The Hospitalist

According to the best available evidence, analagosedation remains the focus for managing COVID-19 ICU patients, according to Steven B. Greenberg, MD, FCCP, FCCM.

“The choice of sedation and analgesia is important,” Dr. Greenberg, vice chair of education in the department of anesthesiology at Evanston Hospital, part of NorthShore University Health System, Chicago, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. “We know that the right choice of these two components may increase liberation from ventilators, earlier ICU discharge, and return to normal brain function and independent functional status.”
 

Analgesia first

Prior to the current pandemic, the approach to sedation of patients in the ICU was based on the PADIS Guidelines of 2018, which call for an assessment-driven, protocol-based stepwise approach to pain and sedation management in critically ill adults (Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e825-73). “[A strategy for COVID-19 in the ICU] should focus on analagosedation defined as analgesia-first sedation rather than jumping to sedation first,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We know that pain management should be a priority of sedation, because pain may increase the risk of delirium, anxiety, and endocrine suppression, and may increase the risk of release of endogenous catecholamines, ischemia, and hypermetabolic states.”

Fentanyl appears to be the most common opioid analgesic used for patients in the ICU, “but fentanyl is a very lipophilic drug and has a long context-sensitive half-life,” he said. “There are components to fentanyl that allow it to become a very long-acting drug upon days and days of infusion. Another opioid used is remifentanil, which is typically short-acting because it is broken down in the blood by esterases, but may cause rigidity at higher doses. Dilaudid seems to be the least affected by organ dysfunction. In our very critically ill, prolonged mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, we’ve been using methadone for its NMDA [N-methyl-D-aspartate] antagonistic effect and its opioid-sparing effects.”

As for nonopioid analgesics, Dr. Greenberg said that clinicians have shied away from using NSAIDs because of their side effects. “Tramadol indirectly inhibits reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, and ketamine is being used a lot more because of its NMDA antagonist effect,” he said. “Lidocaine and gabapentin have also been used.”

In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers assessed 34 trials that examined adjuvant analgesic use with an opioid in critically ill patients versus an opioid alone (Crit Care Expl. 2020;2:e0157). They found that when using an adjuvant such as acetaminophen, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium, nefopam, NSAIDs, pregabalin, and tramadol, there was a reduction in pain scores as well as a reduction in opioid consumption. “So, clinicians should consider using adjuvant agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in the critically ill,” Dr. Greenberg said.
 

ICU delirium: Risk factors, prevention

Delirium in COVID-19 patients treated in the ICU of particular concern. According to a systematic review of 33 studies, 11 risk factors for delirium in the ICU were supported by strong or moderate levels of evidence (Crit Care Med. 2015;43:40-7). These include age, dementia, hypertension, emergency surgery, trauma, APACHE score of II, need for mechanical ventilation, metabolic acidosis, delirium on prior day, coma, and dexmedetomidine use. Risk factors for ICU delirium among COVID-19 patients, however, “are far different,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Why? First and foremost, we are restricting visitation of family,” he said. “That family connection largely can be lost. Second, there are limitations of nonpharmacologic interventions. There is less mobility and physical therapy employed because of the risk of health care workers’ exposure to the virus. There’s also uncertainty about the global pandemic. Anxiety and depression come with that, as well as disruptions to spiritual and religious services.”

Strategies for preventing delirium remain the same as before the pandemic and in accord with recent clinical practice guidelines: Reduce the use of certain drugs such as benzodiazepines and narcotics, reorient the patients, treat dehydration, use hearing aids and eyeglasses in patients who have them, use ear plugs to cancel noise, mobilize patients, maintain sleep/awake cycles, and encourage sedation holidays (Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825-73).

A recent study from France found that among 58 patients with COVID-19, 65% had positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)–ICU findings and 69% had agitation (N Engl J Med 2020;382:2268-70). Most of the patients (86%) received midazolam, 47% received propofol, and all received sufentanil. “In the pre-COVID days, we would use midazolam as a second-line agent for many of these patients,” Dr. Greenberg said. “So, times really have changed.”

The fate of COVID-19 patients following discharge from the ICU remains a concern, continued Dr. Greenberg, clinical professor of anesthesiology at the University of Chicago. A recent journal article by Michelle Biehl, MD, and Denise Sese, MD, noted that post–intensive care syndrome (PICS) or new or worsening impairment in any physical, cognitive, or mental domain is of significant concern among COVID-19 patients following their ICU stay (Cleveland Clin J Med 2020 Aug doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.ccc055). The authors stated that COVID-19 patients may face a higher risk of PICS because of restricted family visitation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, exposure to higher amounts of sedatives, and limited physical therapy during hospital stay.

No ideal sedative agent

The 2018 PADIS Guidelines on the use of ICU sedation suggested strong evidence for modifiable risk factors producing delirium in the context of benzodiazepines and blood transfusion. They recommend a light level of sedation and the use of propofol or dexmedetomidine over benzodiazepines. They also recommend routine delirium testing such as using the CAM-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and nonpharmacologic therapies such as reorientation, cognitive stimulation, sleep improvement, and mobilization.

Several sedation-related factors may be related to an increased risk of delirium. “The type, dose, duration, and mode of delivery are very important,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The ideal sedative agent has a rapid, predictable onset; is short-acting; has anxiolytic, amnestic, and analgesic properties; is soluble; has a high therapeutic index; and no toxicity. The ideal sedative is also easy to administrate, contains no active metabolites, has minimal actions with other drugs, is reversible, and is cost effective. The problem is, there really is no ideal sedative agent. There is inadequate knowledge about the drugs [used to treat COVID-19 in the ICU] available to us, the dosage, and importantly, the pharmacokinetics and dynamics of these medications.”

The classic types of sedation being used in the ICU, he said, include the benzodiazepines midazolam, lorazepam, and diazepam, as well as propofol. Alternatives include dexmedetomidine, clonidine, ketamine, and the neuroleptics – haloperidol, quetiapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone, and risperidone. “The advantages of benzos are that they are anxiolytics, amnestics, and they are good sedatives with minimal hemodynamic effects,” Dr. Greenberg said.

Advantages of propofol include its sedative, hypnotic, and anxiolytic properties, he said. It reduces the cerebral metabolic rate and can relieve bronchospasm. “However, small studies have found that its use may be associated with an increased risk of delirium,” he said. “It is a respiratory depressant, and it can cause hypotension and decreased contractility. It has no analgesic properties, and two of the big concerns of its use in COVID-19 are the potential for hypertriglyceridemia and propofol infusion syndrome, particularly at doses of greater than 5 mg/kg per hour for greater than 48 hours. It is being given in high doses because patients are requiring higher doses to maintain ventilator synchrony.”
 

Choosing the right drug

The keys to success for sedation of ICU patients are choosing the right drug at the right dose for the right duration and the right mode of delivery, and applying them to the right population. However, as noted in a recent study, the pandemic poses unique challenges to clinicians in how they care for critically ill COVID-19 patients who require sedation (Anesth Analg. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004887). The use of provisional work areas “has escalated because of the amount of patients we’ve had to care for over the past nine months,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We’ve used alternate providers who are not necessarily familiar with the sedation and analgesic protocols and how to use these specific medications. Drug shortages have been on the rise, so there’s a need to understand alternative agents that can be used.”

COVID-19 patients face the potential risk for an increase in drug-drug interactions and side effects due to the polypharmacy that is often required to provide adequate sedation during mechanical ventilation. He noted that these patients may have “unusually high” analgesia and sedation requirements, particularly when they’re mechanically ventilated. A hypothesis as to why patients with COVID-19 require so much sedation and analgesia is that they often have a high respiratory drive and ventilator dyssynchrony, which requires increased neuromuscular blockade. “They also have an intense inflammatory response, which may be linked to tolerance of specific opioids and other medications,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Many ventilated COVID-19 patients are of younger age and previously in good health, and therefore, have an excellent metabolism. Health care providers are concerned about self-extubation. This prompts bedside providers to administer more sedatives to prevent this unwanted complication. There may also be a reduction of drip modifications by health care workers because of the potential risk of contracting COVID-19 when going into the room multiple times and for long periods of time” (Anesth Analg. 2020;131[1]:e34-e35).

According to a sedation resource on the SCCM website, about 5% of COVID-19 patients require mechanical ventilation. “There has been a massive shortage of the usual drugs that we use,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The demand for sedatives has increased by approximately 91%, while the demand for analgesics has increased by 79%, and neuromuscular blocker demand has increased by 105%.”

A retrospective study of 24 COVID-19 patients who required ventilation in the ICU found that the median daily dose of benzodiazepines was significantly higher, compared with the median daily dose used in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 270 mg vs. 199 mg, respectively; Anesth Analg. 2020;131[4]e198-e200. doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000005131). In addition, their median daily dose of opioid was approximately three times higher, compared with patients in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 775 mg vs. 289 mg). Other agents used included propofol (84%), dexmedetomidine (53%), and ketamine (11%).

“A potential strategy for COVID-19 ICU patient sedation should be analgesia first, as indicated in the 2018 PADIS guidelines,” Dr. Greenberg advised. “We should also apply nonpharmacologic measures to reduce delirium. In nonintubated patients, we should use light to moderate sedation, targeting a RASS of –2 to +1, using hydromorphone or fentanyl boluses for analgesia and midazolam boluses or dexmedetomidine for sedation,.”

For intubated patients, he continued, target a RASS of –3 to –4, or –4 to –5 in those who require neuromuscular blockade. “Use propofol first then intermittent boluses of benzodiazepines,” said Dr. Greenberg, editor-in-chief of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation newsletter. “For heavy sedation, use midazolam and supplement with ketamine and other analgesics and sedatives such as barbiturates, methadone, and even inhalation anesthetics in some cases.”

For analgesia in intubated patients, use fentanyl boluses then infusion. “Patients can easily become tachyphylactic to fentanyl, and it has a long context-sensitive half time,” he said. “Hydromorphone may be least affected by organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Greenberg concluded his presentation by stating that more studies are required “to delineate the best analgesia/sedation strategies and monitoring modalities for COVID-19 ICU patients.”

In commenting on the presentation, Mangala Narasimhan, DO, FCCP, senior vice president and director of critical care services at Northwell Health, said that the recommendations regarding sedation highlight a struggle that ICU providers have been dealing with during the COVID-19 epidemic.

“There have been unique challenges with COVID-19 and intubated patients. We have seen severe ventilator dyssynchrony and prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation. I think we can all agree that these patients have extremely high metabolic rates, have required high levels of sedation, have an increased need for neuromuscular blockade, and have high levels of delirium for extended periods of time. The recommendations provided here are reasonable. Strategies to prevent delirium should be employed, pain management should be prioritized, analgesics can help reduce the need for opioids. Alternatives to sedation are useful in this patient population and are well tolerated. Drug shortages have provided additional challenges to these strategies and have required us to think about the use of alternative agents. The recommendations echo the experience we have had with large numbers of intubated COVID-19 patients.”

Dr. Greenberg disclosed that he receives a stipend from the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation for serving as editor-in-chief of the foundation’s newsletter.

[email protected]

According to the best available evidence, analagosedation remains the focus for managing COVID-19 ICU patients, according to Steven B. Greenberg, MD, FCCP, FCCM.

“The choice of sedation and analgesia is important,” Dr. Greenberg, vice chair of education in the department of anesthesiology at Evanston Hospital, part of NorthShore University Health System, Chicago, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. “We know that the right choice of these two components may increase liberation from ventilators, earlier ICU discharge, and return to normal brain function and independent functional status.”
 

Analgesia first

Prior to the current pandemic, the approach to sedation of patients in the ICU was based on the PADIS Guidelines of 2018, which call for an assessment-driven, protocol-based stepwise approach to pain and sedation management in critically ill adults (Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e825-73). “[A strategy for COVID-19 in the ICU] should focus on analagosedation defined as analgesia-first sedation rather than jumping to sedation first,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We know that pain management should be a priority of sedation, because pain may increase the risk of delirium, anxiety, and endocrine suppression, and may increase the risk of release of endogenous catecholamines, ischemia, and hypermetabolic states.”

Fentanyl appears to be the most common opioid analgesic used for patients in the ICU, “but fentanyl is a very lipophilic drug and has a long context-sensitive half-life,” he said. “There are components to fentanyl that allow it to become a very long-acting drug upon days and days of infusion. Another opioid used is remifentanil, which is typically short-acting because it is broken down in the blood by esterases, but may cause rigidity at higher doses. Dilaudid seems to be the least affected by organ dysfunction. In our very critically ill, prolonged mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, we’ve been using methadone for its NMDA [N-methyl-D-aspartate] antagonistic effect and its opioid-sparing effects.”

As for nonopioid analgesics, Dr. Greenberg said that clinicians have shied away from using NSAIDs because of their side effects. “Tramadol indirectly inhibits reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, and ketamine is being used a lot more because of its NMDA antagonist effect,” he said. “Lidocaine and gabapentin have also been used.”

In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers assessed 34 trials that examined adjuvant analgesic use with an opioid in critically ill patients versus an opioid alone (Crit Care Expl. 2020;2:e0157). They found that when using an adjuvant such as acetaminophen, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium, nefopam, NSAIDs, pregabalin, and tramadol, there was a reduction in pain scores as well as a reduction in opioid consumption. “So, clinicians should consider using adjuvant agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in the critically ill,” Dr. Greenberg said.
 

ICU delirium: Risk factors, prevention

Delirium in COVID-19 patients treated in the ICU of particular concern. According to a systematic review of 33 studies, 11 risk factors for delirium in the ICU were supported by strong or moderate levels of evidence (Crit Care Med. 2015;43:40-7). These include age, dementia, hypertension, emergency surgery, trauma, APACHE score of II, need for mechanical ventilation, metabolic acidosis, delirium on prior day, coma, and dexmedetomidine use. Risk factors for ICU delirium among COVID-19 patients, however, “are far different,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Why? First and foremost, we are restricting visitation of family,” he said. “That family connection largely can be lost. Second, there are limitations of nonpharmacologic interventions. There is less mobility and physical therapy employed because of the risk of health care workers’ exposure to the virus. There’s also uncertainty about the global pandemic. Anxiety and depression come with that, as well as disruptions to spiritual and religious services.”

Strategies for preventing delirium remain the same as before the pandemic and in accord with recent clinical practice guidelines: Reduce the use of certain drugs such as benzodiazepines and narcotics, reorient the patients, treat dehydration, use hearing aids and eyeglasses in patients who have them, use ear plugs to cancel noise, mobilize patients, maintain sleep/awake cycles, and encourage sedation holidays (Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825-73).

A recent study from France found that among 58 patients with COVID-19, 65% had positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)–ICU findings and 69% had agitation (N Engl J Med 2020;382:2268-70). Most of the patients (86%) received midazolam, 47% received propofol, and all received sufentanil. “In the pre-COVID days, we would use midazolam as a second-line agent for many of these patients,” Dr. Greenberg said. “So, times really have changed.”

The fate of COVID-19 patients following discharge from the ICU remains a concern, continued Dr. Greenberg, clinical professor of anesthesiology at the University of Chicago. A recent journal article by Michelle Biehl, MD, and Denise Sese, MD, noted that post–intensive care syndrome (PICS) or new or worsening impairment in any physical, cognitive, or mental domain is of significant concern among COVID-19 patients following their ICU stay (Cleveland Clin J Med 2020 Aug doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.ccc055). The authors stated that COVID-19 patients may face a higher risk of PICS because of restricted family visitation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, exposure to higher amounts of sedatives, and limited physical therapy during hospital stay.

No ideal sedative agent

The 2018 PADIS Guidelines on the use of ICU sedation suggested strong evidence for modifiable risk factors producing delirium in the context of benzodiazepines and blood transfusion. They recommend a light level of sedation and the use of propofol or dexmedetomidine over benzodiazepines. They also recommend routine delirium testing such as using the CAM-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and nonpharmacologic therapies such as reorientation, cognitive stimulation, sleep improvement, and mobilization.

Several sedation-related factors may be related to an increased risk of delirium. “The type, dose, duration, and mode of delivery are very important,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The ideal sedative agent has a rapid, predictable onset; is short-acting; has anxiolytic, amnestic, and analgesic properties; is soluble; has a high therapeutic index; and no toxicity. The ideal sedative is also easy to administrate, contains no active metabolites, has minimal actions with other drugs, is reversible, and is cost effective. The problem is, there really is no ideal sedative agent. There is inadequate knowledge about the drugs [used to treat COVID-19 in the ICU] available to us, the dosage, and importantly, the pharmacokinetics and dynamics of these medications.”

The classic types of sedation being used in the ICU, he said, include the benzodiazepines midazolam, lorazepam, and diazepam, as well as propofol. Alternatives include dexmedetomidine, clonidine, ketamine, and the neuroleptics – haloperidol, quetiapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone, and risperidone. “The advantages of benzos are that they are anxiolytics, amnestics, and they are good sedatives with minimal hemodynamic effects,” Dr. Greenberg said.

Advantages of propofol include its sedative, hypnotic, and anxiolytic properties, he said. It reduces the cerebral metabolic rate and can relieve bronchospasm. “However, small studies have found that its use may be associated with an increased risk of delirium,” he said. “It is a respiratory depressant, and it can cause hypotension and decreased contractility. It has no analgesic properties, and two of the big concerns of its use in COVID-19 are the potential for hypertriglyceridemia and propofol infusion syndrome, particularly at doses of greater than 5 mg/kg per hour for greater than 48 hours. It is being given in high doses because patients are requiring higher doses to maintain ventilator synchrony.”
 

Choosing the right drug

The keys to success for sedation of ICU patients are choosing the right drug at the right dose for the right duration and the right mode of delivery, and applying them to the right population. However, as noted in a recent study, the pandemic poses unique challenges to clinicians in how they care for critically ill COVID-19 patients who require sedation (Anesth Analg. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004887). The use of provisional work areas “has escalated because of the amount of patients we’ve had to care for over the past nine months,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We’ve used alternate providers who are not necessarily familiar with the sedation and analgesic protocols and how to use these specific medications. Drug shortages have been on the rise, so there’s a need to understand alternative agents that can be used.”

COVID-19 patients face the potential risk for an increase in drug-drug interactions and side effects due to the polypharmacy that is often required to provide adequate sedation during mechanical ventilation. He noted that these patients may have “unusually high” analgesia and sedation requirements, particularly when they’re mechanically ventilated. A hypothesis as to why patients with COVID-19 require so much sedation and analgesia is that they often have a high respiratory drive and ventilator dyssynchrony, which requires increased neuromuscular blockade. “They also have an intense inflammatory response, which may be linked to tolerance of specific opioids and other medications,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Many ventilated COVID-19 patients are of younger age and previously in good health, and therefore, have an excellent metabolism. Health care providers are concerned about self-extubation. This prompts bedside providers to administer more sedatives to prevent this unwanted complication. There may also be a reduction of drip modifications by health care workers because of the potential risk of contracting COVID-19 when going into the room multiple times and for long periods of time” (Anesth Analg. 2020;131[1]:e34-e35).

According to a sedation resource on the SCCM website, about 5% of COVID-19 patients require mechanical ventilation. “There has been a massive shortage of the usual drugs that we use,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The demand for sedatives has increased by approximately 91%, while the demand for analgesics has increased by 79%, and neuromuscular blocker demand has increased by 105%.”

A retrospective study of 24 COVID-19 patients who required ventilation in the ICU found that the median daily dose of benzodiazepines was significantly higher, compared with the median daily dose used in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 270 mg vs. 199 mg, respectively; Anesth Analg. 2020;131[4]e198-e200. doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000005131). In addition, their median daily dose of opioid was approximately three times higher, compared with patients in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 775 mg vs. 289 mg). Other agents used included propofol (84%), dexmedetomidine (53%), and ketamine (11%).

“A potential strategy for COVID-19 ICU patient sedation should be analgesia first, as indicated in the 2018 PADIS guidelines,” Dr. Greenberg advised. “We should also apply nonpharmacologic measures to reduce delirium. In nonintubated patients, we should use light to moderate sedation, targeting a RASS of –2 to +1, using hydromorphone or fentanyl boluses for analgesia and midazolam boluses or dexmedetomidine for sedation,.”

For intubated patients, he continued, target a RASS of –3 to –4, or –4 to –5 in those who require neuromuscular blockade. “Use propofol first then intermittent boluses of benzodiazepines,” said Dr. Greenberg, editor-in-chief of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation newsletter. “For heavy sedation, use midazolam and supplement with ketamine and other analgesics and sedatives such as barbiturates, methadone, and even inhalation anesthetics in some cases.”

For analgesia in intubated patients, use fentanyl boluses then infusion. “Patients can easily become tachyphylactic to fentanyl, and it has a long context-sensitive half time,” he said. “Hydromorphone may be least affected by organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Greenberg concluded his presentation by stating that more studies are required “to delineate the best analgesia/sedation strategies and monitoring modalities for COVID-19 ICU patients.”

In commenting on the presentation, Mangala Narasimhan, DO, FCCP, senior vice president and director of critical care services at Northwell Health, said that the recommendations regarding sedation highlight a struggle that ICU providers have been dealing with during the COVID-19 epidemic.

“There have been unique challenges with COVID-19 and intubated patients. We have seen severe ventilator dyssynchrony and prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation. I think we can all agree that these patients have extremely high metabolic rates, have required high levels of sedation, have an increased need for neuromuscular blockade, and have high levels of delirium for extended periods of time. The recommendations provided here are reasonable. Strategies to prevent delirium should be employed, pain management should be prioritized, analgesics can help reduce the need for opioids. Alternatives to sedation are useful in this patient population and are well tolerated. Drug shortages have provided additional challenges to these strategies and have required us to think about the use of alternative agents. The recommendations echo the experience we have had with large numbers of intubated COVID-19 patients.”

Dr. Greenberg disclosed that he receives a stipend from the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation for serving as editor-in-chief of the foundation’s newsletter.

[email protected]

According to the best available evidence, analagosedation remains the focus for managing COVID-19 ICU patients, according to Steven B. Greenberg, MD, FCCP, FCCM.

“The choice of sedation and analgesia is important,” Dr. Greenberg, vice chair of education in the department of anesthesiology at Evanston Hospital, part of NorthShore University Health System, Chicago, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. “We know that the right choice of these two components may increase liberation from ventilators, earlier ICU discharge, and return to normal brain function and independent functional status.”
 

Analgesia first

Prior to the current pandemic, the approach to sedation of patients in the ICU was based on the PADIS Guidelines of 2018, which call for an assessment-driven, protocol-based stepwise approach to pain and sedation management in critically ill adults (Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e825-73). “[A strategy for COVID-19 in the ICU] should focus on analagosedation defined as analgesia-first sedation rather than jumping to sedation first,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We know that pain management should be a priority of sedation, because pain may increase the risk of delirium, anxiety, and endocrine suppression, and may increase the risk of release of endogenous catecholamines, ischemia, and hypermetabolic states.”

Fentanyl appears to be the most common opioid analgesic used for patients in the ICU, “but fentanyl is a very lipophilic drug and has a long context-sensitive half-life,” he said. “There are components to fentanyl that allow it to become a very long-acting drug upon days and days of infusion. Another opioid used is remifentanil, which is typically short-acting because it is broken down in the blood by esterases, but may cause rigidity at higher doses. Dilaudid seems to be the least affected by organ dysfunction. In our very critically ill, prolonged mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, we’ve been using methadone for its NMDA [N-methyl-D-aspartate] antagonistic effect and its opioid-sparing effects.”

As for nonopioid analgesics, Dr. Greenberg said that clinicians have shied away from using NSAIDs because of their side effects. “Tramadol indirectly inhibits reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, and ketamine is being used a lot more because of its NMDA antagonist effect,” he said. “Lidocaine and gabapentin have also been used.”

In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers assessed 34 trials that examined adjuvant analgesic use with an opioid in critically ill patients versus an opioid alone (Crit Care Expl. 2020;2:e0157). They found that when using an adjuvant such as acetaminophen, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium, nefopam, NSAIDs, pregabalin, and tramadol, there was a reduction in pain scores as well as a reduction in opioid consumption. “So, clinicians should consider using adjuvant agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in the critically ill,” Dr. Greenberg said.
 

ICU delirium: Risk factors, prevention

Delirium in COVID-19 patients treated in the ICU of particular concern. According to a systematic review of 33 studies, 11 risk factors for delirium in the ICU were supported by strong or moderate levels of evidence (Crit Care Med. 2015;43:40-7). These include age, dementia, hypertension, emergency surgery, trauma, APACHE score of II, need for mechanical ventilation, metabolic acidosis, delirium on prior day, coma, and dexmedetomidine use. Risk factors for ICU delirium among COVID-19 patients, however, “are far different,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Why? First and foremost, we are restricting visitation of family,” he said. “That family connection largely can be lost. Second, there are limitations of nonpharmacologic interventions. There is less mobility and physical therapy employed because of the risk of health care workers’ exposure to the virus. There’s also uncertainty about the global pandemic. Anxiety and depression come with that, as well as disruptions to spiritual and religious services.”

Strategies for preventing delirium remain the same as before the pandemic and in accord with recent clinical practice guidelines: Reduce the use of certain drugs such as benzodiazepines and narcotics, reorient the patients, treat dehydration, use hearing aids and eyeglasses in patients who have them, use ear plugs to cancel noise, mobilize patients, maintain sleep/awake cycles, and encourage sedation holidays (Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825-73).

A recent study from France found that among 58 patients with COVID-19, 65% had positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)–ICU findings and 69% had agitation (N Engl J Med 2020;382:2268-70). Most of the patients (86%) received midazolam, 47% received propofol, and all received sufentanil. “In the pre-COVID days, we would use midazolam as a second-line agent for many of these patients,” Dr. Greenberg said. “So, times really have changed.”

The fate of COVID-19 patients following discharge from the ICU remains a concern, continued Dr. Greenberg, clinical professor of anesthesiology at the University of Chicago. A recent journal article by Michelle Biehl, MD, and Denise Sese, MD, noted that post–intensive care syndrome (PICS) or new or worsening impairment in any physical, cognitive, or mental domain is of significant concern among COVID-19 patients following their ICU stay (Cleveland Clin J Med 2020 Aug doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.ccc055). The authors stated that COVID-19 patients may face a higher risk of PICS because of restricted family visitation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, exposure to higher amounts of sedatives, and limited physical therapy during hospital stay.

No ideal sedative agent

The 2018 PADIS Guidelines on the use of ICU sedation suggested strong evidence for modifiable risk factors producing delirium in the context of benzodiazepines and blood transfusion. They recommend a light level of sedation and the use of propofol or dexmedetomidine over benzodiazepines. They also recommend routine delirium testing such as using the CAM-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and nonpharmacologic therapies such as reorientation, cognitive stimulation, sleep improvement, and mobilization.

Several sedation-related factors may be related to an increased risk of delirium. “The type, dose, duration, and mode of delivery are very important,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The ideal sedative agent has a rapid, predictable onset; is short-acting; has anxiolytic, amnestic, and analgesic properties; is soluble; has a high therapeutic index; and no toxicity. The ideal sedative is also easy to administrate, contains no active metabolites, has minimal actions with other drugs, is reversible, and is cost effective. The problem is, there really is no ideal sedative agent. There is inadequate knowledge about the drugs [used to treat COVID-19 in the ICU] available to us, the dosage, and importantly, the pharmacokinetics and dynamics of these medications.”

The classic types of sedation being used in the ICU, he said, include the benzodiazepines midazolam, lorazepam, and diazepam, as well as propofol. Alternatives include dexmedetomidine, clonidine, ketamine, and the neuroleptics – haloperidol, quetiapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone, and risperidone. “The advantages of benzos are that they are anxiolytics, amnestics, and they are good sedatives with minimal hemodynamic effects,” Dr. Greenberg said.

Advantages of propofol include its sedative, hypnotic, and anxiolytic properties, he said. It reduces the cerebral metabolic rate and can relieve bronchospasm. “However, small studies have found that its use may be associated with an increased risk of delirium,” he said. “It is a respiratory depressant, and it can cause hypotension and decreased contractility. It has no analgesic properties, and two of the big concerns of its use in COVID-19 are the potential for hypertriglyceridemia and propofol infusion syndrome, particularly at doses of greater than 5 mg/kg per hour for greater than 48 hours. It is being given in high doses because patients are requiring higher doses to maintain ventilator synchrony.”
 

Choosing the right drug

The keys to success for sedation of ICU patients are choosing the right drug at the right dose for the right duration and the right mode of delivery, and applying them to the right population. However, as noted in a recent study, the pandemic poses unique challenges to clinicians in how they care for critically ill COVID-19 patients who require sedation (Anesth Analg. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004887). The use of provisional work areas “has escalated because of the amount of patients we’ve had to care for over the past nine months,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We’ve used alternate providers who are not necessarily familiar with the sedation and analgesic protocols and how to use these specific medications. Drug shortages have been on the rise, so there’s a need to understand alternative agents that can be used.”

COVID-19 patients face the potential risk for an increase in drug-drug interactions and side effects due to the polypharmacy that is often required to provide adequate sedation during mechanical ventilation. He noted that these patients may have “unusually high” analgesia and sedation requirements, particularly when they’re mechanically ventilated. A hypothesis as to why patients with COVID-19 require so much sedation and analgesia is that they often have a high respiratory drive and ventilator dyssynchrony, which requires increased neuromuscular blockade. “They also have an intense inflammatory response, which may be linked to tolerance of specific opioids and other medications,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Many ventilated COVID-19 patients are of younger age and previously in good health, and therefore, have an excellent metabolism. Health care providers are concerned about self-extubation. This prompts bedside providers to administer more sedatives to prevent this unwanted complication. There may also be a reduction of drip modifications by health care workers because of the potential risk of contracting COVID-19 when going into the room multiple times and for long periods of time” (Anesth Analg. 2020;131[1]:e34-e35).

According to a sedation resource on the SCCM website, about 5% of COVID-19 patients require mechanical ventilation. “There has been a massive shortage of the usual drugs that we use,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The demand for sedatives has increased by approximately 91%, while the demand for analgesics has increased by 79%, and neuromuscular blocker demand has increased by 105%.”

A retrospective study of 24 COVID-19 patients who required ventilation in the ICU found that the median daily dose of benzodiazepines was significantly higher, compared with the median daily dose used in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 270 mg vs. 199 mg, respectively; Anesth Analg. 2020;131[4]e198-e200. doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000005131). In addition, their median daily dose of opioid was approximately three times higher, compared with patients in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 775 mg vs. 289 mg). Other agents used included propofol (84%), dexmedetomidine (53%), and ketamine (11%).

“A potential strategy for COVID-19 ICU patient sedation should be analgesia first, as indicated in the 2018 PADIS guidelines,” Dr. Greenberg advised. “We should also apply nonpharmacologic measures to reduce delirium. In nonintubated patients, we should use light to moderate sedation, targeting a RASS of –2 to +1, using hydromorphone or fentanyl boluses for analgesia and midazolam boluses or dexmedetomidine for sedation,.”

For intubated patients, he continued, target a RASS of –3 to –4, or –4 to –5 in those who require neuromuscular blockade. “Use propofol first then intermittent boluses of benzodiazepines,” said Dr. Greenberg, editor-in-chief of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation newsletter. “For heavy sedation, use midazolam and supplement with ketamine and other analgesics and sedatives such as barbiturates, methadone, and even inhalation anesthetics in some cases.”

For analgesia in intubated patients, use fentanyl boluses then infusion. “Patients can easily become tachyphylactic to fentanyl, and it has a long context-sensitive half time,” he said. “Hydromorphone may be least affected by organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Greenberg concluded his presentation by stating that more studies are required “to delineate the best analgesia/sedation strategies and monitoring modalities for COVID-19 ICU patients.”

In commenting on the presentation, Mangala Narasimhan, DO, FCCP, senior vice president and director of critical care services at Northwell Health, said that the recommendations regarding sedation highlight a struggle that ICU providers have been dealing with during the COVID-19 epidemic.

“There have been unique challenges with COVID-19 and intubated patients. We have seen severe ventilator dyssynchrony and prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation. I think we can all agree that these patients have extremely high metabolic rates, have required high levels of sedation, have an increased need for neuromuscular blockade, and have high levels of delirium for extended periods of time. The recommendations provided here are reasonable. Strategies to prevent delirium should be employed, pain management should be prioritized, analgesics can help reduce the need for opioids. Alternatives to sedation are useful in this patient population and are well tolerated. Drug shortages have provided additional challenges to these strategies and have required us to think about the use of alternative agents. The recommendations echo the experience we have had with large numbers of intubated COVID-19 patients.”

Dr. Greenberg disclosed that he receives a stipend from the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation for serving as editor-in-chief of the foundation’s newsletter.

[email protected]

I remember New Year’s Day 2020, full of hope and wonderment of what the year would bring. I was coming into the Society of Hospital Medicine as the incoming President, taking the 2020 reins in the organization’s 20th year. It would be a year of transitioning to a new CEO, reinvigorating our membership engagement efforts, and renewing a strategic plan for forward progress into the next decade. It would be a year chock full of travel, speaking engagements, and meetings with thousands of hospitalists around the globe.

What I didn’t know is that we would soon face the grim reality that the long-voiced concern of infectious disease experts and epidemiologists would come true. That our colleagues and friends and families would be infected, hospitalized, and die from this new disease, for which there were no good, effective treatments. That our ability to come together as a nation to implement basic infection control and epidemiologic practices would be fractured, uncoordinated, and ineffective. That within 6 months of the first case on U.S. soil, we would witness 5,270,000 people being infected from the disease, and 167,000 dying from it. And that the stunning toll of the disease would ripple into every nook and cranny of our society, from the economy to the fabric of our families and to the mental and physical health of all of our citizens.

However, what I couldn’t have known on this past New Year’s Day is how incredibly resilient and innovative our hospital medicine society and community would be to not only endure this new way of working and living, but also to find ways to improve upon how we care for all patients, despite COVID-19. What I couldn’t have known is how hospitalists would pivot to new arenas of care settings, including the EDs, ICUs, “COVID units,” and telehealth – flawlessly and seamlessly filling care gaps that would otherwise be catastrophically unfilled.

What I couldn’t have known is how we would be willing to come back into work, day after day, to care for our patients, despite the risks to ourselves and our families. What I couldn’t have known is how hospitalists would come together as a community to network and share knowledge in unprecedented ways, both humbly and proactively – knowing that we would not have all the answers but that we probably had better answers than most. What I couldn’t have known is that the SHM staff would pivot our entire SHM team away from previous “staple” offerings (e.g., live meetings) to virtual learning and network opportunities, which would be attended at rates higher than ever seen before, including live webinars, HMX exchanges, and e-learnings. What I couldn’t have known is that we would figure out, in a matter of weeks, what treatments were and were not effective for our patients and get those treatments to them despite the difficulties. And what I couldn’t have known is how much prouder I would be, more than ever before, to tell people: “I am a hospitalist.”

I took my son to the dentist recently, and when we were just about to leave, the dentist asked: “What do you do for a living?” and I stated: “I am a hospitalist.” He slowly breathed in and replied: “Oh … wow … you have really seen things …” Yes, we have.

So, is 2020 shaping up as expected? Absolutely not! But I am more inspired, humbled, and motivated than ever to proudly serve SHM with more energy and enthusiasm than I would have dreamed on New Year’s Day. And even if we can’t see each other in person (as we so naively planned), through virtual meetings (national, regional, and chapter), webinars, social media, and other listening modes, we will still be able to connect as a community and share ideas and issues as we muddle through the remainder of 2020 and beyond. We need each other more than ever before, and I am so proud to be a part of this SHM family.

Dr. Scheurer is chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. She is president of SHM.

I remember New Year’s Day 2020, full of hope and wonderment of what the year would bring. I was coming into the Society of Hospital Medicine as the incoming President, taking the 2020 reins in the organization’s 20th year. It would be a year of transitioning to a new CEO, reinvigorating our membership engagement efforts, and renewing a strategic plan for forward progress into the next decade. It would be a year chock full of travel, speaking engagements, and meetings with thousands of hospitalists around the globe.

What I didn’t know is that we would soon face the grim reality that the long-voiced concern of infectious disease experts and epidemiologists would come true. That our colleagues and friends and families would be infected, hospitalized, and die from this new disease, for which there were no good, effective treatments. That our ability to come together as a nation to implement basic infection control and epidemiologic practices would be fractured, uncoordinated, and ineffective. That within 6 months of the first case on U.S. soil, we would witness 5,270,000 people being infected from the disease, and 167,000 dying from it. And that the stunning toll of the disease would ripple into every nook and cranny of our society, from the economy to the fabric of our families and to the mental and physical health of all of our citizens.

However, what I couldn’t have known on this past New Year’s Day is how incredibly resilient and innovative our hospital medicine society and community would be to not only endure this new way of working and living, but also to find ways to improve upon how we care for all patients, despite COVID-19. What I couldn’t have known is how hospitalists would pivot to new arenas of care settings, including the EDs, ICUs, “COVID units,” and telehealth – flawlessly and seamlessly filling care gaps that would otherwise be catastrophically unfilled.

What I couldn’t have known is how we would be willing to come back into work, day after day, to care for our patients, despite the risks to ourselves and our families. What I couldn’t have known is how hospitalists would come together as a community to network and share knowledge in unprecedented ways, both humbly and proactively – knowing that we would not have all the answers but that we probably had better answers than most. What I couldn’t have known is that the SHM staff would pivot our entire SHM team away from previous “staple” offerings (e.g., live meetings) to virtual learning and network opportunities, which would be attended at rates higher than ever seen before, including live webinars, HMX exchanges, and e-learnings. What I couldn’t have known is that we would figure out, in a matter of weeks, what treatments were and were not effective for our patients and get those treatments to them despite the difficulties. And what I couldn’t have known is how much prouder I would be, more than ever before, to tell people: “I am a hospitalist.”

I took my son to the dentist recently, and when we were just about to leave, the dentist asked: “What do you do for a living?” and I stated: “I am a hospitalist.” He slowly breathed in and replied: “Oh … wow … you have really seen things …” Yes, we have.

So, is 2020 shaping up as expected? Absolutely not! But I am more inspired, humbled, and motivated than ever to proudly serve SHM with more energy and enthusiasm than I would have dreamed on New Year’s Day. And even if we can’t see each other in person (as we so naively planned), through virtual meetings (national, regional, and chapter), webinars, social media, and other listening modes, we will still be able to connect as a community and share ideas and issues as we muddle through the remainder of 2020 and beyond. We need each other more than ever before, and I am so proud to be a part of this SHM family.

Dr. Scheurer is chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. She is president of SHM.

I remember New Year’s Day 2020, full of hope and wonderment of what the year would bring. I was coming into the Society of Hospital Medicine as the incoming President, taking the 2020 reins in the organization’s 20th year. It would be a year of transitioning to a new CEO, reinvigorating our membership engagement efforts, and renewing a strategic plan for forward progress into the next decade. It would be a year chock full of travel, speaking engagements, and meetings with thousands of hospitalists around the globe.

What I didn’t know is that we would soon face the grim reality that the long-voiced concern of infectious disease experts and epidemiologists would come true. That our colleagues and friends and families would be infected, hospitalized, and die from this new disease, for which there were no good, effective treatments. That our ability to come together as a nation to implement basic infection control and epidemiologic practices would be fractured, uncoordinated, and ineffective. That within 6 months of the first case on U.S. soil, we would witness 5,270,000 people being infected from the disease, and 167,000 dying from it. And that the stunning toll of the disease would ripple into every nook and cranny of our society, from the economy to the fabric of our families and to the mental and physical health of all of our citizens.

However, what I couldn’t have known on this past New Year’s Day is how incredibly resilient and innovative our hospital medicine society and community would be to not only endure this new way of working and living, but also to find ways to improve upon how we care for all patients, despite COVID-19. What I couldn’t have known is how hospitalists would pivot to new arenas of care settings, including the EDs, ICUs, “COVID units,” and telehealth – flawlessly and seamlessly filling care gaps that would otherwise be catastrophically unfilled.

What I couldn’t have known is how we would be willing to come back into work, day after day, to care for our patients, despite the risks to ourselves and our families. What I couldn’t have known is how hospitalists would come together as a community to network and share knowledge in unprecedented ways, both humbly and proactively – knowing that we would not have all the answers but that we probably had better answers than most. What I couldn’t have known is that the SHM staff would pivot our entire SHM team away from previous “staple” offerings (e.g., live meetings) to virtual learning and network opportunities, which would be attended at rates higher than ever seen before, including live webinars, HMX exchanges, and e-learnings. What I couldn’t have known is that we would figure out, in a matter of weeks, what treatments were and were not effective for our patients and get those treatments to them despite the difficulties. And what I couldn’t have known is how much prouder I would be, more than ever before, to tell people: “I am a hospitalist.”

I took my son to the dentist recently, and when we were just about to leave, the dentist asked: “What do you do for a living?” and I stated: “I am a hospitalist.” He slowly breathed in and replied: “Oh … wow … you have really seen things …” Yes, we have.

So, is 2020 shaping up as expected? Absolutely not! But I am more inspired, humbled, and motivated than ever to proudly serve SHM with more energy and enthusiasm than I would have dreamed on New Year’s Day. And even if we can’t see each other in person (as we so naively planned), through virtual meetings (national, regional, and chapter), webinars, social media, and other listening modes, we will still be able to connect as a community and share ideas and issues as we muddle through the remainder of 2020 and beyond. We need each other more than ever before, and I am so proud to be a part of this SHM family.

Dr. Scheurer is chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. She is president of SHM.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

International normalized ratio (INR) does not predict periprocedural bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, according to a meta-analysis of 29 studies.

This finding should deter the common practice of delivering blood products to cirrhotic patients with an elevated INR, reported lead author Alexander J. Kovalic, MD, of Novant Forsyth Medical Center in Winston Salem, N.C., and colleagues.

“INR measurement among cirrhotic patients is important in MELD [Model for End-Stage Liver Disease] prognostication and assessment of underlying hepatic synthetic function, however the INR alone does not capture the complicated interplay of anticoagulant and procoagulant deficiencies present in cirrhotic coagulopathy,” Dr. Kovalic and colleagues wrote in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. “Yet, the ‘correction’ of these aberrancies among peripheral coagulation tests remains common ... even in modern practice, and not uncommonly occurs in the periprocedural setting.”

According to investigators, addressing INR with blood transfusion can have a litany of negative effects. Beyond the risks faced by all patient populations, increasing blood volume in those with cirrhosis can increase portal venous pressure, thereby raising risks of portal gastropathy or variceal hemorrhage. In addition, giving plasma products to patients with cirrhotic coagulopathy may further disrupt the balance between anticoagulants and procoagulants, potentially triggering disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Dr. Kovalic and colleagues noted that the lack of correlation between peripheral coagulation tests and bleeding risk has been a longstanding subject of investigation, citing studies from as early as 1981.

To add further weight to this body of evidence, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 13,276 patients with cirrhosis who underwent various procedures between 1999 and 2019. Primary outcomes included periprocedural bleeding events and the association between preprocedural INR and periprocedural bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included mortality, quantity of blood and/or plasma products used, and relationship between preprocedural platelet count and periprocedural bleeding events.

The analysis showed that preprocedural INR was not significantly associated with periprocedural bleeding events (pooled odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.33; P = .06), a finding that held across INR threshold subgroups. Similarly, no significant difference was found between mean INR of patients who had bleeding events versus that of those who did not (pooled mean difference, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13; P = .23).

Preprocedural platelet count was also a poor predictor of periprocedural bleeding, with a pooled odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 0.55-2.77; P = .60), although the investigators noted that platelet count thresholds varied widely across studies, from 30 to 150 × 10⁹/L. When studies were stratified by procedural bleeding risk or procedure type, subgroup effects were no longer significant. Other secondary endpoints were incalculable because of insufficient data.

“Hopefully, these findings will spark initiation of more large-scale, higher-quality studies ... to reinforce minimizing administration of fresh frozen plasma for inappropriate correction of INR, which carries a multitude of adverse effects among cirrhotic [patients],” the investigators concluded.

According to Stephen H. Caldwell, MD, of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, “The present paper augments accumulating literature over the past 15 years that INR should be discarded as a measure of procedure-related bleeding risk.”

Dr. Caldwell pointed out that “bleeding in cirrhosis is usually related to portal hypertension not with impaired hemostasis, with the occasional exception of hyperfibrinolysis, which is very different from a prolonged INR.”

He went on to suggest that the present findings should dissuade clinicians from a practice that, for some, is reflexive rather than evidence based.

“It’s remarkable how many medical practices become entrenched based on hand-me-down teaching during our early training years, and remain so for many years beyond as we disperse into various medical and surgical fields,” Dr. Caldwell said. “These learned approaches to common problems can clearly persist for generations despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that usually evolve slowly and well-insulated within subspecialties or sub-subspecialties, and hence take several generations of training to diffuse into the wider practice of medical care for common problems. These may become matters of expedience in decision-making, much like the old antibiotic conundrum of ‘no-think-a-cillin,’ as critics referred to over-use of broad spectrum antibiotics. And so it has been with the INR.”The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Eisai, Gilead, and others. Dr. Caldwell disclosed research support from Daiichi concerning the potential role of anticoagulation therapy in preventing cirrhosis progression.

SOURCE: Kovalic AJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1111/apt.16078.

International normalized ratio (INR) does not predict periprocedural bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, according to a meta-analysis of 29 studies.

This finding should deter the common practice of delivering blood products to cirrhotic patients with an elevated INR, reported lead author Alexander J. Kovalic, MD, of Novant Forsyth Medical Center in Winston Salem, N.C., and colleagues.

“INR measurement among cirrhotic patients is important in MELD [Model for End-Stage Liver Disease] prognostication and assessment of underlying hepatic synthetic function, however the INR alone does not capture the complicated interplay of anticoagulant and procoagulant deficiencies present in cirrhotic coagulopathy,” Dr. Kovalic and colleagues wrote in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. “Yet, the ‘correction’ of these aberrancies among peripheral coagulation tests remains common ... even in modern practice, and not uncommonly occurs in the periprocedural setting.”

According to investigators, addressing INR with blood transfusion can have a litany of negative effects. Beyond the risks faced by all patient populations, increasing blood volume in those with cirrhosis can increase portal venous pressure, thereby raising risks of portal gastropathy or variceal hemorrhage. In addition, giving plasma products to patients with cirrhotic coagulopathy may further disrupt the balance between anticoagulants and procoagulants, potentially triggering disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Dr. Kovalic and colleagues noted that the lack of correlation between peripheral coagulation tests and bleeding risk has been a longstanding subject of investigation, citing studies from as early as 1981.

To add further weight to this body of evidence, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 13,276 patients with cirrhosis who underwent various procedures between 1999 and 2019. Primary outcomes included periprocedural bleeding events and the association between preprocedural INR and periprocedural bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included mortality, quantity of blood and/or plasma products used, and relationship between preprocedural platelet count and periprocedural bleeding events.

The analysis showed that preprocedural INR was not significantly associated with periprocedural bleeding events (pooled odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.33; P = .06), a finding that held across INR threshold subgroups. Similarly, no significant difference was found between mean INR of patients who had bleeding events versus that of those who did not (pooled mean difference, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13; P = .23).

Preprocedural platelet count was also a poor predictor of periprocedural bleeding, with a pooled odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 0.55-2.77; P = .60), although the investigators noted that platelet count thresholds varied widely across studies, from 30 to 150 × 10⁹/L. When studies were stratified by procedural bleeding risk or procedure type, subgroup effects were no longer significant. Other secondary endpoints were incalculable because of insufficient data.

“Hopefully, these findings will spark initiation of more large-scale, higher-quality studies ... to reinforce minimizing administration of fresh frozen plasma for inappropriate correction of INR, which carries a multitude of adverse effects among cirrhotic [patients],” the investigators concluded.

According to Stephen H. Caldwell, MD, of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, “The present paper augments accumulating literature over the past 15 years that INR should be discarded as a measure of procedure-related bleeding risk.”

Dr. Caldwell pointed out that “bleeding in cirrhosis is usually related to portal hypertension not with impaired hemostasis, with the occasional exception of hyperfibrinolysis, which is very different from a prolonged INR.”

He went on to suggest that the present findings should dissuade clinicians from a practice that, for some, is reflexive rather than evidence based.

“It’s remarkable how many medical practices become entrenched based on hand-me-down teaching during our early training years, and remain so for many years beyond as we disperse into various medical and surgical fields,” Dr. Caldwell said. “These learned approaches to common problems can clearly persist for generations despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that usually evolve slowly and well-insulated within subspecialties or sub-subspecialties, and hence take several generations of training to diffuse into the wider practice of medical care for common problems. These may become matters of expedience in decision-making, much like the old antibiotic conundrum of ‘no-think-a-cillin,’ as critics referred to over-use of broad spectrum antibiotics. And so it has been with the INR.”The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Eisai, Gilead, and others. Dr. Caldwell disclosed research support from Daiichi concerning the potential role of anticoagulation therapy in preventing cirrhosis progression.

SOURCE: Kovalic AJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1111/apt.16078.

International normalized ratio (INR) does not predict periprocedural bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, according to a meta-analysis of 29 studies.

This finding should deter the common practice of delivering blood products to cirrhotic patients with an elevated INR, reported lead author Alexander J. Kovalic, MD, of Novant Forsyth Medical Center in Winston Salem, N.C., and colleagues.

“INR measurement among cirrhotic patients is important in MELD [Model for End-Stage Liver Disease] prognostication and assessment of underlying hepatic synthetic function, however the INR alone does not capture the complicated interplay of anticoagulant and procoagulant deficiencies present in cirrhotic coagulopathy,” Dr. Kovalic and colleagues wrote in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. “Yet, the ‘correction’ of these aberrancies among peripheral coagulation tests remains common ... even in modern practice, and not uncommonly occurs in the periprocedural setting.”

According to investigators, addressing INR with blood transfusion can have a litany of negative effects. Beyond the risks faced by all patient populations, increasing blood volume in those with cirrhosis can increase portal venous pressure, thereby raising risks of portal gastropathy or variceal hemorrhage. In addition, giving plasma products to patients with cirrhotic coagulopathy may further disrupt the balance between anticoagulants and procoagulants, potentially triggering disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Dr. Kovalic and colleagues noted that the lack of correlation between peripheral coagulation tests and bleeding risk has been a longstanding subject of investigation, citing studies from as early as 1981.

To add further weight to this body of evidence, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 13,276 patients with cirrhosis who underwent various procedures between 1999 and 2019. Primary outcomes included periprocedural bleeding events and the association between preprocedural INR and periprocedural bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included mortality, quantity of blood and/or plasma products used, and relationship between preprocedural platelet count and periprocedural bleeding events.

The analysis showed that preprocedural INR was not significantly associated with periprocedural bleeding events (pooled odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.33; P = .06), a finding that held across INR threshold subgroups. Similarly, no significant difference was found between mean INR of patients who had bleeding events versus that of those who did not (pooled mean difference, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13; P = .23).

Preprocedural platelet count was also a poor predictor of periprocedural bleeding, with a pooled odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 0.55-2.77; P = .60), although the investigators noted that platelet count thresholds varied widely across studies, from 30 to 150 × 10⁹/L. When studies were stratified by procedural bleeding risk or procedure type, subgroup effects were no longer significant. Other secondary endpoints were incalculable because of insufficient data.

“Hopefully, these findings will spark initiation of more large-scale, higher-quality studies ... to reinforce minimizing administration of fresh frozen plasma for inappropriate correction of INR, which carries a multitude of adverse effects among cirrhotic [patients],” the investigators concluded.

According to Stephen H. Caldwell, MD, of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, “The present paper augments accumulating literature over the past 15 years that INR should be discarded as a measure of procedure-related bleeding risk.”

Dr. Caldwell pointed out that “bleeding in cirrhosis is usually related to portal hypertension not with impaired hemostasis, with the occasional exception of hyperfibrinolysis, which is very different from a prolonged INR.”

He went on to suggest that the present findings should dissuade clinicians from a practice that, for some, is reflexive rather than evidence based.

“It’s remarkable how many medical practices become entrenched based on hand-me-down teaching during our early training years, and remain so for many years beyond as we disperse into various medical and surgical fields,” Dr. Caldwell said. “These learned approaches to common problems can clearly persist for generations despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that usually evolve slowly and well-insulated within subspecialties or sub-subspecialties, and hence take several generations of training to diffuse into the wider practice of medical care for common problems. These may become matters of expedience in decision-making, much like the old antibiotic conundrum of ‘no-think-a-cillin,’ as critics referred to over-use of broad spectrum antibiotics. And so it has been with the INR.”The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Eisai, Gilead, and others. Dr. Caldwell disclosed research support from Daiichi concerning the potential role of anticoagulation therapy in preventing cirrhosis progression.

SOURCE: Kovalic AJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1111/apt.16078.

The latest drug shown to benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, works just as well when added on top of a second major agent used to treat these patients, the renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting combination of sacubitril/valsartan, based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

“When there are two very effective treatments, it’s common for people to ask: Which should I use?’ The goal of my presentation was to emphasize that the answer is both. We shouldn’t choose between neprilysin inhibition [sacubitril inhibits the enzyme neprilysin] and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose transporter 2] inhibition; we should use both,” said Milton Packer, MD at the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

EMPEROR-Reduced had the primary goal of testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The results showed that adding this drug on top of standard treatments led to a 25% relative cut in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo, and had this effect regardless of whether or not patients also had type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190).

Among the 3,730 patients enrolled in the trial, 727 (19%) were on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) at entry, which gave Dr. Packer the data to perform the analysis he reported. He presented the study’s three major endpoints as well as a quality of life analysis that compared the performance of empagliflozin in patients who were on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline with the other study patients, who were either on a different type of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (roughly 70% of study patients) or on no RAS inhibition (about 10% of patients).

The results showed no statistically significant indication of an interaction, suggesting that patients with sacubitril/valsartan on board had just as good response to empagliflozin as patients who were not on this combination. The landmark PARADIGM-HF trial proved several years ago that treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan led to significantly better outcomes than did treatment with another form of RAS inhibition (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).

For example, EMPEROR-Reduced’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, fell by 36% relative to placebo in patients who received empagliflozin on top of sacubitril/valsartan, and by 23% relative to placebo among the remaining patients who received empagliflozin on top of a different type of RAS inhibitor drug or no RAS inhibition.

“Background treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not diminish, and may have enhanced the efficacy of empagliflozin,” concluded Dr. Packer. Further analyses also showed that concurrent sacubitril/valsartan had no statistically significant impact on empagliflozin’s ability to reduce the rate of total heart failure hospitalizations, or to slow progressive loss of renal function, compared with placebo. The fourth efficacy analysis Dr. Packer presented showed that empagliflozin was also as effective for improving a quality-of-life measure in patients compared with placebo regardless of the type of RAS inhibition used. For all four outcomes, the point-estimate of empagliflozin’s benefit was higher when used along with sacubitril/valsartan.

Brian L. Claggett, PhD, a biostatistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, designated discussant for the report, disagreed with Dr. Packer’s suggestion that the efficacy of empagliflozin may have been greater when administered against a background of sacubitril/valsartan. From a statistical perspective, there is no basis to suggest that patients did better when they were on both drugs, he cautioned. But Dr. Claggett acknowledged that the new analyses suggested that empagliflozin’s benefit wasn’t compromised by concurrent sacubitril/valsartan use. He also highlighted the value of more fully documenting the safety and efficacy of a new drug when used as part of “comprehensive therapy” with the established drugs that a patient may concurrently receive.

Dr. Packer also presented several measures of treatment safety that all showed similar rates of adverse effects between the empagliflozin and placebo recipients regardless of background RAS inhibition. A notable finding was that the incidence of hypokalemia was 5.9% in patients on empagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan and 7.5% among patients on empagliflozin and a different type of RAS inhibition.

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin. Dr. Packer has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Claggett has been a consultant to Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis.

[email protected]

The latest drug shown to benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, works just as well when added on top of a second major agent used to treat these patients, the renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting combination of sacubitril/valsartan, based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

“When there are two very effective treatments, it’s common for people to ask: Which should I use?’ The goal of my presentation was to emphasize that the answer is both. We shouldn’t choose between neprilysin inhibition [sacubitril inhibits the enzyme neprilysin] and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose transporter 2] inhibition; we should use both,” said Milton Packer, MD at the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

EMPEROR-Reduced had the primary goal of testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The results showed that adding this drug on top of standard treatments led to a 25% relative cut in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo, and had this effect regardless of whether or not patients also had type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190).

Among the 3,730 patients enrolled in the trial, 727 (19%) were on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) at entry, which gave Dr. Packer the data to perform the analysis he reported. He presented the study’s three major endpoints as well as a quality of life analysis that compared the performance of empagliflozin in patients who were on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline with the other study patients, who were either on a different type of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (roughly 70% of study patients) or on no RAS inhibition (about 10% of patients).

The results showed no statistically significant indication of an interaction, suggesting that patients with sacubitril/valsartan on board had just as good response to empagliflozin as patients who were not on this combination. The landmark PARADIGM-HF trial proved several years ago that treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan led to significantly better outcomes than did treatment with another form of RAS inhibition (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).

For example, EMPEROR-Reduced’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, fell by 36% relative to placebo in patients who received empagliflozin on top of sacubitril/valsartan, and by 23% relative to placebo among the remaining patients who received empagliflozin on top of a different type of RAS inhibitor drug or no RAS inhibition.

“Background treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not diminish, and may have enhanced the efficacy of empagliflozin,” concluded Dr. Packer. Further analyses also showed that concurrent sacubitril/valsartan had no statistically significant impact on empagliflozin’s ability to reduce the rate of total heart failure hospitalizations, or to slow progressive loss of renal function, compared with placebo. The fourth efficacy analysis Dr. Packer presented showed that empagliflozin was also as effective for improving a quality-of-life measure in patients compared with placebo regardless of the type of RAS inhibition used. For all four outcomes, the point-estimate of empagliflozin’s benefit was higher when used along with sacubitril/valsartan.

Brian L. Claggett, PhD, a biostatistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, designated discussant for the report, disagreed with Dr. Packer’s suggestion that the efficacy of empagliflozin may have been greater when administered against a background of sacubitril/valsartan. From a statistical perspective, there is no basis to suggest that patients did better when they were on both drugs, he cautioned. But Dr. Claggett acknowledged that the new analyses suggested that empagliflozin’s benefit wasn’t compromised by concurrent sacubitril/valsartan use. He also highlighted the value of more fully documenting the safety and efficacy of a new drug when used as part of “comprehensive therapy” with the established drugs that a patient may concurrently receive.

Dr. Packer also presented several measures of treatment safety that all showed similar rates of adverse effects between the empagliflozin and placebo recipients regardless of background RAS inhibition. A notable finding was that the incidence of hypokalemia was 5.9% in patients on empagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan and 7.5% among patients on empagliflozin and a different type of RAS inhibition.

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin. Dr. Packer has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Claggett has been a consultant to Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis.

[email protected]

The latest drug shown to benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, works just as well when added on top of a second major agent used to treat these patients, the renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting combination of sacubitril/valsartan, based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

“When there are two very effective treatments, it’s common for people to ask: Which should I use?’ The goal of my presentation was to emphasize that the answer is both. We shouldn’t choose between neprilysin inhibition [sacubitril inhibits the enzyme neprilysin] and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose transporter 2] inhibition; we should use both,” said Milton Packer, MD at the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

EMPEROR-Reduced had the primary goal of testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The results showed that adding this drug on top of standard treatments led to a 25% relative cut in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo, and had this effect regardless of whether or not patients also had type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190).

Among the 3,730 patients enrolled in the trial, 727 (19%) were on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) at entry, which gave Dr. Packer the data to perform the analysis he reported. He presented the study’s three major endpoints as well as a quality of life analysis that compared the performance of empagliflozin in patients who were on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline with the other study patients, who were either on a different type of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (roughly 70% of study patients) or on no RAS inhibition (about 10% of patients).

The results showed no statistically significant indication of an interaction, suggesting that patients with sacubitril/valsartan on board had just as good response to empagliflozin as patients who were not on this combination. The landmark PARADIGM-HF trial proved several years ago that treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan led to significantly better outcomes than did treatment with another form of RAS inhibition (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).

For example, EMPEROR-Reduced’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, fell by 36% relative to placebo in patients who received empagliflozin on top of sacubitril/valsartan, and by 23% relative to placebo among the remaining patients who received empagliflozin on top of a different type of RAS inhibitor drug or no RAS inhibition.

“Background treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not diminish, and may have enhanced the efficacy of empagliflozin,” concluded Dr. Packer. Further analyses also showed that concurrent sacubitril/valsartan had no statistically significant impact on empagliflozin’s ability to reduce the rate of total heart failure hospitalizations, or to slow progressive loss of renal function, compared with placebo. The fourth efficacy analysis Dr. Packer presented showed that empagliflozin was also as effective for improving a quality-of-life measure in patients compared with placebo regardless of the type of RAS inhibition used. For all four outcomes, the point-estimate of empagliflozin’s benefit was higher when used along with sacubitril/valsartan.

Brian L. Claggett, PhD, a biostatistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, designated discussant for the report, disagreed with Dr. Packer’s suggestion that the efficacy of empagliflozin may have been greater when administered against a background of sacubitril/valsartan. From a statistical perspective, there is no basis to suggest that patients did better when they were on both drugs, he cautioned. But Dr. Claggett acknowledged that the new analyses suggested that empagliflozin’s benefit wasn’t compromised by concurrent sacubitril/valsartan use. He also highlighted the value of more fully documenting the safety and efficacy of a new drug when used as part of “comprehensive therapy” with the established drugs that a patient may concurrently receive.

Dr. Packer also presented several measures of treatment safety that all showed similar rates of adverse effects between the empagliflozin and placebo recipients regardless of background RAS inhibition. A notable finding was that the incidence of hypokalemia was 5.9% in patients on empagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan and 7.5% among patients on empagliflozin and a different type of RAS inhibition.

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin. Dr. Packer has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Claggett has been a consultant to Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis.

[email protected]

The HM20 Virtual conference in August was filled with excellent content that can be applied by all hospitalists. This article summarizes key concepts and takeaways for the pediatric hospitalist.

Racism and bias in medicine

HM20 Virtual session: Structural Racism and Bias in Hospital Medicine During Two Pandemics

Presenters: Nathan Chomilo, MD, FAAP, and Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM

Dr. Nathan Chomilo, of HealthPartners in Minneapolis, opened the session sharing how racial disparities were a symptom of racism. The presenters explained how structural racism has been propagated in medicine with the Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1964 that allowed segregated hospitals, as well as the racism that exists within the “hidden curriculum.”

Dr. Chomilo discussed how personal experiences of racism can lead to worse health outcomes, including depression, obesity, and overall poor health. Dr. Mathews, also of HealthPartners, discussed how implicit biases can be addressed at the individual level, the organizational level, and simultaneously at both levels to create an antiracist culture. He presented strategies to mitigate individual biases; recognizing when biases may be triggered, checking biases at the door, connecting with others from different backgrounds as equals, and practicing antiracism by being an active bystander. Dr. Chomilo concluded the session by sharing that we can all grow by addressing racism at “our houses” (health care systems, medical schools, payer systems) with the goal to create an antiracist system.
 

Key takeaways

• Racial disparities are a symptom of structural racism that has been propagated in medicine for centuries.
• Addressing implicit biases at the individual level, organization level, and simultaneously at both levels can help leaders model and promote an antiracism culture.

HM20 Virtual session: When Grief and Crises Intersect: Perspectives of a Black Physician in the Time of Two Pandemics

Presenter: Kimberly Manning, MD, FACP, FAAP

Dr. Kimberly Manning, of Emory University in Atlanta, discussed the dual pandemics of COVID-19 and the racism that we are currently experiencing and tried to describe the unique perspective of Black Americans. Though it is easy to see that COVID-19 is a pandemic, racism is not always seen in this way. Dr. Manning demonstrated that, when a pandemic is defined as “that which occurs over a wide geographic area and affects a high proportion of the population,” racism is absolutely a pandemic. Black Americans have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Dr. Manning said we often hear that we are in unprecedented times but as far as racism is concerned, there is nothing new about this. She shared stories of personal milestones and how each of these instances, though marked by something beautiful, was also marked by something truly awful. Each time she had a reason to smile, there was something awful going on in the country that showed how racism was still present. Dr. Manning described that, though these were her stories, all Black Americans can recount the same stories, emotions, and feelings of grief.

Dr. Manning concluded by sharing how we can “Do The Work” to combat the pandemic of racism: broaden our funds of knowledge, remember that people are grieving, explore our implicit biases, be brave bystanders, and avoid performative allyship
 

Key takeaways

• Though the COVID19 pandemic is unprecedented, the pandemic of racism is not.
• We must “Do The Work” to combat everyday racism and to be cognizant of what our Black colleagues are going through every day.

Immigrant hospitalist challenges

HM20 Virtual session: The Immigrant Hospitalist: Navigating the Uncertain Terrain During COVID-19

Presenters: Manpreet S. Malik, MD, FHM, and Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM

Dr. Malik of Emory University in Atlanta, and Dr. Mathews of HealthPartners, opened this session by sharing their personal stories as immigrant physicians in the United States. Dr. Malik noted that physicians born outside the United States make up 29% of U.S. physicians, and 32% of hospitalists are international medical graduates.

The presenters revealed the structural hurdles immigrant physicians face, including lack of empowerment until achieving permanent residency status; limited leadership, administrative, and academic roles; concerns for job security and financial stability; and experiencing micro- and macroaggressions at work. The presenters shared a framework for a developmental orientation inclined toward cultural competency beginning with denial, followed by polarization, progressing to minimization, advancing to acceptance, and culminating in adaptation.

They concluded the session by stressing the importance of advocacy for immigrant physicians and encouraged colleagues to become engaged in efforts within their professional organizations.
 

Key takeaway

• Immigrant physicians experience structural challenges to their professional advancement because of their residency status.

Learner supervision

HM20 Virtual session: Call Me Maybe: Balancing Resident Autonomy With Sensible Supervision

Presenter: Daniel Steinberg, MD, SFHM, FACP

Dr. Steinberg, based at Mount Sinai in New York, explained that resident supervision is driven by three factors: what residents need, what residents want, and what the supervisor can provide. Although data is mixed as to whether supervision improves patient outcomes, supervision is essential for patient care and resident education. Dr. Steinberg showcased several relevant medical education studies related to supervision and focused on a key question: Do you trust the resident? The review of medical education literature discussed the meaning and development of trust, oral case presentations to determine trust, and the influence of supervisor experience.

Key takeaways

• Resident supervision is driven by what residents need, what residents want, and what the supervisor can provide.
• Trust can be determined from direct supervision, oral presentations, and remote access of electronic medical records, but is also influenced by attending experience and style.

Balancing personal and professional life

HM20 Virtual session: Being a Hospitalist and a Parent: Balancing Roles With Grace

Presenters: Heather E. Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, and David Alfandre, MD, MSPH

Dr. Nye of the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr. Alfandre of New York University shared their challenges as hospitalists, parents, and partners before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. They described their feelings of guilt during the pandemic related to increasing their families’ infection risks, as well as the gratitude they felt for having stable jobs during the crisis. They shared solutions that worked for their families, including cooperating with their partners, expressing their scheduling needs, and negotiating to meet those needs with their employers.

Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre recommended staying connected with others for help, including partners, institutions, neighbors, and colleagues. They also recommended supporting, sharing, collaborating, and connecting with their partners and colleagues to maintain a balanced professional and personal life.
 

Key takeaway:

• Stay connected and support, collaborate, and share with your colleagues and partner at home.

Dr. Kumar is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist. She is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. Dr. Doraiswamy is an assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics and a med-peds hospitalist at The Ohio State University and Nationwide Children’s Hospital, both in Columbus. Dr. Tantoco is an academic med-peds hospitalist practicing in Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

The HM20 Virtual conference in August was filled with excellent content that can be applied by all hospitalists. This article summarizes key concepts and takeaways for the pediatric hospitalist.

Racism and bias in medicine

HM20 Virtual session: Structural Racism and Bias in Hospital Medicine During Two Pandemics

Presenters: Nathan Chomilo, MD, FAAP, and Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM

Dr. Nathan Chomilo, of HealthPartners in Minneapolis, opened the session sharing how racial disparities were a symptom of racism. The presenters explained how structural racism has been propagated in medicine with the Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1964 that allowed segregated hospitals, as well as the racism that exists within the “hidden curriculum.”

Dr. Chomilo discussed how personal experiences of racism can lead to worse health outcomes, including depression, obesity, and overall poor health. Dr. Mathews, also of HealthPartners, discussed how implicit biases can be addressed at the individual level, the organizational level, and simultaneously at both levels to create an antiracist culture. He presented strategies to mitigate individual biases; recognizing when biases may be triggered, checking biases at the door, connecting with others from different backgrounds as equals, and practicing antiracism by being an active bystander. Dr. Chomilo concluded the session by sharing that we can all grow by addressing racism at “our houses” (health care systems, medical schools, payer systems) with the goal to create an antiracist system.
 

Key takeaways

• Racial disparities are a symptom of structural racism that has been propagated in medicine for centuries.
• Addressing implicit biases at the individual level, organization level, and simultaneously at both levels can help leaders model and promote an antiracism culture.

HM20 Virtual session: When Grief and Crises Intersect: Perspectives of a Black Physician in the Time of Two Pandemics

Presenter: Kimberly Manning, MD, FACP, FAAP

Dr. Kimberly Manning, of Emory University in Atlanta, discussed the dual pandemics of COVID-19 and the racism that we are currently experiencing and tried to describe the unique perspective of Black Americans. Though it is easy to see that COVID-19 is a pandemic, racism is not always seen in this way. Dr. Manning demonstrated that, when a pandemic is defined as “that which occurs over a wide geographic area and affects a high proportion of the population,” racism is absolutely a pandemic. Black Americans have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Dr. Manning said we often hear that we are in unprecedented times but as far as racism is concerned, there is nothing new about this. She shared stories of personal milestones and how each of these instances, though marked by something beautiful, was also marked by something truly awful. Each time she had a reason to smile, there was something awful going on in the country that showed how racism was still present. Dr. Manning described that, though these were her stories, all Black Americans can recount the same stories, emotions, and feelings of grief.

Dr. Manning concluded by sharing how we can “Do The Work” to combat the pandemic of racism: broaden our funds of knowledge, remember that people are grieving, explore our implicit biases, be brave bystanders, and avoid performative allyship
 

Key takeaways

• Though the COVID19 pandemic is unprecedented, the pandemic of racism is not.
• We must “Do The Work” to combat everyday racism and to be cognizant of what our Black colleagues are going through every day.

Immigrant hospitalist challenges

HM20 Virtual session: The Immigrant Hospitalist: Navigating the Uncertain Terrain During COVID-19

Presenters: Manpreet S. Malik, MD, FHM, and Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM

Dr. Malik of Emory University in Atlanta, and Dr. Mathews of HealthPartners, opened this session by sharing their personal stories as immigrant physicians in the United States. Dr. Malik noted that physicians born outside the United States make up 29% of U.S. physicians, and 32% of hospitalists are international medical graduates.

The presenters revealed the structural hurdles immigrant physicians face, including lack of empowerment until achieving permanent residency status; limited leadership, administrative, and academic roles; concerns for job security and financial stability; and experiencing micro- and macroaggressions at work. The presenters shared a framework for a developmental orientation inclined toward cultural competency beginning with denial, followed by polarization, progressing to minimization, advancing to acceptance, and culminating in adaptation.

They concluded the session by stressing the importance of advocacy for immigrant physicians and encouraged colleagues to become engaged in efforts within their professional organizations.
 

Key takeaway

• Immigrant physicians experience structural challenges to their professional advancement because of their residency status.

Learner supervision

HM20 Virtual session: Call Me Maybe: Balancing Resident Autonomy With Sensible Supervision

Presenter: Daniel Steinberg, MD, SFHM, FACP

Dr. Steinberg, based at Mount Sinai in New York, explained that resident supervision is driven by three factors: what residents need, what residents want, and what the supervisor can provide. Although data is mixed as to whether supervision improves patient outcomes, supervision is essential for patient care and resident education. Dr. Steinberg showcased several relevant medical education studies related to supervision and focused on a key question: Do you trust the resident? The review of medical education literature discussed the meaning and development of trust, oral case presentations to determine trust, and the influence of supervisor experience.

Key takeaways

• Resident supervision is driven by what residents need, what residents want, and what the supervisor can provide.
• Trust can be determined from direct supervision, oral presentations, and remote access of electronic medical records, but is also influenced by attending experience and style.

Balancing personal and professional life

HM20 Virtual session: Being a Hospitalist and a Parent: Balancing Roles With Grace

Presenters: Heather E. Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, and David Alfandre, MD, MSPH

Dr. Nye of the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr. Alfandre of New York University shared their challenges as hospitalists, parents, and partners before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. They described their feelings of guilt during the pandemic related to increasing their families’ infection risks, as well as the gratitude they felt for having stable jobs during the crisis. They shared solutions that worked for their families, including cooperating with their partners, expressing their scheduling needs, and negotiating to meet those needs with their employers.

Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre recommended staying connected with others for help, including partners, institutions, neighbors, and colleagues. They also recommended supporting, sharing, collaborating, and connecting with their partners and colleagues to maintain a balanced professional and personal life.
 

Key takeaway:

• Stay connected and support, collaborate, and share with your colleagues and partner at home.

Dr. Kumar is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist. She is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. Dr. Doraiswamy is an assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics and a med-peds hospitalist at The Ohio State University and Nationwide Children’s Hospital, both in Columbus. Dr. Tantoco is an academic med-peds hospitalist practicing in Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

The HM20 Virtual conference in August was filled with excellent content that can be applied by all hospitalists. This article summarizes key concepts and takeaways for the pediatric hospitalist.

Racism and bias in medicine

HM20 Virtual session: Structural Racism and Bias in Hospital Medicine During Two Pandemics

Presenters: Nathan Chomilo, MD, FAAP, and Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM

Dr. Nathan Chomilo, of HealthPartners in Minneapolis, opened the session sharing how racial disparities were a symptom of racism. The presenters explained how structural racism has been propagated in medicine with the Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1964 that allowed segregated hospitals, as well as the racism that exists within the “hidden curriculum.”

Dr. Chomilo discussed how personal experiences of racism can lead to worse health outcomes, including depression, obesity, and overall poor health. Dr. Mathews, also of HealthPartners, discussed how implicit biases can be addressed at the individual level, the organizational level, and simultaneously at both levels to create an antiracist culture. He presented strategies to mitigate individual biases; recognizing when biases may be triggered, checking biases at the door, connecting with others from different backgrounds as equals, and practicing antiracism by being an active bystander. Dr. Chomilo concluded the session by sharing that we can all grow by addressing racism at “our houses” (health care systems, medical schools, payer systems) with the goal to create an antiracist system.
 

Key takeaways

• Racial disparities are a symptom of structural racism that has been propagated in medicine for centuries.
• Addressing implicit biases at the individual level, organization level, and simultaneously at both levels can help leaders model and promote an antiracism culture.

HM20 Virtual session: When Grief and Crises Intersect: Perspectives of a Black Physician in the Time of Two Pandemics

Presenter: Kimberly Manning, MD, FACP, FAAP

Dr. Kimberly Manning, of Emory University in Atlanta, discussed the dual pandemics of COVID-19 and the racism that we are currently experiencing and tried to describe the unique perspective of Black Americans. Though it is easy to see that COVID-19 is a pandemic, racism is not always seen in this way. Dr. Manning demonstrated that, when a pandemic is defined as “that which occurs over a wide geographic area and affects a high proportion of the population,” racism is absolutely a pandemic. Black Americans have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Dr. Manning said we often hear that we are in unprecedented times but as far as racism is concerned, there is nothing new about this. She shared stories of personal milestones and how each of these instances, though marked by something beautiful, was also marked by something truly awful. Each time she had a reason to smile, there was something awful going on in the country that showed how racism was still present. Dr. Manning described that, though these were her stories, all Black Americans can recount the same stories, emotions, and feelings of grief.

Dr. Manning concluded by sharing how we can “Do The Work” to combat the pandemic of racism: broaden our funds of knowledge, remember that people are grieving, explore our implicit biases, be brave bystanders, and avoid performative allyship
 

Key takeaways

• Though the COVID19 pandemic is unprecedented, the pandemic of racism is not.
• We must “Do The Work” to combat everyday racism and to be cognizant of what our Black colleagues are going through every day.

Immigrant hospitalist challenges

HM20 Virtual session: The Immigrant Hospitalist: Navigating the Uncertain Terrain During COVID-19

Presenters: Manpreet S. Malik, MD, FHM, and Benji K. Mathews, MD, SFHM

Dr. Malik of Emory University in Atlanta, and Dr. Mathews of HealthPartners, opened this session by sharing their personal stories as immigrant physicians in the United States. Dr. Malik noted that physicians born outside the United States make up 29% of U.S. physicians, and 32% of hospitalists are international medical graduates.

The presenters revealed the structural hurdles immigrant physicians face, including lack of empowerment until achieving permanent residency status; limited leadership, administrative, and academic roles; concerns for job security and financial stability; and experiencing micro- and macroaggressions at work. The presenters shared a framework for a developmental orientation inclined toward cultural competency beginning with denial, followed by polarization, progressing to minimization, advancing to acceptance, and culminating in adaptation.

They concluded the session by stressing the importance of advocacy for immigrant physicians and encouraged colleagues to become engaged in efforts within their professional organizations.
 

Key takeaway

• Immigrant physicians experience structural challenges to their professional advancement because of their residency status.

Learner supervision

HM20 Virtual session: Call Me Maybe: Balancing Resident Autonomy With Sensible Supervision

Presenter: Daniel Steinberg, MD, SFHM, FACP

Dr. Steinberg, based at Mount Sinai in New York, explained that resident supervision is driven by three factors: what residents need, what residents want, and what the supervisor can provide. Although data is mixed as to whether supervision improves patient outcomes, supervision is essential for patient care and resident education. Dr. Steinberg showcased several relevant medical education studies related to supervision and focused on a key question: Do you trust the resident? The review of medical education literature discussed the meaning and development of trust, oral case presentations to determine trust, and the influence of supervisor experience.

Key takeaways

• Resident supervision is driven by what residents need, what residents want, and what the supervisor can provide.
• Trust can be determined from direct supervision, oral presentations, and remote access of electronic medical records, but is also influenced by attending experience and style.

Balancing personal and professional life

HM20 Virtual session: Being a Hospitalist and a Parent: Balancing Roles With Grace

Presenters: Heather E. Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, and David Alfandre, MD, MSPH

Dr. Nye of the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr. Alfandre of New York University shared their challenges as hospitalists, parents, and partners before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. They described their feelings of guilt during the pandemic related to increasing their families’ infection risks, as well as the gratitude they felt for having stable jobs during the crisis. They shared solutions that worked for their families, including cooperating with their partners, expressing their scheduling needs, and negotiating to meet those needs with their employers.

Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre recommended staying connected with others for help, including partners, institutions, neighbors, and colleagues. They also recommended supporting, sharing, collaborating, and connecting with their partners and colleagues to maintain a balanced professional and personal life.
 

Key takeaway:

• Stay connected and support, collaborate, and share with your colleagues and partner at home.

Dr. Kumar is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist. She is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. Dr. Doraiswamy is an assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics and a med-peds hospitalist at The Ohio State University and Nationwide Children’s Hospital, both in Columbus. Dr. Tantoco is an academic med-peds hospitalist practicing in Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

Is nicotine protective?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racial disparities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vulnerable populations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Pretty convincing’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Universal screening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is nicotine protective?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racial disparities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vulnerable populations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Pretty convincing’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Universal screening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is nicotine protective?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racial disparities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vulnerable populations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Pretty convincing’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Universal screening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to help

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

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

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

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

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

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