Dr. Pape’s leadership, currently has one of the three COVID-19 testing centers in the country. It also has two COVID-19 treatment centers in full operation, in Port-au-Prince, the capital city, managing and treating 520 patients with confirmed COVID-19. GHESKIO, which has been in the front lines of previous major infectious disease outbreaks,¹³ has trained about 200 clinicians from both public and private health care institutions to care for COVID-19 patients.

Doctors Without Borders has been investing in efforts to support the Ministry of Health by converting and renovating its Burn Center in Drouillard, a small section of the city of Cité Soleil, one of the country’s biggest slums. In May, as part of its COVID-19 response, it launched a 20-bed capacity center that can accommodate up to 45 beds to care for patients who have tested positive for COVID-19.

Partners in Health, the Boston-based nonprofit health care organization cofounded in 1987 by American anthropologist and infectious disease specialist, Paul Farmer, MD, and the largest nonprofit health care provider in Haiti, also joined the Ministry of Health through its national and public health efforts to tackle COVID-19 in Haiti. Partners in Health, through its sister organization, Zanmi Lasante, has pioneered the movement of diagnosing and treating people with HIV-AIDS and TB. Since the late 1990s, its efforts against both infectious diseases have helped 15,000 HIV-positive patients begin and remain on treatment. And every year, 1,500 TB patients have started treatment on the path to a cure.

Early in the pandemic in Haiti, Partners in Health, through its state-of-the-art 300-bed university hospital (Hôpital Universitaire de Mirebalais de Mirebalais), was the first to open a COVID-19 center with a 20-bed capacity and has been caring for COVID-19 patients since then. In June, Partners in Health supported and inaugurated the renovation of the internal medicine department at one of its affiliated community hospitals, Hôpital Saint-Nicolas de Saint Marc. That department will have a 24-bed capacity that can extend up to 36 beds to manage and treat COVID-19 patients.

In total, currently, 26 COVID-19 centers with a capacity of 1,011 beds are available to serve, manage, and treat Haitian patients affected with COVID-19. But are those efforts enough? No.

Haiti, as a weak state even before COVID-19, continues to need funding from the international community so it can strengthen its health care infrastructure to be effective and strong in fighting against COVID-19.

In addition, we would like to see preventive initiatives implemented on the local level. Our family has taken on a role that, we think, could help conquer COVID-19 if others followed suit on a large scale.

As part of our contribution in tackling COVID-19, the two of us have launched a small-scale community experiment. We have educated our family in Delmas about COVID-19 and subsequently launched an awareness campaign in the community. We dispatched small groups that go door to door in the community to educate neighbors about the disease in an effort to help them understand that COVID-19 is real and it is normal for people that feel they may have the disease to seek medical care. This approach helps suppress the transmission of the virus. This pilot project could be reproduced in several other communities. It is easy to operate, rapid, effective, and cost-free. The community has been very receptive to and grateful for our efforts.

Like other countries across the world, Haiti was not ready for COVID-19. But we are confident that, with help from the international community, organizations such as GHESKIO,¹⁴ and with due diligence on the local level, we are strong and resilient enough to beat COVID. We must act together – quickly.

 

References

1. Sénat JD. Coronavirus: 2 cas confirmés en Haïti, Jovenel Moïse décrète l’état d’ur-gence sanitaire. 2020 Le Nouvelliste.

2. Haitian Ministry of Health.

3. “Entre appel a la solidarite et de sombres previsions, le Dr William Pape fait le point.” Le Nouvelliste.

4. Darzi A and Evans T. Lancet. 2016 Nov-Dec 26. 388;10060:2576-7.

5. Rapport Statistique 2018. 2019 Republic of Haiti.

6. Sentlinger K. “Water Crisis in Haiti.” The Water Project.

7. The World Bank in Haiti. worldbank.org.

8. Cenat JM. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1016/jtmaid.2020.101684.

9. Block D. “Why some Americans resist wearing face masks.” voanews.com. 2020 May 31.

10. Panceski B and Douglas J. “Masks could help stop coronavirus. So why are they still controversial?” wsj.com. Updated 29 Jun 2020.

11. Bojarski S. “Social distancing: A luxury Haiti’s poor cannot afford. The Haitian Times. 2020 Apr.

12. World Health Organization, UNICEF, World Bank Group, and the U.N. Population Division. Maternal mortality ratio, Haiti.

13. Feliciano I and Kargbo C. “As COVID cases surge, Haiti’s Dr. Pape is on the front line again.” PBS NewsHour Weekend. 2020 Jun 13.

14. Liautaud B and Deschamps MM. New Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 16.
 

Mr. Dorcela is a senior medical student at Faculté des Sciences de la Santé Université Quisqueya in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. He also is a medical intern at Unité de Médecine Familiale Hôpital Saint Nicolas in Saint-Marc. Mr. Dorcela has no disclosures. Mr. St. Jean, who is Mr. Dorcela’s brother, is also a senior medical student at Faculté des Sciences de la Santé Université Quisqueya in Port-au-Prince. He has no disclosures.

A large proportion of results from heart failure trials registered with clinicaltrials.gov are published a year or more after completion or not at all, which violates the U.S. FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA), according to a detailed analysis of the interventional and observational trials in this database.

Of the 1,429 heart failure trials identified, 75% of which were randomized interventional studies and the remainder of which were observational, fewer than 20% met the FDAAA 1-year reporting requirement, and 44% have yet to be published at all, reported a team of collaborative investigators led by cardiologists from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI), Falls Church, Va.

“I believe the critical issue is that the FDAAA has thus far never been enforced,” reported Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a cardiologist and president of IHVI. He was the senior author of the study, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To improve systematic reporting of clinical trials, including negative results, clinicaltrials.gov was created in 2000. In 2007, the FDAAA enacted rules to broaden the requirements for reporting and to make timely reporting of results mandatory.

Ten years later, the FDA was finally authorized to issue a penalty of $10,000 for failure to release results in a timely fashion, a provision of the 2007 amendment but not confirmed at that time, the investigators reported. In the majority of cases, timely reporting was defined as within 12 months of completion of the trial.

The new study shows that reporting of completed trials, timely or otherwise, remains low. Of the 1,243 trials completed after 2007, the proportion meeting the 1-year reporting requirement was just 20%. Although a significant improvement over the 13% reporting in this time frame before 2007, more than 80% of findings are not being released in a timely manner more than 10 years after this was made mandatory.

There are a number of reasons to consider this to be a serious issue, according to Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. One of the authors of an accompanying editorial regarding this analysis, Dr. Mehra called underreporting “a public health matter because it is an impediment to medical discovery and poses plausible threats to patient safety.”

Among studies registered after 2007, publication rates were higher for trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (71%) relative to industry (49%) or the U.S. Veterans Affairs (45%).

Publication rates were also higher among interventional relative to observational trials (59% vs. 46%) and trials that enrolled more than 1,000 patients relative to those enrolling fewer than 150 (77% vs. 51%), although trial size was not a significant predictor of publication on multivariate analysis. Clinical endpoints, such as death or hospitalization, were also associated with a greater likelihood of publication relative to nonclinical endpoints.

Of the 251 trials terminated before completion, findings were published within 1 year in only 6%. Two years after completion, only 20% were published at all.

Results consistent with the primary hypothesis did not predict timely publication, but only 39% of the studies listed a primary hypothesis. Since 2017, this is another violation of the FDAAA, according to Dr. O’Connor.

The problem is not unique to heart failure trials, according to the authors who cited numerous studies showing low rates of timely publication in other therapeutic areas. Heart failure was selected for evaluation in this study mainly to keep the analysis feasible, although the authors contend this is an area with an urgent need for better treatments.

The problem needs to be fixed, according to Dr. Mehra. In his editorial, he called for rules to be “transitioned to regulations and action taken for underreporting.” Dr. O’Connor agreed.

“A combination of carrots and sticks might be needed to achieve sufficient result sharing,” Dr. O’Connor said. He suggested that stakeholders, such as investigators, sponsors, regulators, and journal editors, should collaborate to address the problem.

So far, the FDA has never levied a fine for lack of reporting or for failure to report in a timely manner. Routine imposition of large fines might not be viable, given the complex reasons that delay or inhibit publication of trial findings, but it would be a large source of revenue.

“According to the FDAAA TrialsTracker, a live tool that tracks FDAAA compliance and promotes trial transparency, the U.S. government could already have imposed more than $2.8 billion in fines for trials due after January 2018,” Dr. O’Connor reported.

The first and senior authors are among those who report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Psotka MA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3151-61.

A large proportion of results from heart failure trials registered with clinicaltrials.gov are published a year or more after completion or not at all, which violates the U.S. FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA), according to a detailed analysis of the interventional and observational trials in this database.

Of the 1,429 heart failure trials identified, 75% of which were randomized interventional studies and the remainder of which were observational, fewer than 20% met the FDAAA 1-year reporting requirement, and 44% have yet to be published at all, reported a team of collaborative investigators led by cardiologists from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI), Falls Church, Va.

“I believe the critical issue is that the FDAAA has thus far never been enforced,” reported Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a cardiologist and president of IHVI. He was the senior author of the study, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To improve systematic reporting of clinical trials, including negative results, clinicaltrials.gov was created in 2000. In 2007, the FDAAA enacted rules to broaden the requirements for reporting and to make timely reporting of results mandatory.

Ten years later, the FDA was finally authorized to issue a penalty of $10,000 for failure to release results in a timely fashion, a provision of the 2007 amendment but not confirmed at that time, the investigators reported. In the majority of cases, timely reporting was defined as within 12 months of completion of the trial.

The new study shows that reporting of completed trials, timely or otherwise, remains low. Of the 1,243 trials completed after 2007, the proportion meeting the 1-year reporting requirement was just 20%. Although a significant improvement over the 13% reporting in this time frame before 2007, more than 80% of findings are not being released in a timely manner more than 10 years after this was made mandatory.

There are a number of reasons to consider this to be a serious issue, according to Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. One of the authors of an accompanying editorial regarding this analysis, Dr. Mehra called underreporting “a public health matter because it is an impediment to medical discovery and poses plausible threats to patient safety.”

Among studies registered after 2007, publication rates were higher for trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (71%) relative to industry (49%) or the U.S. Veterans Affairs (45%).

Publication rates were also higher among interventional relative to observational trials (59% vs. 46%) and trials that enrolled more than 1,000 patients relative to those enrolling fewer than 150 (77% vs. 51%), although trial size was not a significant predictor of publication on multivariate analysis. Clinical endpoints, such as death or hospitalization, were also associated with a greater likelihood of publication relative to nonclinical endpoints.

Of the 251 trials terminated before completion, findings were published within 1 year in only 6%. Two years after completion, only 20% were published at all.

Results consistent with the primary hypothesis did not predict timely publication, but only 39% of the studies listed a primary hypothesis. Since 2017, this is another violation of the FDAAA, according to Dr. O’Connor.

The problem is not unique to heart failure trials, according to the authors who cited numerous studies showing low rates of timely publication in other therapeutic areas. Heart failure was selected for evaluation in this study mainly to keep the analysis feasible, although the authors contend this is an area with an urgent need for better treatments.

The problem needs to be fixed, according to Dr. Mehra. In his editorial, he called for rules to be “transitioned to regulations and action taken for underreporting.” Dr. O’Connor agreed.

“A combination of carrots and sticks might be needed to achieve sufficient result sharing,” Dr. O’Connor said. He suggested that stakeholders, such as investigators, sponsors, regulators, and journal editors, should collaborate to address the problem.

So far, the FDA has never levied a fine for lack of reporting or for failure to report in a timely manner. Routine imposition of large fines might not be viable, given the complex reasons that delay or inhibit publication of trial findings, but it would be a large source of revenue.

“According to the FDAAA TrialsTracker, a live tool that tracks FDAAA compliance and promotes trial transparency, the U.S. government could already have imposed more than $2.8 billion in fines for trials due after January 2018,” Dr. O’Connor reported.

The first and senior authors are among those who report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Psotka MA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3151-61.

A large proportion of results from heart failure trials registered with clinicaltrials.gov are published a year or more after completion or not at all, which violates the U.S. FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA), according to a detailed analysis of the interventional and observational trials in this database.

Of the 1,429 heart failure trials identified, 75% of which were randomized interventional studies and the remainder of which were observational, fewer than 20% met the FDAAA 1-year reporting requirement, and 44% have yet to be published at all, reported a team of collaborative investigators led by cardiologists from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI), Falls Church, Va.

“I believe the critical issue is that the FDAAA has thus far never been enforced,” reported Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a cardiologist and president of IHVI. He was the senior author of the study, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To improve systematic reporting of clinical trials, including negative results, clinicaltrials.gov was created in 2000. In 2007, the FDAAA enacted rules to broaden the requirements for reporting and to make timely reporting of results mandatory.

Ten years later, the FDA was finally authorized to issue a penalty of $10,000 for failure to release results in a timely fashion, a provision of the 2007 amendment but not confirmed at that time, the investigators reported. In the majority of cases, timely reporting was defined as within 12 months of completion of the trial.

The new study shows that reporting of completed trials, timely or otherwise, remains low. Of the 1,243 trials completed after 2007, the proportion meeting the 1-year reporting requirement was just 20%. Although a significant improvement over the 13% reporting in this time frame before 2007, more than 80% of findings are not being released in a timely manner more than 10 years after this was made mandatory.

There are a number of reasons to consider this to be a serious issue, according to Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. One of the authors of an accompanying editorial regarding this analysis, Dr. Mehra called underreporting “a public health matter because it is an impediment to medical discovery and poses plausible threats to patient safety.”

Among studies registered after 2007, publication rates were higher for trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (71%) relative to industry (49%) or the U.S. Veterans Affairs (45%).

Publication rates were also higher among interventional relative to observational trials (59% vs. 46%) and trials that enrolled more than 1,000 patients relative to those enrolling fewer than 150 (77% vs. 51%), although trial size was not a significant predictor of publication on multivariate analysis. Clinical endpoints, such as death or hospitalization, were also associated with a greater likelihood of publication relative to nonclinical endpoints.

Of the 251 trials terminated before completion, findings were published within 1 year in only 6%. Two years after completion, only 20% were published at all.

Results consistent with the primary hypothesis did not predict timely publication, but only 39% of the studies listed a primary hypothesis. Since 2017, this is another violation of the FDAAA, according to Dr. O’Connor.

The problem is not unique to heart failure trials, according to the authors who cited numerous studies showing low rates of timely publication in other therapeutic areas. Heart failure was selected for evaluation in this study mainly to keep the analysis feasible, although the authors contend this is an area with an urgent need for better treatments.

The problem needs to be fixed, according to Dr. Mehra. In his editorial, he called for rules to be “transitioned to regulations and action taken for underreporting.” Dr. O’Connor agreed.

“A combination of carrots and sticks might be needed to achieve sufficient result sharing,” Dr. O’Connor said. He suggested that stakeholders, such as investigators, sponsors, regulators, and journal editors, should collaborate to address the problem.

So far, the FDA has never levied a fine for lack of reporting or for failure to report in a timely manner. Routine imposition of large fines might not be viable, given the complex reasons that delay or inhibit publication of trial findings, but it would be a large source of revenue.

“According to the FDAAA TrialsTracker, a live tool that tracks FDAAA compliance and promotes trial transparency, the U.S. government could already have imposed more than $2.8 billion in fines for trials due after January 2018,” Dr. O’Connor reported.

The first and senior authors are among those who report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Psotka MA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3151-61.

With the COVID-19 pandemic winding down in some parts of the United States, attention has turned to figuring out how to safely reboot elective cardiovascular (CV) services, which, for the most part, shut down in order to combat the virus and flatten the curve.

To aid in this effort, top cardiology societies have published a series of guidance documents. One, entitled Multimodality Cardiovascular Imaging in the Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ramping Up Safely to a New Normal, was initiated by the editors of JACC Cardiovascular Imaging and was developed in collaboration with the ACC Cardiovascular Imaging Council.

“As we enter a deceleration or indolent phase of the disease and a return to a ‘new normal’ for the foreseeable future, cardiovascular imaging laboratories will adjust to a different work flow and safety precautions for patients and staff alike,” write William Zoghbi, MD, of the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, and colleagues.
 

Minimize risk, maximize clinical benefit

The group outlined strategies and considerations on how to safely ramp up multimodality CV imaging laboratories in an environment of an abating but continuing pandemic.

The authors provide detailed advice on reestablishing echocardiography, transthoracic echocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, stress testing modalities, treadmill testing, nuclear cardiology, cardiac CT, and cardiac MRI.

The advice is designed to “minimize risk, reduce resource utilization and maximize clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. They address patient and societal health; safety of healthcare professionals; choice of CV testing; and scheduling considerations.

Dr. Zoghbi and colleagues said that integrated communication among patients, referring physicians, the imaging teams, and administrative staff are key to reestablishing a more normal clinical operation.

“Recognizing that practice patterns and policies vary depending on institution and locale, the recommendations are not meant to be restrictive but rather to serve as a general framework during the COVID-19 pandemic and its recovery phase,” the writing group said.

Ultimately, the goal is to offer the necessary CV tests and information for the clinical team to provide the best care for patients, they added.

“To be successful in this new safety-driven modus operandi, innovation, coordination and adaptation among clinicians, staff and patients is necessary till herd immunity or control of COVID-19 is achieved,” they concluded.
 

Rebooting electrophysiology services

Uncertainty as to how to resume electrophysiology (EP) services for arrhythmia patients prompted representatives from the Heart Rhythm Society, the American Heart Association, and the ACC to develop a series of “guiding suggestions and principles” to help safely reestablish electrophysiological care.

The 28-page document is published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology.

“Rebooting” EP services at many institutions may be more challenging than shutting down, wrote Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan., and colleagues.

Topics addressed by the writing group include the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication; prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

They suggest creating an EP COVID-19 “reboot team” made up of stakeholders involved in the EP care continuum pathway that would coordinate with institutional or hospital-level COVID-19 leadership.

The reboot team may include an electrophysiologist, an EP laboratory manager, an outpatient clinic manager, an EP nurse, advanced practice providers, a device technician, an anesthesiologist, and an imaging team to provide insights into various aspects of the work flow.

“This team can clarify, interpret, iterate and disseminate policies, and also provide the necessary operational support to plan and successfully execute the reboot process as the efforts to contain COVID-19 continue,” the writing group said.

A mandatory component of the reboot plan should be planning for a second wave of the virus.

“We will have to learn to create relatively COVID-19 safe zones within the hospitals to help isolate patients from second waves and yet be able to provide regular care for non–COVID-19 patients,” the writing group said.

“Our main goal as health care professionals, whether we serve in a clinical, teaching, research, or administrative role, is to do everything we can to create a safe environment for our patients so that they receive the excellent care they deserve,” they concluded.
 

Defining moment for remote arrhythmia monitoring

In a separate report, an international team of heart rhythm specialists from the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, the HRS, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the AHA, and the ACC discussed how the pandemic has fueled adoption of telehealth and remote patient management across medicine, including heart rhythm monitoring.

Their report was simultaneously published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, EP Europace, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the Journal of Arrhythmia, and Heart Rhythm.

The COVID-19 pandemic has “catalyzed the use of wearables and digital medical tools,” and this will likely define medicine going forward, first author Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

He noted that the technology has been available for some time, but the pandemic has forced people to use it. “Necessity is the mother of invention, and this has become necessary during the pandemic when we can’t see our patients,” said Dr. Varma.

He also noted that hospitals and physicians are now realizing that telehealth and remote arrhythmia monitoring “actually work, and regulatory agencies have moved very swiftly to dissolve traditional barriers and will now reimburse for it. So it’s a win-win.”

Dr. Varma and colleagues said that the time is right to “embed and grow remote services in everyday medical practice worldwide.” In their report, they offered a list of commonly used platforms for telehealth and examples of remote electrocardiogram and heart rate monitoring devices.

Development of the three reports had no commercial funding. Complete lists of disclosures for the writing groups are available in the original articles.

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

With the COVID-19 pandemic winding down in some parts of the United States, attention has turned to figuring out how to safely reboot elective cardiovascular (CV) services, which, for the most part, shut down in order to combat the virus and flatten the curve.

To aid in this effort, top cardiology societies have published a series of guidance documents. One, entitled Multimodality Cardiovascular Imaging in the Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ramping Up Safely to a New Normal, was initiated by the editors of JACC Cardiovascular Imaging and was developed in collaboration with the ACC Cardiovascular Imaging Council.

“As we enter a deceleration or indolent phase of the disease and a return to a ‘new normal’ for the foreseeable future, cardiovascular imaging laboratories will adjust to a different work flow and safety precautions for patients and staff alike,” write William Zoghbi, MD, of the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, and colleagues.
 

Minimize risk, maximize clinical benefit

The group outlined strategies and considerations on how to safely ramp up multimodality CV imaging laboratories in an environment of an abating but continuing pandemic.

The authors provide detailed advice on reestablishing echocardiography, transthoracic echocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, stress testing modalities, treadmill testing, nuclear cardiology, cardiac CT, and cardiac MRI.

The advice is designed to “minimize risk, reduce resource utilization and maximize clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. They address patient and societal health; safety of healthcare professionals; choice of CV testing; and scheduling considerations.

Dr. Zoghbi and colleagues said that integrated communication among patients, referring physicians, the imaging teams, and administrative staff are key to reestablishing a more normal clinical operation.

“Recognizing that practice patterns and policies vary depending on institution and locale, the recommendations are not meant to be restrictive but rather to serve as a general framework during the COVID-19 pandemic and its recovery phase,” the writing group said.

Ultimately, the goal is to offer the necessary CV tests and information for the clinical team to provide the best care for patients, they added.

“To be successful in this new safety-driven modus operandi, innovation, coordination and adaptation among clinicians, staff and patients is necessary till herd immunity or control of COVID-19 is achieved,” they concluded.
 

Rebooting electrophysiology services

Uncertainty as to how to resume electrophysiology (EP) services for arrhythmia patients prompted representatives from the Heart Rhythm Society, the American Heart Association, and the ACC to develop a series of “guiding suggestions and principles” to help safely reestablish electrophysiological care.

The 28-page document is published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology.

“Rebooting” EP services at many institutions may be more challenging than shutting down, wrote Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan., and colleagues.

Topics addressed by the writing group include the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication; prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

They suggest creating an EP COVID-19 “reboot team” made up of stakeholders involved in the EP care continuum pathway that would coordinate with institutional or hospital-level COVID-19 leadership.

The reboot team may include an electrophysiologist, an EP laboratory manager, an outpatient clinic manager, an EP nurse, advanced practice providers, a device technician, an anesthesiologist, and an imaging team to provide insights into various aspects of the work flow.

“This team can clarify, interpret, iterate and disseminate policies, and also provide the necessary operational support to plan and successfully execute the reboot process as the efforts to contain COVID-19 continue,” the writing group said.

A mandatory component of the reboot plan should be planning for a second wave of the virus.

“We will have to learn to create relatively COVID-19 safe zones within the hospitals to help isolate patients from second waves and yet be able to provide regular care for non–COVID-19 patients,” the writing group said.

“Our main goal as health care professionals, whether we serve in a clinical, teaching, research, or administrative role, is to do everything we can to create a safe environment for our patients so that they receive the excellent care they deserve,” they concluded.
 

Defining moment for remote arrhythmia monitoring

In a separate report, an international team of heart rhythm specialists from the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, the HRS, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the AHA, and the ACC discussed how the pandemic has fueled adoption of telehealth and remote patient management across medicine, including heart rhythm monitoring.

Their report was simultaneously published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, EP Europace, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the Journal of Arrhythmia, and Heart Rhythm.

The COVID-19 pandemic has “catalyzed the use of wearables and digital medical tools,” and this will likely define medicine going forward, first author Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

He noted that the technology has been available for some time, but the pandemic has forced people to use it. “Necessity is the mother of invention, and this has become necessary during the pandemic when we can’t see our patients,” said Dr. Varma.

He also noted that hospitals and physicians are now realizing that telehealth and remote arrhythmia monitoring “actually work, and regulatory agencies have moved very swiftly to dissolve traditional barriers and will now reimburse for it. So it’s a win-win.”

Dr. Varma and colleagues said that the time is right to “embed and grow remote services in everyday medical practice worldwide.” In their report, they offered a list of commonly used platforms for telehealth and examples of remote electrocardiogram and heart rate monitoring devices.

Development of the three reports had no commercial funding. Complete lists of disclosures for the writing groups are available in the original articles.

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

With the COVID-19 pandemic winding down in some parts of the United States, attention has turned to figuring out how to safely reboot elective cardiovascular (CV) services, which, for the most part, shut down in order to combat the virus and flatten the curve.

To aid in this effort, top cardiology societies have published a series of guidance documents. One, entitled Multimodality Cardiovascular Imaging in the Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ramping Up Safely to a New Normal, was initiated by the editors of JACC Cardiovascular Imaging and was developed in collaboration with the ACC Cardiovascular Imaging Council.

“As we enter a deceleration or indolent phase of the disease and a return to a ‘new normal’ for the foreseeable future, cardiovascular imaging laboratories will adjust to a different work flow and safety precautions for patients and staff alike,” write William Zoghbi, MD, of the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, and colleagues.
 

Minimize risk, maximize clinical benefit

The group outlined strategies and considerations on how to safely ramp up multimodality CV imaging laboratories in an environment of an abating but continuing pandemic.

The authors provide detailed advice on reestablishing echocardiography, transthoracic echocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, stress testing modalities, treadmill testing, nuclear cardiology, cardiac CT, and cardiac MRI.

The advice is designed to “minimize risk, reduce resource utilization and maximize clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. They address patient and societal health; safety of healthcare professionals; choice of CV testing; and scheduling considerations.

Dr. Zoghbi and colleagues said that integrated communication among patients, referring physicians, the imaging teams, and administrative staff are key to reestablishing a more normal clinical operation.

“Recognizing that practice patterns and policies vary depending on institution and locale, the recommendations are not meant to be restrictive but rather to serve as a general framework during the COVID-19 pandemic and its recovery phase,” the writing group said.

Ultimately, the goal is to offer the necessary CV tests and information for the clinical team to provide the best care for patients, they added.

“To be successful in this new safety-driven modus operandi, innovation, coordination and adaptation among clinicians, staff and patients is necessary till herd immunity or control of COVID-19 is achieved,” they concluded.
 

Rebooting electrophysiology services

Uncertainty as to how to resume electrophysiology (EP) services for arrhythmia patients prompted representatives from the Heart Rhythm Society, the American Heart Association, and the ACC to develop a series of “guiding suggestions and principles” to help safely reestablish electrophysiological care.

The 28-page document is published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology.

“Rebooting” EP services at many institutions may be more challenging than shutting down, wrote Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan., and colleagues.

Topics addressed by the writing group include the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication; prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

They suggest creating an EP COVID-19 “reboot team” made up of stakeholders involved in the EP care continuum pathway that would coordinate with institutional or hospital-level COVID-19 leadership.

The reboot team may include an electrophysiologist, an EP laboratory manager, an outpatient clinic manager, an EP nurse, advanced practice providers, a device technician, an anesthesiologist, and an imaging team to provide insights into various aspects of the work flow.

“This team can clarify, interpret, iterate and disseminate policies, and also provide the necessary operational support to plan and successfully execute the reboot process as the efforts to contain COVID-19 continue,” the writing group said.

A mandatory component of the reboot plan should be planning for a second wave of the virus.

“We will have to learn to create relatively COVID-19 safe zones within the hospitals to help isolate patients from second waves and yet be able to provide regular care for non–COVID-19 patients,” the writing group said.

“Our main goal as health care professionals, whether we serve in a clinical, teaching, research, or administrative role, is to do everything we can to create a safe environment for our patients so that they receive the excellent care they deserve,” they concluded.
 

Defining moment for remote arrhythmia monitoring

In a separate report, an international team of heart rhythm specialists from the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, the HRS, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the AHA, and the ACC discussed how the pandemic has fueled adoption of telehealth and remote patient management across medicine, including heart rhythm monitoring.

Their report was simultaneously published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, EP Europace, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the Journal of Arrhythmia, and Heart Rhythm.

The COVID-19 pandemic has “catalyzed the use of wearables and digital medical tools,” and this will likely define medicine going forward, first author Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

He noted that the technology has been available for some time, but the pandemic has forced people to use it. “Necessity is the mother of invention, and this has become necessary during the pandemic when we can’t see our patients,” said Dr. Varma.

He also noted that hospitals and physicians are now realizing that telehealth and remote arrhythmia monitoring “actually work, and regulatory agencies have moved very swiftly to dissolve traditional barriers and will now reimburse for it. So it’s a win-win.”

Dr. Varma and colleagues said that the time is right to “embed and grow remote services in everyday medical practice worldwide.” In their report, they offered a list of commonly used platforms for telehealth and examples of remote electrocardiogram and heart rate monitoring devices.

Development of the three reports had no commercial funding. Complete lists of disclosures for the writing groups are available in the original articles.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.

During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.

In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.

“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.

The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.

New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.

To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).

On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.

Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.

A more vulnerable group

Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).

Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.

“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.

Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.

“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O₂ saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
 

Unsung heroes

In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19. 

“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.

First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.

As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.

They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.

“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.

This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.

During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.

In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.

“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.

The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.

New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.

To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).

On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.

Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.

A more vulnerable group

Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).

Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.

“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.

Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.

“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O₂ saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
 

Unsung heroes

In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19. 

“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.

First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.

As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.

They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.

“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.

This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.

During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.

In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.

“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.

The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.

New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.

To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).

On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.

Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.

A more vulnerable group

Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).

Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.

“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.

Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.

“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O₂ saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
 

Unsung heroes

In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19. 

“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.

First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.

As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.

They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.

“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.

This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The DAPA-HF trial has already changed cardiology in opening up a new class of drugs to patients with heart failure (HF), whether or not they have diabetes. Now the trial is yielding clues as to how it benefits them. For now, it’s doing so by process of elimination.

A new analysis suggests that dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) didn’t need help from loop diuretics to cut the risk for clinical events in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a benefit seen across the spectrum of glycosylated hemoglobin levels and without compromising renal function, said DAPA-HF investigators. Also, use of dapagliflozin and its clinical effects were not associated with changes in loop diuretic dosage. Those findings and others suggest the drug helps in HFrEF at least partly by some other mechanism than its own diuretic effect, the researchers say.

Such insights will likely be important to case-by-case decisions on whether to use the drug, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor once reserved for patients with diabetes, given the recently broader landscape of HF treatment options.

As previously reported from DAPA-HF, with more than 4,700 patients, those who received dapagliflozin showed significant reductions in the primary end point, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and urgent HF visit requiring IV therapy over about 18 months. The 45% of patients with and 55% without type 2 diabetes enjoyed about equal benefit in the placebo-controlled trial for that end point, as well as for all-cause mortality.

SGLT2 inhibitors work in diabetes by promoting urinary glucose excretion. That had led some to speculate that its benefit in HFrEF comes primarily from a diuretic effect; the current findings largely put that question to rest.

“Our findings show that treatment with dapagliflozin was effective regardless of diuretic use or diuretic dose. They also show that dapagliflozin did not lead to an increase in renal adverse events or discontinuation of therapy in patients treated with a diuretic,” trialist Alice M. Jackson, MB, ChB, said in an interview.

“In fact, renal adverse events were generally less common in patients treated with dapagliflozin, across the diuretic categories,” said Dr. Jackson, from the University of Glasgow.

Dr. Jackson presented the new analysis at a Late-Breaking Science Session during the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting. The HFA sessions were conducted virtually this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

At baseline, 84% of patients were on conventional diuretics. The post hoc analysis broke out all patients by loop-diuretic dosage level: none; less than 40 mg furosemide equivalents (FE); 40 mg FE; or more than 40 mg FE. Clinical outcomes were similar across the four groups.

Clinicians in the trial “were not given specific advice about adjusting diuretic doses, but were encouraged to assess volume status and make changes to medical therapy based on this, if necessary,” Dr. Jackson said. “This suggests that, for most patients, starting dapagliflozin will not necessitate a change in diuretic dose.”

With the caveat that the event rate was low in the relatively few patients not prescribed loop diuretics, she said, “the magnitude of the benefit from dapagliflozin appeared to be larger in patients not treated with a diuretic.”

There was no suggestion of a diuretic dose–response effect or statistical interaction between diuretic use and clinical outcomes on dapagliflozin, Dr. Jackson observed in the interview.

Of note in the analysis, hematocrit levels shot up soon after patients started active therapy, but they didn’t rise much in the placebo group. The sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin, seen at all diuretic dosage levels, persisted even after dosage reductions at 6 months, she said.

“Dapagliflozin is effective in HFrEF irrespective of background diuretic therapy; therefore, it is almost certainly not purely acting as a diuretic,” Andrew J. Coats, MD, DSc, MBA, said in an interview.

The findings also “lessen the concern that dapagliflozin’s beneficial effects are only seen only in patients without effective diuretic dosing,” said Dr. Coats, from University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

“Altogether, these data give further reassurance that dapagliflozin can safely be used in heart failure, and has a beneficial effect independent of the use of diuretic drugs,” invited discussant Wolfram Doehner, MD, PhD, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said after Dr. Jackson’s presentation of the analysis.

He made special mention of the sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin. “While this effect may likely relate to the mild reduction in plasma volume secondary to dapagliflozin therapy, it is noted that the increase in hematocrit was independent of any change of the diuretic dose,” Doehner said. “If additional mechanisms have a role for this observed increase in hematocrit, it may be of interest in further investigations.”

Dr. Jackson pointed to several observations that suggest the hematocrit finding isn’t explained by hemoconcentration from reduced plasma volume, at least not entirely.

For example, hematocrit levels rose “without any suggestion of a relationship between diuretic dose and degree of hematocrit elevation with dapagliflozin,” she said.

The elevations persisted even with diuretic dose reductions at 6 and 12 months, “which should have led to a decrease in hemoconcentration if it was caused by volume contraction.”

Also, she said, “among patients not taking a diuretic, volume depletion occurred less frequently in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group, but there was still a similar rise in hematocrit with dapagliflozin.”

Both Dr. Jackson and Dr. Coats said the sustained elevation in hematocrit on the drug is unlikely to pose a major hazard.

Dr. Coats said that, theoretically, “increased hematocrit could reduce peripheral vessel blood flow, making ischemia and thrombosis more likely. But the size of the effect is small and unlikely to be clinically important.”

A diuretic dose could not be determined for 128 of the trial’s 4,744 randomized patients with HFrEF, so the post hoc analysis was limited to the remaining 4,616. Of those, 746 were not on diuretics at baseline, 1,311 were on loop diuretics at less than 40 mg FE or on non-loop diuretics only, 1,365 were taking 40 mg FE, and 1,204 were on higher doses of loop diuretics.

The mean baseline dosage was 60 mg FE, which rose slightly throughout the trial. But the baseline dosage and the increases were both similar in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups. Dr. Jackson said 84% and 83% of patients on dapagliflozin and placebo, respectively, maintained their baseline dose at 6 months and about 77% in both groups at 12 months.

The overall trial’s significant primary endpoint reduction for dapagliflozin versus placebo applied similarly to patients not on a diuretics and to those on any dose of diuretic, with an interaction P value of .23 for the effect of diuretic use. The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.36-0.92) for patients not on diuretics, 0.78 (0.68-0.90) for patients on any diuretic dosage, and 0.74 (0.65-0.85) overall

Dr. Jackson said during her formal online presentation that patients on diuretics showed a “tendency toward slightly more volume depletion in those on dapagliflozin than in those on placebo, but the excess was small and not greater than approximately 3% in those taking 40 mg furosemide equivalent diuretic. And fortunately, this did not result in an increase in frequency in renal adverse events nor of discontinuation of study drug.”

Medscape.com

Dr. Jackson has no disclosures. Dr. Coats has disclosed receiving personal fees from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Faraday, WL Gore, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Respicardia, Servier, Stealth Peptides, Verona, and Vifor. Dr. Doener has recently disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from Vifor, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sphingotec, ZS Pharma, Bayer, and Medtronic.

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

The DAPA-HF trial has already changed cardiology in opening up a new class of drugs to patients with heart failure (HF), whether or not they have diabetes. Now the trial is yielding clues as to how it benefits them. For now, it’s doing so by process of elimination.

A new analysis suggests that dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) didn’t need help from loop diuretics to cut the risk for clinical events in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a benefit seen across the spectrum of glycosylated hemoglobin levels and without compromising renal function, said DAPA-HF investigators. Also, use of dapagliflozin and its clinical effects were not associated with changes in loop diuretic dosage. Those findings and others suggest the drug helps in HFrEF at least partly by some other mechanism than its own diuretic effect, the researchers say.

Such insights will likely be important to case-by-case decisions on whether to use the drug, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor once reserved for patients with diabetes, given the recently broader landscape of HF treatment options.

As previously reported from DAPA-HF, with more than 4,700 patients, those who received dapagliflozin showed significant reductions in the primary end point, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and urgent HF visit requiring IV therapy over about 18 months. The 45% of patients with and 55% without type 2 diabetes enjoyed about equal benefit in the placebo-controlled trial for that end point, as well as for all-cause mortality.

SGLT2 inhibitors work in diabetes by promoting urinary glucose excretion. That had led some to speculate that its benefit in HFrEF comes primarily from a diuretic effect; the current findings largely put that question to rest.

“Our findings show that treatment with dapagliflozin was effective regardless of diuretic use or diuretic dose. They also show that dapagliflozin did not lead to an increase in renal adverse events or discontinuation of therapy in patients treated with a diuretic,” trialist Alice M. Jackson, MB, ChB, said in an interview.

“In fact, renal adverse events were generally less common in patients treated with dapagliflozin, across the diuretic categories,” said Dr. Jackson, from the University of Glasgow.

Dr. Jackson presented the new analysis at a Late-Breaking Science Session during the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting. The HFA sessions were conducted virtually this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

At baseline, 84% of patients were on conventional diuretics. The post hoc analysis broke out all patients by loop-diuretic dosage level: none; less than 40 mg furosemide equivalents (FE); 40 mg FE; or more than 40 mg FE. Clinical outcomes were similar across the four groups.

Clinicians in the trial “were not given specific advice about adjusting diuretic doses, but were encouraged to assess volume status and make changes to medical therapy based on this, if necessary,” Dr. Jackson said. “This suggests that, for most patients, starting dapagliflozin will not necessitate a change in diuretic dose.”

With the caveat that the event rate was low in the relatively few patients not prescribed loop diuretics, she said, “the magnitude of the benefit from dapagliflozin appeared to be larger in patients not treated with a diuretic.”

There was no suggestion of a diuretic dose–response effect or statistical interaction between diuretic use and clinical outcomes on dapagliflozin, Dr. Jackson observed in the interview.

Of note in the analysis, hematocrit levels shot up soon after patients started active therapy, but they didn’t rise much in the placebo group. The sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin, seen at all diuretic dosage levels, persisted even after dosage reductions at 6 months, she said.

“Dapagliflozin is effective in HFrEF irrespective of background diuretic therapy; therefore, it is almost certainly not purely acting as a diuretic,” Andrew J. Coats, MD, DSc, MBA, said in an interview.

The findings also “lessen the concern that dapagliflozin’s beneficial effects are only seen only in patients without effective diuretic dosing,” said Dr. Coats, from University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

“Altogether, these data give further reassurance that dapagliflozin can safely be used in heart failure, and has a beneficial effect independent of the use of diuretic drugs,” invited discussant Wolfram Doehner, MD, PhD, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said after Dr. Jackson’s presentation of the analysis.

He made special mention of the sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin. “While this effect may likely relate to the mild reduction in plasma volume secondary to dapagliflozin therapy, it is noted that the increase in hematocrit was independent of any change of the diuretic dose,” Doehner said. “If additional mechanisms have a role for this observed increase in hematocrit, it may be of interest in further investigations.”

Dr. Jackson pointed to several observations that suggest the hematocrit finding isn’t explained by hemoconcentration from reduced plasma volume, at least not entirely.

For example, hematocrit levels rose “without any suggestion of a relationship between diuretic dose and degree of hematocrit elevation with dapagliflozin,” she said.

The elevations persisted even with diuretic dose reductions at 6 and 12 months, “which should have led to a decrease in hemoconcentration if it was caused by volume contraction.”

Also, she said, “among patients not taking a diuretic, volume depletion occurred less frequently in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group, but there was still a similar rise in hematocrit with dapagliflozin.”

Both Dr. Jackson and Dr. Coats said the sustained elevation in hematocrit on the drug is unlikely to pose a major hazard.

Dr. Coats said that, theoretically, “increased hematocrit could reduce peripheral vessel blood flow, making ischemia and thrombosis more likely. But the size of the effect is small and unlikely to be clinically important.”

A diuretic dose could not be determined for 128 of the trial’s 4,744 randomized patients with HFrEF, so the post hoc analysis was limited to the remaining 4,616. Of those, 746 were not on diuretics at baseline, 1,311 were on loop diuretics at less than 40 mg FE or on non-loop diuretics only, 1,365 were taking 40 mg FE, and 1,204 were on higher doses of loop diuretics.

The mean baseline dosage was 60 mg FE, which rose slightly throughout the trial. But the baseline dosage and the increases were both similar in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups. Dr. Jackson said 84% and 83% of patients on dapagliflozin and placebo, respectively, maintained their baseline dose at 6 months and about 77% in both groups at 12 months.

The overall trial’s significant primary endpoint reduction for dapagliflozin versus placebo applied similarly to patients not on a diuretics and to those on any dose of diuretic, with an interaction P value of .23 for the effect of diuretic use. The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.36-0.92) for patients not on diuretics, 0.78 (0.68-0.90) for patients on any diuretic dosage, and 0.74 (0.65-0.85) overall

Dr. Jackson said during her formal online presentation that patients on diuretics showed a “tendency toward slightly more volume depletion in those on dapagliflozin than in those on placebo, but the excess was small and not greater than approximately 3% in those taking 40 mg furosemide equivalent diuretic. And fortunately, this did not result in an increase in frequency in renal adverse events nor of discontinuation of study drug.”

Medscape.com

Dr. Jackson has no disclosures. Dr. Coats has disclosed receiving personal fees from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Faraday, WL Gore, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Respicardia, Servier, Stealth Peptides, Verona, and Vifor. Dr. Doener has recently disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from Vifor, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sphingotec, ZS Pharma, Bayer, and Medtronic.

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

The DAPA-HF trial has already changed cardiology in opening up a new class of drugs to patients with heart failure (HF), whether or not they have diabetes. Now the trial is yielding clues as to how it benefits them. For now, it’s doing so by process of elimination.

A new analysis suggests that dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) didn’t need help from loop diuretics to cut the risk for clinical events in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a benefit seen across the spectrum of glycosylated hemoglobin levels and without compromising renal function, said DAPA-HF investigators. Also, use of dapagliflozin and its clinical effects were not associated with changes in loop diuretic dosage. Those findings and others suggest the drug helps in HFrEF at least partly by some other mechanism than its own diuretic effect, the researchers say.

Such insights will likely be important to case-by-case decisions on whether to use the drug, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor once reserved for patients with diabetes, given the recently broader landscape of HF treatment options.

As previously reported from DAPA-HF, with more than 4,700 patients, those who received dapagliflozin showed significant reductions in the primary end point, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and urgent HF visit requiring IV therapy over about 18 months. The 45% of patients with and 55% without type 2 diabetes enjoyed about equal benefit in the placebo-controlled trial for that end point, as well as for all-cause mortality.

SGLT2 inhibitors work in diabetes by promoting urinary glucose excretion. That had led some to speculate that its benefit in HFrEF comes primarily from a diuretic effect; the current findings largely put that question to rest.

“Our findings show that treatment with dapagliflozin was effective regardless of diuretic use or diuretic dose. They also show that dapagliflozin did not lead to an increase in renal adverse events or discontinuation of therapy in patients treated with a diuretic,” trialist Alice M. Jackson, MB, ChB, said in an interview.

“In fact, renal adverse events were generally less common in patients treated with dapagliflozin, across the diuretic categories,” said Dr. Jackson, from the University of Glasgow.

Dr. Jackson presented the new analysis at a Late-Breaking Science Session during the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting. The HFA sessions were conducted virtually this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

At baseline, 84% of patients were on conventional diuretics. The post hoc analysis broke out all patients by loop-diuretic dosage level: none; less than 40 mg furosemide equivalents (FE); 40 mg FE; or more than 40 mg FE. Clinical outcomes were similar across the four groups.

Clinicians in the trial “were not given specific advice about adjusting diuretic doses, but were encouraged to assess volume status and make changes to medical therapy based on this, if necessary,” Dr. Jackson said. “This suggests that, for most patients, starting dapagliflozin will not necessitate a change in diuretic dose.”

With the caveat that the event rate was low in the relatively few patients not prescribed loop diuretics, she said, “the magnitude of the benefit from dapagliflozin appeared to be larger in patients not treated with a diuretic.”

There was no suggestion of a diuretic dose–response effect or statistical interaction between diuretic use and clinical outcomes on dapagliflozin, Dr. Jackson observed in the interview.

Of note in the analysis, hematocrit levels shot up soon after patients started active therapy, but they didn’t rise much in the placebo group. The sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin, seen at all diuretic dosage levels, persisted even after dosage reductions at 6 months, she said.

“Dapagliflozin is effective in HFrEF irrespective of background diuretic therapy; therefore, it is almost certainly not purely acting as a diuretic,” Andrew J. Coats, MD, DSc, MBA, said in an interview.

The findings also “lessen the concern that dapagliflozin’s beneficial effects are only seen only in patients without effective diuretic dosing,” said Dr. Coats, from University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

“Altogether, these data give further reassurance that dapagliflozin can safely be used in heart failure, and has a beneficial effect independent of the use of diuretic drugs,” invited discussant Wolfram Doehner, MD, PhD, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said after Dr. Jackson’s presentation of the analysis.

He made special mention of the sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin. “While this effect may likely relate to the mild reduction in plasma volume secondary to dapagliflozin therapy, it is noted that the increase in hematocrit was independent of any change of the diuretic dose,” Doehner said. “If additional mechanisms have a role for this observed increase in hematocrit, it may be of interest in further investigations.”

Dr. Jackson pointed to several observations that suggest the hematocrit finding isn’t explained by hemoconcentration from reduced plasma volume, at least not entirely.

For example, hematocrit levels rose “without any suggestion of a relationship between diuretic dose and degree of hematocrit elevation with dapagliflozin,” she said.

The elevations persisted even with diuretic dose reductions at 6 and 12 months, “which should have led to a decrease in hemoconcentration if it was caused by volume contraction.”

Also, she said, “among patients not taking a diuretic, volume depletion occurred less frequently in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group, but there was still a similar rise in hematocrit with dapagliflozin.”

Both Dr. Jackson and Dr. Coats said the sustained elevation in hematocrit on the drug is unlikely to pose a major hazard.

Dr. Coats said that, theoretically, “increased hematocrit could reduce peripheral vessel blood flow, making ischemia and thrombosis more likely. But the size of the effect is small and unlikely to be clinically important.”

A diuretic dose could not be determined for 128 of the trial’s 4,744 randomized patients with HFrEF, so the post hoc analysis was limited to the remaining 4,616. Of those, 746 were not on diuretics at baseline, 1,311 were on loop diuretics at less than 40 mg FE or on non-loop diuretics only, 1,365 were taking 40 mg FE, and 1,204 were on higher doses of loop diuretics.

The mean baseline dosage was 60 mg FE, which rose slightly throughout the trial. But the baseline dosage and the increases were both similar in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups. Dr. Jackson said 84% and 83% of patients on dapagliflozin and placebo, respectively, maintained their baseline dose at 6 months and about 77% in both groups at 12 months.

The overall trial’s significant primary endpoint reduction for dapagliflozin versus placebo applied similarly to patients not on a diuretics and to those on any dose of diuretic, with an interaction P value of .23 for the effect of diuretic use. The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.36-0.92) for patients not on diuretics, 0.78 (0.68-0.90) for patients on any diuretic dosage, and 0.74 (0.65-0.85) overall

Dr. Jackson said during her formal online presentation that patients on diuretics showed a “tendency toward slightly more volume depletion in those on dapagliflozin than in those on placebo, but the excess was small and not greater than approximately 3% in those taking 40 mg furosemide equivalent diuretic. And fortunately, this did not result in an increase in frequency in renal adverse events nor of discontinuation of study drug.”

Medscape.com

Dr. Jackson has no disclosures. Dr. Coats has disclosed receiving personal fees from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Faraday, WL Gore, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Respicardia, Servier, Stealth Peptides, Verona, and Vifor. Dr. Doener has recently disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from Vifor, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sphingotec, ZS Pharma, Bayer, and Medtronic.

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