The Hospitalist

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children continue to represent an increasing proportion of reported COVID-19 cases in the United States, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 38,516 child cases reported during the week ending Sept. 17 bring the cumulative number to 587,948, which is 10.3% of all COVID-19 cases. The previous week, children represented 10.0% of all cases, and that proportion has continued to rise throughout the pandemic, the AAP and CHA report shows.

Looking at just new cases for the latest week, the 38,000+ pediatric cases made up almost 17% of the 228,396 cases reported for all ages, compared with 16% and 15% the two previous weeks. For the weeks ending Aug. 13 and Aug. 6, the corresponding figures were 8% and 13%, based on the data in the AAP/CHA report, which cover 49 states (New York City but not New York state), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The state with the highest proportion of child COVID-19 cases as of Sept. 17 was Wyoming, with 20.6%, followed by North Dakota at 18.3% and Tennessee at 17.9%. New York City has a cumulative rate of just 3.4%, but New Jersey is the state with the lowest rate at 3.6%. Florida comes in at 5.9% but is using an age range of 0-14 years for children, and Texas has a rate of 6.0% but has reported ages for only 8% of confirmed cases, the AAP and CHA noted.

Severe illness, however, continues to be rare in children. The overall hospitalization rate for children was down to 1.7% among the 26 jurisdictions providing ages as Sept. 17 – down from 1.8% the week before and 2.3% on Aug. 20. The death rate is just 0.02% among 43 jurisdictions, the report said.

[email protected]

Children continue to represent an increasing proportion of reported COVID-19 cases in the United States, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 38,516 child cases reported during the week ending Sept. 17 bring the cumulative number to 587,948, which is 10.3% of all COVID-19 cases. The previous week, children represented 10.0% of all cases, and that proportion has continued to rise throughout the pandemic, the AAP and CHA report shows.

Looking at just new cases for the latest week, the 38,000+ pediatric cases made up almost 17% of the 228,396 cases reported for all ages, compared with 16% and 15% the two previous weeks. For the weeks ending Aug. 13 and Aug. 6, the corresponding figures were 8% and 13%, based on the data in the AAP/CHA report, which cover 49 states (New York City but not New York state), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The state with the highest proportion of child COVID-19 cases as of Sept. 17 was Wyoming, with 20.6%, followed by North Dakota at 18.3% and Tennessee at 17.9%. New York City has a cumulative rate of just 3.4%, but New Jersey is the state with the lowest rate at 3.6%. Florida comes in at 5.9% but is using an age range of 0-14 years for children, and Texas has a rate of 6.0% but has reported ages for only 8% of confirmed cases, the AAP and CHA noted.

Severe illness, however, continues to be rare in children. The overall hospitalization rate for children was down to 1.7% among the 26 jurisdictions providing ages as Sept. 17 – down from 1.8% the week before and 2.3% on Aug. 20. The death rate is just 0.02% among 43 jurisdictions, the report said.

[email protected]

Children continue to represent an increasing proportion of reported COVID-19 cases in the United States, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 38,516 child cases reported during the week ending Sept. 17 bring the cumulative number to 587,948, which is 10.3% of all COVID-19 cases. The previous week, children represented 10.0% of all cases, and that proportion has continued to rise throughout the pandemic, the AAP and CHA report shows.

Looking at just new cases for the latest week, the 38,000+ pediatric cases made up almost 17% of the 228,396 cases reported for all ages, compared with 16% and 15% the two previous weeks. For the weeks ending Aug. 13 and Aug. 6, the corresponding figures were 8% and 13%, based on the data in the AAP/CHA report, which cover 49 states (New York City but not New York state), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The state with the highest proportion of child COVID-19 cases as of Sept. 17 was Wyoming, with 20.6%, followed by North Dakota at 18.3% and Tennessee at 17.9%. New York City has a cumulative rate of just 3.4%, but New Jersey is the state with the lowest rate at 3.6%. Florida comes in at 5.9% but is using an age range of 0-14 years for children, and Texas has a rate of 6.0% but has reported ages for only 8% of confirmed cases, the AAP and CHA noted.

Severe illness, however, continues to be rare in children. The overall hospitalization rate for children was down to 1.7% among the 26 jurisdictions providing ages as Sept. 17 – down from 1.8% the week before and 2.3% on Aug. 20. The death rate is just 0.02% among 43 jurisdictions, the report said.

[email protected]

President Donald Trump, who seems intent on announcing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day, could legally authorize a vaccine over the objections of experts, officials at the Food and Drug Administration and even vaccine manufacturers, who have pledged not to release any vaccine unless it’s proved safe and effective.

In podcasts, public forums, social media and medical journals, a growing number of prominent health leaders say they fear that Mr. Trump – who has repeatedly signaled his desire for the swift approval of a vaccine and his displeasure with perceived delays at the FDA – will take matters into his own hands, running roughshod over the usual regulatory process.

It would reflect another attempt by a norm-breaking administration, poised to ram through a Supreme Court nominee opposed to existing abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, to inject politics into sensitive public health decisions. Mr. Trump has repeatedly contradicted the advice of senior scientists on COVID-19 while pushing controversial treatments for the disease.

If the executive branch were to overrule the FDA’s scientific judgment, a vaccine of limited efficacy and, worse, unknown side effects could be rushed to market.

The worries intensified over the weekend, after Alex Azar, the administration’s secretary of Health & Human Services, asserted his agency’s rule-making authority over the FDA. HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said Mr. Azar’s decision had no bearing on the vaccine approval process.

Vaccines are typically approved by the FDA. Alternatively, Mr. Azar – who reports directly to Mr. Trump – can issue an emergency use authorization, even before any vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in late-stage clinical trials.

“Yes, this scenario is certainly possible legally and politically,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who outlined such an event in the New England Journal of Medicine. He said it “seems frighteningly more plausible each day.”

Vaccine experts and public health officials are particularly vexed by the possibility because it could ruin the fragile public confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine. It might put scientific authorities in the position of urging people not to be vaccinated after years of coaxing hesitant parents to ignore baseless fears.

Physicians might refuse to administer a vaccine approved with inadequate data, said Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in a recent webinar. “You could have a safe, effective vaccine that no one wants to take.” A recent KFF poll found that 54% of Americans would not submit to a COVID-19 vaccine authorized before Election Day.

After this story was published, an HHS official said that Mr. Azar “will defer completely to the FDA” as the agency weighs whether to approve a vaccine produced through the government’s Operation Warp Speed effort.

“The idea the Secretary would approve or authorize a vaccine over the FDA’s objections is preposterous and betrays ignorance of the transparent process that we’re following for the development of the OWS vaccines,” HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison wrote in an email.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere dismissed the scientists’ concerns, saying Trump cared only about the public’s safety and health. “This false narrative that the media and Democrats have created that politics is influencing approvals is not only false but is a danger to the American public,” he said.

Usually, the FDA approves vaccines only after companies submit years of data proving that a vaccine is safe and effective. But a 2004 law allows the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization with much less evidence, as long as the vaccine “may be effective” and its “known and potential benefits” outweigh its “known and potential risks.”

Many scientists doubt a vaccine could meet those criteria before the election. But the terms might be legally vague enough to allow the administration to take such steps.

Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the government program aiming to more quickly develop COVID-19 vaccines, said it’s “extremely unlikely” that vaccine trial results will be ready before the end of October.

Mr. Trump, however, has insisted repeatedly that a vaccine to fight the pandemic that has claimed 200,000 American lives will be distributed starting next month. He reiterated that claim Saturday at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C.

The vaccine will be ready “in a matter of weeks,” he said. “We will end the pandemic from China.”

Although pharmaceutical companies have launched three clinical trials in the United States, no one can say with certainty when those trials will have enough data to determine whether the vaccines are safe and effective.

Officials at Moderna, whose vaccine is being tested in 30,000 volunteers, have said their studies could produce a result by the end of the year, although the final analysis could take place next spring.

Pfizer executives, who have expanded their clinical trial to 44,000 participants, boast that they could know their vaccine works by the end of October.

AstraZeneca’s U.S. vaccine trial, which was scheduled to enroll 30,000 volunteers, is on hold pending an investigation of a possible vaccine-related illness.

Scientists have warned for months that the Trump administration could try to win the election with an “October surprise,” authorizing a vaccine that hasn’t been fully tested. “I don’t think people are crazy to be thinking about all of this,” said William Schultz, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm who served as a former FDA commissioner for policy and as general counsel for HHS.

“You’ve got a president saying you’ll have an approval in October. Everybody’s wondering how that could happen.”

In an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, conservative former FDA commissioners Scott Gottlieb and Mark McClellan argued that presidential intrusion was unlikely because the FDA’s “thorough and transparent process doesn’t lend itself to meddling. Any deviation would quickly be apparent.”

But the administration has demonstrated a willingness to bend the agency to its will. The FDA has been criticized for issuing emergency authorizations for two COVID-19 treatments that were boosted by the president but lacked strong evidence to support them: hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma.

Mr. Azar has sidelined the FDA in other ways, such as by blocking the agency from regulating lab-developed tests, including tests for the novel coronavirus.

Although FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times he would be willing to approve emergency use of a vaccine before large-scale studies conclude, agency officials also have pledged to ensure the safety of any COVID-19 vaccines.

A senior FDA official who oversees vaccine approvals, Peter Marks, MD, has said he will quit if his agency rubber-stamps an unproven COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think there would be an outcry from the public health community second to none, which is my worst nightmare – my worst nightmare – because we will so confuse the public,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in his weekly podcast.

Still, “even if a company did not want it to be done, even if the FDA did not want it to be done, he could still do that,” said Dr. Osterholm, in his podcast. “I hope that we’d never see that happen, but we have to entertain that’s a possibility.”

In the New England Journal editorial, Dr. Avorn and coauthor Aaron Kesselheim, MD, wondered whether Mr. Trump might invoke the 1950 Defense Production Act to force reluctant drug companies to manufacture their vaccines.

But Mr. Trump would have to sue a company to enforce the Defense Production Act, and the company would have a strong case in refusing, said Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

Also, he noted that Mr. Trump could not invoke the Defense Production Act unless a vaccine were “scientifically justified and approved by the FDA.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

President Donald Trump, who seems intent on announcing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day, could legally authorize a vaccine over the objections of experts, officials at the Food and Drug Administration and even vaccine manufacturers, who have pledged not to release any vaccine unless it’s proved safe and effective.

In podcasts, public forums, social media and medical journals, a growing number of prominent health leaders say they fear that Mr. Trump – who has repeatedly signaled his desire for the swift approval of a vaccine and his displeasure with perceived delays at the FDA – will take matters into his own hands, running roughshod over the usual regulatory process.

It would reflect another attempt by a norm-breaking administration, poised to ram through a Supreme Court nominee opposed to existing abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, to inject politics into sensitive public health decisions. Mr. Trump has repeatedly contradicted the advice of senior scientists on COVID-19 while pushing controversial treatments for the disease.

If the executive branch were to overrule the FDA’s scientific judgment, a vaccine of limited efficacy and, worse, unknown side effects could be rushed to market.

The worries intensified over the weekend, after Alex Azar, the administration’s secretary of Health & Human Services, asserted his agency’s rule-making authority over the FDA. HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said Mr. Azar’s decision had no bearing on the vaccine approval process.

Vaccines are typically approved by the FDA. Alternatively, Mr. Azar – who reports directly to Mr. Trump – can issue an emergency use authorization, even before any vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in late-stage clinical trials.

“Yes, this scenario is certainly possible legally and politically,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who outlined such an event in the New England Journal of Medicine. He said it “seems frighteningly more plausible each day.”

Vaccine experts and public health officials are particularly vexed by the possibility because it could ruin the fragile public confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine. It might put scientific authorities in the position of urging people not to be vaccinated after years of coaxing hesitant parents to ignore baseless fears.

Physicians might refuse to administer a vaccine approved with inadequate data, said Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in a recent webinar. “You could have a safe, effective vaccine that no one wants to take.” A recent KFF poll found that 54% of Americans would not submit to a COVID-19 vaccine authorized before Election Day.

After this story was published, an HHS official said that Mr. Azar “will defer completely to the FDA” as the agency weighs whether to approve a vaccine produced through the government’s Operation Warp Speed effort.

“The idea the Secretary would approve or authorize a vaccine over the FDA’s objections is preposterous and betrays ignorance of the transparent process that we’re following for the development of the OWS vaccines,” HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison wrote in an email.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere dismissed the scientists’ concerns, saying Trump cared only about the public’s safety and health. “This false narrative that the media and Democrats have created that politics is influencing approvals is not only false but is a danger to the American public,” he said.

Usually, the FDA approves vaccines only after companies submit years of data proving that a vaccine is safe and effective. But a 2004 law allows the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization with much less evidence, as long as the vaccine “may be effective” and its “known and potential benefits” outweigh its “known and potential risks.”

Many scientists doubt a vaccine could meet those criteria before the election. But the terms might be legally vague enough to allow the administration to take such steps.

Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the government program aiming to more quickly develop COVID-19 vaccines, said it’s “extremely unlikely” that vaccine trial results will be ready before the end of October.

Mr. Trump, however, has insisted repeatedly that a vaccine to fight the pandemic that has claimed 200,000 American lives will be distributed starting next month. He reiterated that claim Saturday at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C.

The vaccine will be ready “in a matter of weeks,” he said. “We will end the pandemic from China.”

Although pharmaceutical companies have launched three clinical trials in the United States, no one can say with certainty when those trials will have enough data to determine whether the vaccines are safe and effective.

Officials at Moderna, whose vaccine is being tested in 30,000 volunteers, have said their studies could produce a result by the end of the year, although the final analysis could take place next spring.

Pfizer executives, who have expanded their clinical trial to 44,000 participants, boast that they could know their vaccine works by the end of October.

AstraZeneca’s U.S. vaccine trial, which was scheduled to enroll 30,000 volunteers, is on hold pending an investigation of a possible vaccine-related illness.

Scientists have warned for months that the Trump administration could try to win the election with an “October surprise,” authorizing a vaccine that hasn’t been fully tested. “I don’t think people are crazy to be thinking about all of this,” said William Schultz, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm who served as a former FDA commissioner for policy and as general counsel for HHS.

“You’ve got a president saying you’ll have an approval in October. Everybody’s wondering how that could happen.”

In an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, conservative former FDA commissioners Scott Gottlieb and Mark McClellan argued that presidential intrusion was unlikely because the FDA’s “thorough and transparent process doesn’t lend itself to meddling. Any deviation would quickly be apparent.”

But the administration has demonstrated a willingness to bend the agency to its will. The FDA has been criticized for issuing emergency authorizations for two COVID-19 treatments that were boosted by the president but lacked strong evidence to support them: hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma.

Mr. Azar has sidelined the FDA in other ways, such as by blocking the agency from regulating lab-developed tests, including tests for the novel coronavirus.

Although FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times he would be willing to approve emergency use of a vaccine before large-scale studies conclude, agency officials also have pledged to ensure the safety of any COVID-19 vaccines.

A senior FDA official who oversees vaccine approvals, Peter Marks, MD, has said he will quit if his agency rubber-stamps an unproven COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think there would be an outcry from the public health community second to none, which is my worst nightmare – my worst nightmare – because we will so confuse the public,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in his weekly podcast.

Still, “even if a company did not want it to be done, even if the FDA did not want it to be done, he could still do that,” said Dr. Osterholm, in his podcast. “I hope that we’d never see that happen, but we have to entertain that’s a possibility.”

In the New England Journal editorial, Dr. Avorn and coauthor Aaron Kesselheim, MD, wondered whether Mr. Trump might invoke the 1950 Defense Production Act to force reluctant drug companies to manufacture their vaccines.

But Mr. Trump would have to sue a company to enforce the Defense Production Act, and the company would have a strong case in refusing, said Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

Also, he noted that Mr. Trump could not invoke the Defense Production Act unless a vaccine were “scientifically justified and approved by the FDA.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

President Donald Trump, who seems intent on announcing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day, could legally authorize a vaccine over the objections of experts, officials at the Food and Drug Administration and even vaccine manufacturers, who have pledged not to release any vaccine unless it’s proved safe and effective.

In podcasts, public forums, social media and medical journals, a growing number of prominent health leaders say they fear that Mr. Trump – who has repeatedly signaled his desire for the swift approval of a vaccine and his displeasure with perceived delays at the FDA – will take matters into his own hands, running roughshod over the usual regulatory process.

It would reflect another attempt by a norm-breaking administration, poised to ram through a Supreme Court nominee opposed to existing abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, to inject politics into sensitive public health decisions. Mr. Trump has repeatedly contradicted the advice of senior scientists on COVID-19 while pushing controversial treatments for the disease.

If the executive branch were to overrule the FDA’s scientific judgment, a vaccine of limited efficacy and, worse, unknown side effects could be rushed to market.

The worries intensified over the weekend, after Alex Azar, the administration’s secretary of Health & Human Services, asserted his agency’s rule-making authority over the FDA. HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said Mr. Azar’s decision had no bearing on the vaccine approval process.

Vaccines are typically approved by the FDA. Alternatively, Mr. Azar – who reports directly to Mr. Trump – can issue an emergency use authorization, even before any vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in late-stage clinical trials.

“Yes, this scenario is certainly possible legally and politically,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who outlined such an event in the New England Journal of Medicine. He said it “seems frighteningly more plausible each day.”

Vaccine experts and public health officials are particularly vexed by the possibility because it could ruin the fragile public confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine. It might put scientific authorities in the position of urging people not to be vaccinated after years of coaxing hesitant parents to ignore baseless fears.

Physicians might refuse to administer a vaccine approved with inadequate data, said Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in a recent webinar. “You could have a safe, effective vaccine that no one wants to take.” A recent KFF poll found that 54% of Americans would not submit to a COVID-19 vaccine authorized before Election Day.

After this story was published, an HHS official said that Mr. Azar “will defer completely to the FDA” as the agency weighs whether to approve a vaccine produced through the government’s Operation Warp Speed effort.

“The idea the Secretary would approve or authorize a vaccine over the FDA’s objections is preposterous and betrays ignorance of the transparent process that we’re following for the development of the OWS vaccines,” HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison wrote in an email.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere dismissed the scientists’ concerns, saying Trump cared only about the public’s safety and health. “This false narrative that the media and Democrats have created that politics is influencing approvals is not only false but is a danger to the American public,” he said.

Usually, the FDA approves vaccines only after companies submit years of data proving that a vaccine is safe and effective. But a 2004 law allows the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization with much less evidence, as long as the vaccine “may be effective” and its “known and potential benefits” outweigh its “known and potential risks.”

Many scientists doubt a vaccine could meet those criteria before the election. But the terms might be legally vague enough to allow the administration to take such steps.

Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the government program aiming to more quickly develop COVID-19 vaccines, said it’s “extremely unlikely” that vaccine trial results will be ready before the end of October.

Mr. Trump, however, has insisted repeatedly that a vaccine to fight the pandemic that has claimed 200,000 American lives will be distributed starting next month. He reiterated that claim Saturday at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C.

The vaccine will be ready “in a matter of weeks,” he said. “We will end the pandemic from China.”

Although pharmaceutical companies have launched three clinical trials in the United States, no one can say with certainty when those trials will have enough data to determine whether the vaccines are safe and effective.

Officials at Moderna, whose vaccine is being tested in 30,000 volunteers, have said their studies could produce a result by the end of the year, although the final analysis could take place next spring.

Pfizer executives, who have expanded their clinical trial to 44,000 participants, boast that they could know their vaccine works by the end of October.

AstraZeneca’s U.S. vaccine trial, which was scheduled to enroll 30,000 volunteers, is on hold pending an investigation of a possible vaccine-related illness.

Scientists have warned for months that the Trump administration could try to win the election with an “October surprise,” authorizing a vaccine that hasn’t been fully tested. “I don’t think people are crazy to be thinking about all of this,” said William Schultz, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm who served as a former FDA commissioner for policy and as general counsel for HHS.

“You’ve got a president saying you’ll have an approval in October. Everybody’s wondering how that could happen.”

In an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, conservative former FDA commissioners Scott Gottlieb and Mark McClellan argued that presidential intrusion was unlikely because the FDA’s “thorough and transparent process doesn’t lend itself to meddling. Any deviation would quickly be apparent.”

But the administration has demonstrated a willingness to bend the agency to its will. The FDA has been criticized for issuing emergency authorizations for two COVID-19 treatments that were boosted by the president but lacked strong evidence to support them: hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma.

Mr. Azar has sidelined the FDA in other ways, such as by blocking the agency from regulating lab-developed tests, including tests for the novel coronavirus.

Although FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times he would be willing to approve emergency use of a vaccine before large-scale studies conclude, agency officials also have pledged to ensure the safety of any COVID-19 vaccines.

A senior FDA official who oversees vaccine approvals, Peter Marks, MD, has said he will quit if his agency rubber-stamps an unproven COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think there would be an outcry from the public health community second to none, which is my worst nightmare – my worst nightmare – because we will so confuse the public,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in his weekly podcast.

Still, “even if a company did not want it to be done, even if the FDA did not want it to be done, he could still do that,” said Dr. Osterholm, in his podcast. “I hope that we’d never see that happen, but we have to entertain that’s a possibility.”

In the New England Journal editorial, Dr. Avorn and coauthor Aaron Kesselheim, MD, wondered whether Mr. Trump might invoke the 1950 Defense Production Act to force reluctant drug companies to manufacture their vaccines.

But Mr. Trump would have to sue a company to enforce the Defense Production Act, and the company would have a strong case in refusing, said Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

Also, he noted that Mr. Trump could not invoke the Defense Production Act unless a vaccine were “scientifically justified and approved by the FDA.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

It was 6 a.m. on a rainy, cold Pacific Northwest morning as I walked from my apartment to the hospital, dodging puddles and dreaming of the mediocre-yet-hot physician-lounge coffee. Another long day full of clinical and administrative tasks awaited me.

I was 6 months’ pregnant with our first child and working my sixth 12-hour shift in a row. We had recently lost our medical director, and the C-suite had offered me the role. The day ahead seemed like an enormous mountain to climb.

I felt tired and more than a little overwhelmed. But I whispered to myself: “Today is going to be a fantastic day. I will not fail my team. I will not fail my patients!”
 

Physician leadership starts with a decision

The timing of this call to leadership had not been ideal. There’s probably never a perfect time to step into a medical director role. And my situation was no exception.

In addition to the baby on the way, my husband was traveling a lot for work. Also, the job of a medical director seemed a little daunting – especially to a young physician leading a team for the first time.

But I knew that leadership was my calling. While I didn’t yet have decades of experience, I had been selected as the chief resident in internal medicine, completed a nephrology fellowship, and mentored several medical students and residents along my career path.

I also knew that I was passionate about supporting my patients and hospitalist team. I’d previously served as associate medical director in charge of quality, readmission reduction, and patient experience. Having achieved the highest patient satisfaction scores on the team for 2 consecutive years, I was specially tasked to improve our team’s HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) scores.

These experiences taught me that coaching with positive reinforcement was in my blood. This gave me the courage to face my tallest mountain yet.
 

No one climbs a mountain alone

I also stepped into my new physician leadership role with amazing support. Our outgoing medical director had recommended me, and my entire team was rooting for me. My spouse was 100% behind the idea.

Courtesy Dr. Swati Mehta

What’s more, I had received amazing feedback from patients throughout my 3 years at the hospital. I had papered an entire office wall with their thank-you notes. I even had a quilt that an 85-year-old patient’s wife made to thank me for my compassionate care.

As I weighed my decision, I realized that I had a higher calling to be a true advocate for my patients. I loved what I did. Each day, I resolved to bring my best and most authentic self for them – no matter how drained I felt.

My team and patients needed me now, not at some more convenient time down the road. A medical director job was the natural next step for me. And so, I resolved to climb the mountain.
 

Climbing through storms

Stepping into a medical director job forced me to grow into a completely new person. So maybe starting that role during pregnancy was a great metaphor!

Each day, there was immense pressure to perform, to deliver quality outcomes, and to simultaneously meet expectations of the C-suite as well as my hospitalist team. There was no room for failure, because too much was at stake.

Looking back today, I wouldn’t trade the experience for anything. The medical director role was one of the most gratifying experiences in my life, and I am truly thankful for it.

A leader’s role truly boils down to working tirelessly to collaborate with different care teams. It’s important to care not only about our patients but also about our fellow hospitalists. We can do this by truly leading by example – be it picking up extra shifts, covering holidays so team members can be with family, or coming in at 10 p.m. to round with your night team.

I was also able to bring a unique perspective to the hospital C-suite meetings as a woman, an immigrant, and a true “mama bear” – not only of my infant son but also of my team.

Courtesy Dr. Swati Mehta

My first year as a medical director required more commitment and heart than I could have imagined. But all this hard work paid off when our hospitalist group received the coveted Best Team Award for most improved quality outcomes, financial performance, and patient experience.
 

The summit is the beginning

My first medical director job fueled my passion for patient satisfaction even further. I now serve as the director of patient experience for the more than 4,200 clinicians at Vituity. Together we care for more than 6.5 million lives a year across the country.

In 2019, I coached 300 physicians and hospital leaders on communication, collaboration, and service recovery skills, leading to significant improvement in their HCAHPS scores. I was delighted to receive the Vituity Distinguished Service Award for my contributions. It’s such an honor to be instrumental in impacting patient care at a larger scale.

This year, I was invited to serve as vice chair of the Society for Hospital Medicine’s patient experience committee and to join the executive board of the SHM San Francisco chapter. Together, we have created a COVID-19 patient communication resource and reached out to our hospitalists to provide them with a space to share their stories during this pandemic. I am so excited to share my knowledge and passion with clinicians across the country given the wide reach of Vituity & SHM!

Many hospitalists shy away from leadership roles. The mountain is tough to scale, but the view from the top is worth it. The key is to start, even if you don’t feel ready. I am here to tell you it can be done!

Dr. Mehta is a hospitalist and director of quality & performance and patient experience at Vituity in Emeryville, Calif. She is vice chair of the SHM patient experience committee and executive board member of the SHM San Francisco Bay Area chapter.

It was 6 a.m. on a rainy, cold Pacific Northwest morning as I walked from my apartment to the hospital, dodging puddles and dreaming of the mediocre-yet-hot physician-lounge coffee. Another long day full of clinical and administrative tasks awaited me.

I was 6 months’ pregnant with our first child and working my sixth 12-hour shift in a row. We had recently lost our medical director, and the C-suite had offered me the role. The day ahead seemed like an enormous mountain to climb.

I felt tired and more than a little overwhelmed. But I whispered to myself: “Today is going to be a fantastic day. I will not fail my team. I will not fail my patients!”
 

Physician leadership starts with a decision

The timing of this call to leadership had not been ideal. There’s probably never a perfect time to step into a medical director role. And my situation was no exception.

In addition to the baby on the way, my husband was traveling a lot for work. Also, the job of a medical director seemed a little daunting – especially to a young physician leading a team for the first time.

But I knew that leadership was my calling. While I didn’t yet have decades of experience, I had been selected as the chief resident in internal medicine, completed a nephrology fellowship, and mentored several medical students and residents along my career path.

I also knew that I was passionate about supporting my patients and hospitalist team. I’d previously served as associate medical director in charge of quality, readmission reduction, and patient experience. Having achieved the highest patient satisfaction scores on the team for 2 consecutive years, I was specially tasked to improve our team’s HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) scores.

These experiences taught me that coaching with positive reinforcement was in my blood. This gave me the courage to face my tallest mountain yet.
 

No one climbs a mountain alone

I also stepped into my new physician leadership role with amazing support. Our outgoing medical director had recommended me, and my entire team was rooting for me. My spouse was 100% behind the idea.

Courtesy Dr. Swati Mehta

What’s more, I had received amazing feedback from patients throughout my 3 years at the hospital. I had papered an entire office wall with their thank-you notes. I even had a quilt that an 85-year-old patient’s wife made to thank me for my compassionate care.

As I weighed my decision, I realized that I had a higher calling to be a true advocate for my patients. I loved what I did. Each day, I resolved to bring my best and most authentic self for them – no matter how drained I felt.

My team and patients needed me now, not at some more convenient time down the road. A medical director job was the natural next step for me. And so, I resolved to climb the mountain.
 

Climbing through storms

Stepping into a medical director job forced me to grow into a completely new person. So maybe starting that role during pregnancy was a great metaphor!

Each day, there was immense pressure to perform, to deliver quality outcomes, and to simultaneously meet expectations of the C-suite as well as my hospitalist team. There was no room for failure, because too much was at stake.

Looking back today, I wouldn’t trade the experience for anything. The medical director role was one of the most gratifying experiences in my life, and I am truly thankful for it.

A leader’s role truly boils down to working tirelessly to collaborate with different care teams. It’s important to care not only about our patients but also about our fellow hospitalists. We can do this by truly leading by example – be it picking up extra shifts, covering holidays so team members can be with family, or coming in at 10 p.m. to round with your night team.

I was also able to bring a unique perspective to the hospital C-suite meetings as a woman, an immigrant, and a true “mama bear” – not only of my infant son but also of my team.

Courtesy Dr. Swati Mehta

My first year as a medical director required more commitment and heart than I could have imagined. But all this hard work paid off when our hospitalist group received the coveted Best Team Award for most improved quality outcomes, financial performance, and patient experience.
 

The summit is the beginning

My first medical director job fueled my passion for patient satisfaction even further. I now serve as the director of patient experience for the more than 4,200 clinicians at Vituity. Together we care for more than 6.5 million lives a year across the country.

In 2019, I coached 300 physicians and hospital leaders on communication, collaboration, and service recovery skills, leading to significant improvement in their HCAHPS scores. I was delighted to receive the Vituity Distinguished Service Award for my contributions. It’s such an honor to be instrumental in impacting patient care at a larger scale.

This year, I was invited to serve as vice chair of the Society for Hospital Medicine’s patient experience committee and to join the executive board of the SHM San Francisco chapter. Together, we have created a COVID-19 patient communication resource and reached out to our hospitalists to provide them with a space to share their stories during this pandemic. I am so excited to share my knowledge and passion with clinicians across the country given the wide reach of Vituity & SHM!

Many hospitalists shy away from leadership roles. The mountain is tough to scale, but the view from the top is worth it. The key is to start, even if you don’t feel ready. I am here to tell you it can be done!

Dr. Mehta is a hospitalist and director of quality & performance and patient experience at Vituity in Emeryville, Calif. She is vice chair of the SHM patient experience committee and executive board member of the SHM San Francisco Bay Area chapter.

It was 6 a.m. on a rainy, cold Pacific Northwest morning as I walked from my apartment to the hospital, dodging puddles and dreaming of the mediocre-yet-hot physician-lounge coffee. Another long day full of clinical and administrative tasks awaited me.

I was 6 months’ pregnant with our first child and working my sixth 12-hour shift in a row. We had recently lost our medical director, and the C-suite had offered me the role. The day ahead seemed like an enormous mountain to climb.

I felt tired and more than a little overwhelmed. But I whispered to myself: “Today is going to be a fantastic day. I will not fail my team. I will not fail my patients!”
 

Physician leadership starts with a decision

The timing of this call to leadership had not been ideal. There’s probably never a perfect time to step into a medical director role. And my situation was no exception.

In addition to the baby on the way, my husband was traveling a lot for work. Also, the job of a medical director seemed a little daunting – especially to a young physician leading a team for the first time.

But I knew that leadership was my calling. While I didn’t yet have decades of experience, I had been selected as the chief resident in internal medicine, completed a nephrology fellowship, and mentored several medical students and residents along my career path.

I also knew that I was passionate about supporting my patients and hospitalist team. I’d previously served as associate medical director in charge of quality, readmission reduction, and patient experience. Having achieved the highest patient satisfaction scores on the team for 2 consecutive years, I was specially tasked to improve our team’s HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) scores.

These experiences taught me that coaching with positive reinforcement was in my blood. This gave me the courage to face my tallest mountain yet.
 

No one climbs a mountain alone

I also stepped into my new physician leadership role with amazing support. Our outgoing medical director had recommended me, and my entire team was rooting for me. My spouse was 100% behind the idea.

Courtesy Dr. Swati Mehta

What’s more, I had received amazing feedback from patients throughout my 3 years at the hospital. I had papered an entire office wall with their thank-you notes. I even had a quilt that an 85-year-old patient’s wife made to thank me for my compassionate care.

As I weighed my decision, I realized that I had a higher calling to be a true advocate for my patients. I loved what I did. Each day, I resolved to bring my best and most authentic self for them – no matter how drained I felt.

My team and patients needed me now, not at some more convenient time down the road. A medical director job was the natural next step for me. And so, I resolved to climb the mountain.
 

Climbing through storms

Stepping into a medical director job forced me to grow into a completely new person. So maybe starting that role during pregnancy was a great metaphor!

Each day, there was immense pressure to perform, to deliver quality outcomes, and to simultaneously meet expectations of the C-suite as well as my hospitalist team. There was no room for failure, because too much was at stake.

Looking back today, I wouldn’t trade the experience for anything. The medical director role was one of the most gratifying experiences in my life, and I am truly thankful for it.

A leader’s role truly boils down to working tirelessly to collaborate with different care teams. It’s important to care not only about our patients but also about our fellow hospitalists. We can do this by truly leading by example – be it picking up extra shifts, covering holidays so team members can be with family, or coming in at 10 p.m. to round with your night team.

I was also able to bring a unique perspective to the hospital C-suite meetings as a woman, an immigrant, and a true “mama bear” – not only of my infant son but also of my team.

Courtesy Dr. Swati Mehta

My first year as a medical director required more commitment and heart than I could have imagined. But all this hard work paid off when our hospitalist group received the coveted Best Team Award for most improved quality outcomes, financial performance, and patient experience.
 

The summit is the beginning

My first medical director job fueled my passion for patient satisfaction even further. I now serve as the director of patient experience for the more than 4,200 clinicians at Vituity. Together we care for more than 6.5 million lives a year across the country.

In 2019, I coached 300 physicians and hospital leaders on communication, collaboration, and service recovery skills, leading to significant improvement in their HCAHPS scores. I was delighted to receive the Vituity Distinguished Service Award for my contributions. It’s such an honor to be instrumental in impacting patient care at a larger scale.

This year, I was invited to serve as vice chair of the Society for Hospital Medicine’s patient experience committee and to join the executive board of the SHM San Francisco chapter. Together, we have created a COVID-19 patient communication resource and reached out to our hospitalists to provide them with a space to share their stories during this pandemic. I am so excited to share my knowledge and passion with clinicians across the country given the wide reach of Vituity & SHM!

Many hospitalists shy away from leadership roles. The mountain is tough to scale, but the view from the top is worth it. The key is to start, even if you don’t feel ready. I am here to tell you it can be done!

Dr. Mehta is a hospitalist and director of quality & performance and patient experience at Vituity in Emeryville, Calif. She is vice chair of the SHM patient experience committee and executive board member of the SHM San Francisco Bay Area chapter.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it 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. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “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).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it 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. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “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).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it 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. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “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).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk for death goes up for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are put on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) at dosages other than those approved for stroke prevention, whether higher or lower than doses specified in the labeling, suggests a large registry study.

A quarter of more than 10,000 patients in the registry took the drugs at such nonrecommended higher or lower dosages. Overwhelmingly it was the latter, perhaps reflecting caution on the part of some practitioners looking to minimize the risk of bleeding complications.

The risk of major bleeding indeed dropped sharply for those taking DOACs at lower-than-recommended levels, but at the cost of a 25% jump in all-cause mortality over 2 years, report investigators from their analysis of patients in the GARFIELD-AF registry published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Risks of major bleeding and of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t climb significantly for patients either under- or overdosed.

In general, “physicians are worried about giving too much anticoagulant, and they tend to favor erring on the low-dose side,” lead author A. John Camm, MD, St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. That’s how it was when an oral anticoagulation meant a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and underdosing was frequent; and it remains an issue in the DOAC era. “It’s not just a little problem. It’s a very big problem.”

Today, clinicians may prescribe DOACs similar to how they prescribed VKAs, by cautiously choosing a lower dosage for selected patients based on their risk profile, Dr. Camm observed. But in contrast to the VKAs, the DOACs “were studied with different dose-reduction strategies, and their labeling requires them to be prescribed according to different parameters.”

They variously base dosage reductions on age, body weight, renal function, or drug-drug interactions, for example, but some clinicians “tend to think that all of those factors should be applied in every instance, with every drug,” he said.

“So I think there’s some confusion and a lot of caution that physicians use with anticoagulants, and they often forget that the purpose of the anticoagulant is to prevent strokes and adverse outcomes such as mortality,” Dr. Camm said. “But by reducing the dose, they expose their patients to these other major cardiovascular events.”

Numerically, the excess mortality among underdosed patients appeared to be driven by death from heart failure or myocardial infarction. There was little or no contribution from sudden death, fatal strokes, or noncardiovascular death.

The findings “remind clinicians to dose DOACs properly and that there are consequences of dosing errors,” observes Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, of Penn State University and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, in an accompanying editorial.

Based on the major clinical trials that established the drugs as mainstream stroke-preventive therapy in AFib, as well as extensive regulatory review, each DOAC’s label-recommended dosing “is a guidance of the truth to achieve the highest efficacy and most safety in our patients,” Dr. Naccarelli wrote. “As clinicians are risk adverse, underdosing might result in lower major bleeding rates, and physicians are blamed for bleeding but not necessarily for allowing embolic strokes to occur. These data raise the issue that underdosing is associated with worse patient outcomes.”

The GARFIELD-AF analysis covered 10,426 adults with nonvalvular AFib in 35 countries who initiated a DOAC from 2013 to 2016. The drugs were prescribed at dosages consistent with recommendations in each respective country’s labeling for stroke prevention in AFib in 72.9% of the cohort. Most full and adjusted dose levels approved by the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and regulators in Japan were the same or similar.

But there were a few exceptions. All dosing criteria across the three regulatory domains were the same for apixaban (Eliquis). But variations included lower dosage options for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana) in Japan, and a uniquely low dabigatran (Pradaxa) dosage option in the United States.

The DOAC used least often was the one most frequently underdosed. More than half of patients prescribed edoxaban were given it at a lower-than-recommended dosage.

The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality at 2 years for DOAC under- or overdosing, compared with dosing at recommended levels, was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.48). The difference was driven by underdosing, for which the HR was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.50). The HR for over-dosing was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.71).

Multivariate adjustment accounted for age, sex, and ethnicity; type of AFib; diabetes; hypertension; history of bleeding; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism; heart failure; vascular disease; smoking; and heavy alcohol consumption.

The risk of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t go up or down significantly for either overdosed or underdosed patients. Neither group showed an increased risk for major bleeding; however, the HR for major bleeding in underdosed patients fell to 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.88).

Underdosing was more common in some world regions than others. The rate exceeded 30% in all Latin American countries except Argentina, the report stated, and in all Asian countries except Singapore.

Japanese patients have long received oral anticoagulation at lower dosages than are used in the West, Dr. Camm observed. When VKAs were the only choice, for example, international normalized ratio targets were consistently a bit lower in Japan than in, for example, North America or Europe.

“And when [novel] OACs were developed, again, the Japanese took the view that their patients are more vulnerable to bleeding, and therefore a lower dose would be appropriate. In some instances, lower-dose regimens have been specifically studied in the Japanese,” Dr. Camm said. “Having said that, this concept of bleeding being more problematic in Asian patients has expanded well beyond Japan, and therefore in many Asian communities, lower doses of [novel] OACs are chosen.”

Many other factors may contribute to DOAC underdosing, including differences in dosing strategies between primary care practitioners and specialists, or between hospital-based and office-based clinicians, for example.

“It might also be argued that a physician who fails to treat a patient adequately in one arena may also be failing to treat the patient well in other aspects of their care,” Dr. Camm proposed. “Therefore you could have increased mortality due to other cardiovascular causes, or even noncardiovascular events, through absence of good quality care. Our study did not address that specifically. But it might be the case, speculatively.”

The study was supported by a grant from Bayer to the Thrombosis Research Institute, “which sponsors the GARFIELD-AF registry.” Dr. Camm discloses receiving grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Naccarelli disclosed consulting and participating in research for Janssen and serving as a consultant for Milestone, Sanofi, Omeicos, and Acesion Pharma.

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

The risk for death goes up for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are put on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) at dosages other than those approved for stroke prevention, whether higher or lower than doses specified in the labeling, suggests a large registry study.

A quarter of more than 10,000 patients in the registry took the drugs at such nonrecommended higher or lower dosages. Overwhelmingly it was the latter, perhaps reflecting caution on the part of some practitioners looking to minimize the risk of bleeding complications.

The risk of major bleeding indeed dropped sharply for those taking DOACs at lower-than-recommended levels, but at the cost of a 25% jump in all-cause mortality over 2 years, report investigators from their analysis of patients in the GARFIELD-AF registry published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Risks of major bleeding and of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t climb significantly for patients either under- or overdosed.

In general, “physicians are worried about giving too much anticoagulant, and they tend to favor erring on the low-dose side,” lead author A. John Camm, MD, St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. That’s how it was when an oral anticoagulation meant a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and underdosing was frequent; and it remains an issue in the DOAC era. “It’s not just a little problem. It’s a very big problem.”

Today, clinicians may prescribe DOACs similar to how they prescribed VKAs, by cautiously choosing a lower dosage for selected patients based on their risk profile, Dr. Camm observed. But in contrast to the VKAs, the DOACs “were studied with different dose-reduction strategies, and their labeling requires them to be prescribed according to different parameters.”

They variously base dosage reductions on age, body weight, renal function, or drug-drug interactions, for example, but some clinicians “tend to think that all of those factors should be applied in every instance, with every drug,” he said.

“So I think there’s some confusion and a lot of caution that physicians use with anticoagulants, and they often forget that the purpose of the anticoagulant is to prevent strokes and adverse outcomes such as mortality,” Dr. Camm said. “But by reducing the dose, they expose their patients to these other major cardiovascular events.”

Numerically, the excess mortality among underdosed patients appeared to be driven by death from heart failure or myocardial infarction. There was little or no contribution from sudden death, fatal strokes, or noncardiovascular death.

The findings “remind clinicians to dose DOACs properly and that there are consequences of dosing errors,” observes Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, of Penn State University and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, in an accompanying editorial.

Based on the major clinical trials that established the drugs as mainstream stroke-preventive therapy in AFib, as well as extensive regulatory review, each DOAC’s label-recommended dosing “is a guidance of the truth to achieve the highest efficacy and most safety in our patients,” Dr. Naccarelli wrote. “As clinicians are risk adverse, underdosing might result in lower major bleeding rates, and physicians are blamed for bleeding but not necessarily for allowing embolic strokes to occur. These data raise the issue that underdosing is associated with worse patient outcomes.”

The GARFIELD-AF analysis covered 10,426 adults with nonvalvular AFib in 35 countries who initiated a DOAC from 2013 to 2016. The drugs were prescribed at dosages consistent with recommendations in each respective country’s labeling for stroke prevention in AFib in 72.9% of the cohort. Most full and adjusted dose levels approved by the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and regulators in Japan were the same or similar.

But there were a few exceptions. All dosing criteria across the three regulatory domains were the same for apixaban (Eliquis). But variations included lower dosage options for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana) in Japan, and a uniquely low dabigatran (Pradaxa) dosage option in the United States.

The DOAC used least often was the one most frequently underdosed. More than half of patients prescribed edoxaban were given it at a lower-than-recommended dosage.

The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality at 2 years for DOAC under- or overdosing, compared with dosing at recommended levels, was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.48). The difference was driven by underdosing, for which the HR was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.50). The HR for over-dosing was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.71).

Multivariate adjustment accounted for age, sex, and ethnicity; type of AFib; diabetes; hypertension; history of bleeding; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism; heart failure; vascular disease; smoking; and heavy alcohol consumption.

The risk of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t go up or down significantly for either overdosed or underdosed patients. Neither group showed an increased risk for major bleeding; however, the HR for major bleeding in underdosed patients fell to 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.88).

Underdosing was more common in some world regions than others. The rate exceeded 30% in all Latin American countries except Argentina, the report stated, and in all Asian countries except Singapore.

Japanese patients have long received oral anticoagulation at lower dosages than are used in the West, Dr. Camm observed. When VKAs were the only choice, for example, international normalized ratio targets were consistently a bit lower in Japan than in, for example, North America or Europe.

“And when [novel] OACs were developed, again, the Japanese took the view that their patients are more vulnerable to bleeding, and therefore a lower dose would be appropriate. In some instances, lower-dose regimens have been specifically studied in the Japanese,” Dr. Camm said. “Having said that, this concept of bleeding being more problematic in Asian patients has expanded well beyond Japan, and therefore in many Asian communities, lower doses of [novel] OACs are chosen.”

Many other factors may contribute to DOAC underdosing, including differences in dosing strategies between primary care practitioners and specialists, or between hospital-based and office-based clinicians, for example.

“It might also be argued that a physician who fails to treat a patient adequately in one arena may also be failing to treat the patient well in other aspects of their care,” Dr. Camm proposed. “Therefore you could have increased mortality due to other cardiovascular causes, or even noncardiovascular events, through absence of good quality care. Our study did not address that specifically. But it might be the case, speculatively.”

The study was supported by a grant from Bayer to the Thrombosis Research Institute, “which sponsors the GARFIELD-AF registry.” Dr. Camm discloses receiving grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Naccarelli disclosed consulting and participating in research for Janssen and serving as a consultant for Milestone, Sanofi, Omeicos, and Acesion Pharma.

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

The risk for death goes up for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are put on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) at dosages other than those approved for stroke prevention, whether higher or lower than doses specified in the labeling, suggests a large registry study.

A quarter of more than 10,000 patients in the registry took the drugs at such nonrecommended higher or lower dosages. Overwhelmingly it was the latter, perhaps reflecting caution on the part of some practitioners looking to minimize the risk of bleeding complications.

The risk of major bleeding indeed dropped sharply for those taking DOACs at lower-than-recommended levels, but at the cost of a 25% jump in all-cause mortality over 2 years, report investigators from their analysis of patients in the GARFIELD-AF registry published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Risks of major bleeding and of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t climb significantly for patients either under- or overdosed.

In general, “physicians are worried about giving too much anticoagulant, and they tend to favor erring on the low-dose side,” lead author A. John Camm, MD, St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. That’s how it was when an oral anticoagulation meant a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and underdosing was frequent; and it remains an issue in the DOAC era. “It’s not just a little problem. It’s a very big problem.”

Today, clinicians may prescribe DOACs similar to how they prescribed VKAs, by cautiously choosing a lower dosage for selected patients based on their risk profile, Dr. Camm observed. But in contrast to the VKAs, the DOACs “were studied with different dose-reduction strategies, and their labeling requires them to be prescribed according to different parameters.”

They variously base dosage reductions on age, body weight, renal function, or drug-drug interactions, for example, but some clinicians “tend to think that all of those factors should be applied in every instance, with every drug,” he said.

“So I think there’s some confusion and a lot of caution that physicians use with anticoagulants, and they often forget that the purpose of the anticoagulant is to prevent strokes and adverse outcomes such as mortality,” Dr. Camm said. “But by reducing the dose, they expose their patients to these other major cardiovascular events.”

Numerically, the excess mortality among underdosed patients appeared to be driven by death from heart failure or myocardial infarction. There was little or no contribution from sudden death, fatal strokes, or noncardiovascular death.

The findings “remind clinicians to dose DOACs properly and that there are consequences of dosing errors,” observes Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, of Penn State University and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, in an accompanying editorial.

Based on the major clinical trials that established the drugs as mainstream stroke-preventive therapy in AFib, as well as extensive regulatory review, each DOAC’s label-recommended dosing “is a guidance of the truth to achieve the highest efficacy and most safety in our patients,” Dr. Naccarelli wrote. “As clinicians are risk adverse, underdosing might result in lower major bleeding rates, and physicians are blamed for bleeding but not necessarily for allowing embolic strokes to occur. These data raise the issue that underdosing is associated with worse patient outcomes.”

The GARFIELD-AF analysis covered 10,426 adults with nonvalvular AFib in 35 countries who initiated a DOAC from 2013 to 2016. The drugs were prescribed at dosages consistent with recommendations in each respective country’s labeling for stroke prevention in AFib in 72.9% of the cohort. Most full and adjusted dose levels approved by the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and regulators in Japan were the same or similar.

But there were a few exceptions. All dosing criteria across the three regulatory domains were the same for apixaban (Eliquis). But variations included lower dosage options for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana) in Japan, and a uniquely low dabigatran (Pradaxa) dosage option in the United States.

The DOAC used least often was the one most frequently underdosed. More than half of patients prescribed edoxaban were given it at a lower-than-recommended dosage.

The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality at 2 years for DOAC under- or overdosing, compared with dosing at recommended levels, was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.48). The difference was driven by underdosing, for which the HR was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.50). The HR for over-dosing was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.71).

Multivariate adjustment accounted for age, sex, and ethnicity; type of AFib; diabetes; hypertension; history of bleeding; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism; heart failure; vascular disease; smoking; and heavy alcohol consumption.

The risk of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t go up or down significantly for either overdosed or underdosed patients. Neither group showed an increased risk for major bleeding; however, the HR for major bleeding in underdosed patients fell to 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.88).

Underdosing was more common in some world regions than others. The rate exceeded 30% in all Latin American countries except Argentina, the report stated, and in all Asian countries except Singapore.

Japanese patients have long received oral anticoagulation at lower dosages than are used in the West, Dr. Camm observed. When VKAs were the only choice, for example, international normalized ratio targets were consistently a bit lower in Japan than in, for example, North America or Europe.

“And when [novel] OACs were developed, again, the Japanese took the view that their patients are more vulnerable to bleeding, and therefore a lower dose would be appropriate. In some instances, lower-dose regimens have been specifically studied in the Japanese,” Dr. Camm said. “Having said that, this concept of bleeding being more problematic in Asian patients has expanded well beyond Japan, and therefore in many Asian communities, lower doses of [novel] OACs are chosen.”

Many other factors may contribute to DOAC underdosing, including differences in dosing strategies between primary care practitioners and specialists, or between hospital-based and office-based clinicians, for example.

“It might also be argued that a physician who fails to treat a patient adequately in one arena may also be failing to treat the patient well in other aspects of their care,” Dr. Camm proposed. “Therefore you could have increased mortality due to other cardiovascular causes, or even noncardiovascular events, through absence of good quality care. Our study did not address that specifically. But it might be the case, speculatively.”

The study was supported by a grant from Bayer to the Thrombosis Research Institute, “which sponsors the GARFIELD-AF registry.” Dr. Camm discloses receiving grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Naccarelli disclosed consulting and participating in research for Janssen and serving as a consultant for Milestone, Sanofi, Omeicos, and Acesion Pharma.

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

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”
 

Significance still unknown

Matthew Martinez, MD, the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health – Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, urged caution in making too much of the findings of this small study.

“We know that viruses cause myocardial damage and myocarditis. What we don’t know is how important these findings are. And in terms of risk, would we find the same phenomenon if we did this, say, in flu patients or in other age groups?” Dr. Martinez said in an interview.

“I haven’t seen all the images, but what I’d want to know is are these very subtle findings? Are these overt findings? Is this part of an active individual with symptoms? I need to know a little more data before I can tell if this influences the increased risk of sudden cardiac death that we often associate with myocarditis. I’m not sure how this should influence making decisions with regards to return to play.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the ACC’s chair of Sports and Exercise but was not an author of their recent guidance on return to sport, said that he is not routinely using CMR to assess athletes post-infection, as per the ACC’s recommendations.

“My approach is to evaluate anybody with a history of COVID infection and, first, determine whether it was an important infection with significant symptoms or not. And then, if they’re participating at a high level or are professional athletes, I would suggest an ECG, echo, and troponin. That’s our recommendation for the last several months and is still an appropriate way to evaluate that group.”

“In the presence of an abnormality or ongoing symptoms, I would ask for an MRI at that point,” said Dr. Martinez.

“We just don’t have much data on athletes with no symptoms to use to interpret these CMR findings and the study didn’t offer any controls. We don’t even know if these findings are new findings or old findings that have just been identified now,” he added.

New, updated recommendations from the ACC are coming soon, said Dr. Martinez. “I do not expect them to include CMR as first line.”
 

Cardiologists concerned about misinformation

This is at least the fourth study showing myocardial damage post-COVID-19 infection and there is concern in the medical community that the media has overstated the risks of heart damage, especially in athletes, and at the same time overstated the benefits of CMR.

In particular, Puntmann et al reported in July a 100-patient study that showed evidence of myocardial inflammation by CMR in 78% of patients recently recovered from a bout of COVID-19 (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 27; doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557).

“That paper is completely problematic,” John Mandrola, MD, of Baptists Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It has the same overarching weaknesses [of other studies] that it’s observational and retrospective, but there were also numerical issues. So to me that paper is an interesting observation, but utterly unconvincing and preliminary,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Those limitations didn’t stop the study from garnering media attention, however. The Altmetric score (an attention score that tracks all mentions of an article in the media and on social media) for the Puntmann et al paper is approaching 13,000, including coverage from 276 news outlets and more than 19,000 tweets, putting it in the 99th percentile of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric to date.

To counter this, an “open letter” posted online just days before the Rajpal study published urging professional societies to “offer clear guidance discouraging CMR screening for COVID-19 related heart abnormalities in asymptomatic members of the general public.” The letter was signed by 51 clinicians, researchers, and imaging specialists from around the world.

Dr. Mandrola, one of the signatories, said: “This topic really scares people, and when it gets in the media like this, I think the leaders of these societies need to come out and say something really clear on major news networks letting people know that it’s just way too premature to start doing CMRs on every athlete that’s gotten this virus.”

“I understand that the current guidelines may be clear that CMR is not a first-line test for this indication, but when the media coverage is so extensive and so overblown, I wonder how much impact the guidelines will have in countering this fear that’s in the community,” he added.

Asked to comment on the letter, Dr. Rajpal said he agrees with the signatories that asymptomatic people from general population do not need routine cardiac MRI. “However, competitive athletes are a different story. Testing depends on risk assessment in specific population and competitive athletes as per our protocol will get enhanced cardiac workup including CMR for responsible and safe start of competitive sports. ... In the present scenario, while we get more data including control data, we will continue with our current protocol.”

Dr. Mandrola is Medscape Cardiology’s Chief Cardiology Consultant. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”
 

Significance still unknown

Matthew Martinez, MD, the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health – Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, urged caution in making too much of the findings of this small study.

“We know that viruses cause myocardial damage and myocarditis. What we don’t know is how important these findings are. And in terms of risk, would we find the same phenomenon if we did this, say, in flu patients or in other age groups?” Dr. Martinez said in an interview.

“I haven’t seen all the images, but what I’d want to know is are these very subtle findings? Are these overt findings? Is this part of an active individual with symptoms? I need to know a little more data before I can tell if this influences the increased risk of sudden cardiac death that we often associate with myocarditis. I’m not sure how this should influence making decisions with regards to return to play.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the ACC’s chair of Sports and Exercise but was not an author of their recent guidance on return to sport, said that he is not routinely using CMR to assess athletes post-infection, as per the ACC’s recommendations.

“My approach is to evaluate anybody with a history of COVID infection and, first, determine whether it was an important infection with significant symptoms or not. And then, if they’re participating at a high level or are professional athletes, I would suggest an ECG, echo, and troponin. That’s our recommendation for the last several months and is still an appropriate way to evaluate that group.”

“In the presence of an abnormality or ongoing symptoms, I would ask for an MRI at that point,” said Dr. Martinez.

“We just don’t have much data on athletes with no symptoms to use to interpret these CMR findings and the study didn’t offer any controls. We don’t even know if these findings are new findings or old findings that have just been identified now,” he added.

New, updated recommendations from the ACC are coming soon, said Dr. Martinez. “I do not expect them to include CMR as first line.”
 

Cardiologists concerned about misinformation

This is at least the fourth study showing myocardial damage post-COVID-19 infection and there is concern in the medical community that the media has overstated the risks of heart damage, especially in athletes, and at the same time overstated the benefits of CMR.

In particular, Puntmann et al reported in July a 100-patient study that showed evidence of myocardial inflammation by CMR in 78% of patients recently recovered from a bout of COVID-19 (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 27; doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557).

“That paper is completely problematic,” John Mandrola, MD, of Baptists Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It has the same overarching weaknesses [of other studies] that it’s observational and retrospective, but there were also numerical issues. So to me that paper is an interesting observation, but utterly unconvincing and preliminary,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Those limitations didn’t stop the study from garnering media attention, however. The Altmetric score (an attention score that tracks all mentions of an article in the media and on social media) for the Puntmann et al paper is approaching 13,000, including coverage from 276 news outlets and more than 19,000 tweets, putting it in the 99th percentile of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric to date.

To counter this, an “open letter” posted online just days before the Rajpal study published urging professional societies to “offer clear guidance discouraging CMR screening for COVID-19 related heart abnormalities in asymptomatic members of the general public.” The letter was signed by 51 clinicians, researchers, and imaging specialists from around the world.

Dr. Mandrola, one of the signatories, said: “This topic really scares people, and when it gets in the media like this, I think the leaders of these societies need to come out and say something really clear on major news networks letting people know that it’s just way too premature to start doing CMRs on every athlete that’s gotten this virus.”

“I understand that the current guidelines may be clear that CMR is not a first-line test for this indication, but when the media coverage is so extensive and so overblown, I wonder how much impact the guidelines will have in countering this fear that’s in the community,” he added.

Asked to comment on the letter, Dr. Rajpal said he agrees with the signatories that asymptomatic people from general population do not need routine cardiac MRI. “However, competitive athletes are a different story. Testing depends on risk assessment in specific population and competitive athletes as per our protocol will get enhanced cardiac workup including CMR for responsible and safe start of competitive sports. ... In the present scenario, while we get more data including control data, we will continue with our current protocol.”

Dr. Mandrola is Medscape Cardiology’s Chief Cardiology Consultant. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”
 

Significance still unknown

Matthew Martinez, MD, the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health – Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, urged caution in making too much of the findings of this small study.

“We know that viruses cause myocardial damage and myocarditis. What we don’t know is how important these findings are. And in terms of risk, would we find the same phenomenon if we did this, say, in flu patients or in other age groups?” Dr. Martinez said in an interview.

“I haven’t seen all the images, but what I’d want to know is are these very subtle findings? Are these overt findings? Is this part of an active individual with symptoms? I need to know a little more data before I can tell if this influences the increased risk of sudden cardiac death that we often associate with myocarditis. I’m not sure how this should influence making decisions with regards to return to play.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the ACC’s chair of Sports and Exercise but was not an author of their recent guidance on return to sport, said that he is not routinely using CMR to assess athletes post-infection, as per the ACC’s recommendations.

“My approach is to evaluate anybody with a history of COVID infection and, first, determine whether it was an important infection with significant symptoms or not. And then, if they’re participating at a high level or are professional athletes, I would suggest an ECG, echo, and troponin. That’s our recommendation for the last several months and is still an appropriate way to evaluate that group.”

“In the presence of an abnormality or ongoing symptoms, I would ask for an MRI at that point,” said Dr. Martinez.

“We just don’t have much data on athletes with no symptoms to use to interpret these CMR findings and the study didn’t offer any controls. We don’t even know if these findings are new findings or old findings that have just been identified now,” he added.

New, updated recommendations from the ACC are coming soon, said Dr. Martinez. “I do not expect them to include CMR as first line.”
 

Cardiologists concerned about misinformation

This is at least the fourth study showing myocardial damage post-COVID-19 infection and there is concern in the medical community that the media has overstated the risks of heart damage, especially in athletes, and at the same time overstated the benefits of CMR.

In particular, Puntmann et al reported in July a 100-patient study that showed evidence of myocardial inflammation by CMR in 78% of patients recently recovered from a bout of COVID-19 (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 27; doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557).

“That paper is completely problematic,” John Mandrola, MD, of Baptists Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It has the same overarching weaknesses [of other studies] that it’s observational and retrospective, but there were also numerical issues. So to me that paper is an interesting observation, but utterly unconvincing and preliminary,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Those limitations didn’t stop the study from garnering media attention, however. The Altmetric score (an attention score that tracks all mentions of an article in the media and on social media) for the Puntmann et al paper is approaching 13,000, including coverage from 276 news outlets and more than 19,000 tweets, putting it in the 99th percentile of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric to date.

To counter this, an “open letter” posted online just days before the Rajpal study published urging professional societies to “offer clear guidance discouraging CMR screening for COVID-19 related heart abnormalities in asymptomatic members of the general public.” The letter was signed by 51 clinicians, researchers, and imaging specialists from around the world.

Dr. Mandrola, one of the signatories, said: “This topic really scares people, and when it gets in the media like this, I think the leaders of these societies need to come out and say something really clear on major news networks letting people know that it’s just way too premature to start doing CMRs on every athlete that’s gotten this virus.”

“I understand that the current guidelines may be clear that CMR is not a first-line test for this indication, but when the media coverage is so extensive and so overblown, I wonder how much impact the guidelines will have in countering this fear that’s in the community,” he added.

Asked to comment on the letter, Dr. Rajpal said he agrees with the signatories that asymptomatic people from general population do not need routine cardiac MRI. “However, competitive athletes are a different story. Testing depends on risk assessment in specific population and competitive athletes as per our protocol will get enhanced cardiac workup including CMR for responsible and safe start of competitive sports. ... In the present scenario, while we get more data including control data, we will continue with our current protocol.”

Dr. Mandrola is Medscape Cardiology’s Chief Cardiology Consultant. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians intubated many patients with respiratory insufficiency because of concern for aerosolization with other methods.

“We were concerned that, if we put them on high-flow nasal cannula or a noninvasive ventilation, that we would create aerosols that would then be a risk to clinicians,” Meghan Lane-Fall, MD, MSHP, FCCM, said at a Society for Critical Care Medicine virtual meeting called COVID-19: What’s Next. “However, we’ve gotten much more comfortable with infection control. We’ve gotten much more comfortable with controlling these aerosols, with making sure that our clinicians are protected with the appropriate protective equipment. We’ve also realized that patients who end up becoming intubated have really poor outcomes, so we’ve looked at our practice critically and tried to figure out how to support patients noninvasively when that’s possible.”
 

Respiratory support options

According to Dr. Lane-Fall, an associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, there are two basic types of respiratory support in patients with moderate, severe, or critical COVID-19: noninvasive and invasive. Noninvasive options include CPAP or BiPAP which can be delivered through nasal pillows, masks, and helmets, as well as high-flow nasal oxygen. Invasive options include endotracheal intubation, tracheostomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), usually the veno-venous (VV) form. “But it’s uncommon to need VV ECMO, even in patients who have critical COVID-19,” she said.

Factors that favor noninvasive ventilation include stably high oxygen requirements, normal mental status, ward location of care, and moderate to severe COVID-19. Factors that favor invasive ventilation include someone who’s deteriorating rapidly, “whose oxygen requirements aren’t stable or who is cardiopulmonary compromised,” said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is also co–medical director of the Trauma Surgery Intensive Care Unit at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, also in Philadelphia. Other factors include the need for other invasive procedures such as surgery or if they have severe to critical COVID-19, “not just pneumonia, but [illness that’s] progressing into [acute respiratory distress syndrome],” she said.

Indications for urgent endotracheal intubation as opposed to giving a trial of noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal oxygen include altered mental status, inability to protect airway, copious amounts of secretions, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 8, severe respiratory acidosis, hypopnea or apnea, shock, or an inability to tolerate noninvasive support. “This is a relative contraindication,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “I’ve certainly talked people through the BiPAP mask or the helmet. If you tell a patient, ‘I don’t want to have to put in a breathing tube; I want to maintain you on this,’ often they’ll be able to work through it.”
 

Safety precautions

Aerosolizing procedures require attention to location, personnel, and equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is an anesthesiologist by training. “When you are intubating someone, whether they have COVID-19 or not, you are sort of in the belly of the beast,” she said. “You are very exposed to secretions that occur at the time of endotracheal intubation. That’s why it’s important for us to have PPE and barriers to protect ourselves from potential exposure to aerosols during the care of patients with COVID-19.”

In February 2020, the non-for-profit Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation published recommendations for airway management in patients with suspected COVID-19. A separate guidance was published the British Journal of Anaesthesiology based on emergency tracheal intubation in 202 patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. “The idea here is that you want to intubate under controlled conditions,” said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is an author of the guidance. “You want to use the most experienced operator. You want to have full PPE, including an N95 mask, or something more protective like a powered air purifying respirator or an N95 mask with a face shield. You want the eyes, nose, and mouth of the operator covered completely.”

CPR, another aerosolizing procedure, requires vigilant safety precautions as well. “We struggled with this a little bit at our institution, because our inclination as intensivists when someone is pulseless is to run into the room and start chest compressions and to start resuscitation,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “But the act of chest compression itself can create aerosols that can present risk to clinicians. We had to tell our clinicians that they have to put on PPE before they do CPR. The buzz phrase here is that there is no emergency in a pandemic. The idea here is that the good of that one patient is outweighed by the good of all the other patients that you could care for if you didn’t have COVID-19 as a clinician. So we have had to encourage our staff to put on PPE first before attending to patients first, even if it delays patient care. Once you have donned PPE, when you’re administering CPR, the number of staff should be minimized. You should have a compressor, and someone to relieve the compressor, and a code leader, someone tending to the airway. But in general, anyone who’s not actively involved should not be in the room.”
 

Risks during extubation

Extubation of COVID-19 patients is also an aerosolizing procedure not just because you’re pulling an endotracheal tube out of the airway but because coughing is a normal part of extubation. “We’ve had to be careful with how we approach extubation in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “Ideally you’re doing this in a negative pressure environment. We have also had to use full PPE, covering the eyes and face, and putting on a gown for precaution.”

Reintubation of COVID-19 patients is not uncommon. She and her colleagues at Penn Medicine created procedures for having intubators at the ready outside the room in case the patient were to decompensate clinically. “Another thing we learned is that it’s useful to do a leak test prior to extubation, because there may be airway edema related to prolonged intubation in these patients,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “We found that, if a leak is absent on checking the cuff leak, the use of steroids for a day or 2 may help decrease airway edema. That improves the chances of extubation success.”
 

Strategies for aerosol containment

She concluded her remarks by reviewing airway control adjuncts and clinician safety. This includes physically isolating COVID-19 patients in negative pressure rooms and avoiding and minimizing aerosols, including the use of rapid intubation, “where we induce anesthesia for intubation but we don’t bag-mask the patient because that creates aerosols,” she said. The Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation guidelines advocate for the use of video laryngoscopy so that you can visualize the glottis easily “and make sure that you successfully intubate the glottis and not the esophagus,” she said.

A smart strategy for aerosol containment is to use the most experienced laryngoscopist available. “If you are in a teaching program, ideally you’re using your most experienced resident, or you’re using fellows or attending physicians,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “This is not the space for an inexperienced learner.”

Another way to make intubation faster and easier in COVID-19 patients is to use an intubation box, which features a plexiglass shield that enables the intubator to use their hands to get in the patient’s airway while being protected from viral droplets generated during intubation. The box can be cleaned after each use. Blueprints for an open source intubation box can be found at http://www.intubationbox.com.

Expert view on aerosol containment in COVID-19

“While there is a dearth of evidence from controlled trials, recommendations mentioned in this story are based on the best available evidence and are in agreement with guidelines from several expert groups,” said David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, FCCM, of the department of anesthesiology at Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, NC. “The recommendation of Dr. Lane-Fall’s that is perhaps most controversial is the use of an intubation box. Multiple designs for these intubation/aerosol containment devices have been proposed, and the data supporting their ease of use and efficacy has been mixed [See Anaesthesia 2020;75(8):1014-21 and Anaesthesia. 2020. doi: 10.1111/anae.15188]. While bag valve mask ventilation should be avoided if possible, it may be a valuable rescue tool in the severely hypoxemic patient when used with two-person technique to achieve a tight seal and a PEEP valve and an HME over the exhalation port to minimize aerosol spread.

“It cannot be stressed enough that the most skilled individual should be tasked with intubating the patient and as few providers as possible [usually three] should be in the room and have donned full PPE. Negative pressure rooms should be used whenever feasible. Noninvasive ventilation appears safer from an infection control standpoint than initially feared and its use has become more widespread. However, noninvasive ventilation is not without its hazards, and Dr. Lane-Fall’s enumeration of the patient characteristics applicable to the selection of patients for noninvasive ventilation are extremely important. At our institution, the use of noninvasive ventilation and especially high-flow oxygen therapy has increased. Staff have become more comfortable with the donning and doffing of PPE.”

Dr. Lane-Fall reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians intubated many patients with respiratory insufficiency because of concern for aerosolization with other methods.

“We were concerned that, if we put them on high-flow nasal cannula or a noninvasive ventilation, that we would create aerosols that would then be a risk to clinicians,” Meghan Lane-Fall, MD, MSHP, FCCM, said at a Society for Critical Care Medicine virtual meeting called COVID-19: What’s Next. “However, we’ve gotten much more comfortable with infection control. We’ve gotten much more comfortable with controlling these aerosols, with making sure that our clinicians are protected with the appropriate protective equipment. We’ve also realized that patients who end up becoming intubated have really poor outcomes, so we’ve looked at our practice critically and tried to figure out how to support patients noninvasively when that’s possible.”
 

Respiratory support options

According to Dr. Lane-Fall, an associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, there are two basic types of respiratory support in patients with moderate, severe, or critical COVID-19: noninvasive and invasive. Noninvasive options include CPAP or BiPAP which can be delivered through nasal pillows, masks, and helmets, as well as high-flow nasal oxygen. Invasive options include endotracheal intubation, tracheostomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), usually the veno-venous (VV) form. “But it’s uncommon to need VV ECMO, even in patients who have critical COVID-19,” she said.

Factors that favor noninvasive ventilation include stably high oxygen requirements, normal mental status, ward location of care, and moderate to severe COVID-19. Factors that favor invasive ventilation include someone who’s deteriorating rapidly, “whose oxygen requirements aren’t stable or who is cardiopulmonary compromised,” said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is also co–medical director of the Trauma Surgery Intensive Care Unit at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, also in Philadelphia. Other factors include the need for other invasive procedures such as surgery or if they have severe to critical COVID-19, “not just pneumonia, but [illness that’s] progressing into [acute respiratory distress syndrome],” she said.

Indications for urgent endotracheal intubation as opposed to giving a trial of noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal oxygen include altered mental status, inability to protect airway, copious amounts of secretions, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 8, severe respiratory acidosis, hypopnea or apnea, shock, or an inability to tolerate noninvasive support. “This is a relative contraindication,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “I’ve certainly talked people through the BiPAP mask or the helmet. If you tell a patient, ‘I don’t want to have to put in a breathing tube; I want to maintain you on this,’ often they’ll be able to work through it.”
 

Safety precautions

Aerosolizing procedures require attention to location, personnel, and equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is an anesthesiologist by training. “When you are intubating someone, whether they have COVID-19 or not, you are sort of in the belly of the beast,” she said. “You are very exposed to secretions that occur at the time of endotracheal intubation. That’s why it’s important for us to have PPE and barriers to protect ourselves from potential exposure to aerosols during the care of patients with COVID-19.”

In February 2020, the non-for-profit Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation published recommendations for airway management in patients with suspected COVID-19. A separate guidance was published the British Journal of Anaesthesiology based on emergency tracheal intubation in 202 patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. “The idea here is that you want to intubate under controlled conditions,” said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is an author of the guidance. “You want to use the most experienced operator. You want to have full PPE, including an N95 mask, or something more protective like a powered air purifying respirator or an N95 mask with a face shield. You want the eyes, nose, and mouth of the operator covered completely.”

CPR, another aerosolizing procedure, requires vigilant safety precautions as well. “We struggled with this a little bit at our institution, because our inclination as intensivists when someone is pulseless is to run into the room and start chest compressions and to start resuscitation,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “But the act of chest compression itself can create aerosols that can present risk to clinicians. We had to tell our clinicians that they have to put on PPE before they do CPR. The buzz phrase here is that there is no emergency in a pandemic. The idea here is that the good of that one patient is outweighed by the good of all the other patients that you could care for if you didn’t have COVID-19 as a clinician. So we have had to encourage our staff to put on PPE first before attending to patients first, even if it delays patient care. Once you have donned PPE, when you’re administering CPR, the number of staff should be minimized. You should have a compressor, and someone to relieve the compressor, and a code leader, someone tending to the airway. But in general, anyone who’s not actively involved should not be in the room.”
 

Risks during extubation

Extubation of COVID-19 patients is also an aerosolizing procedure not just because you’re pulling an endotracheal tube out of the airway but because coughing is a normal part of extubation. “We’ve had to be careful with how we approach extubation in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “Ideally you’re doing this in a negative pressure environment. We have also had to use full PPE, covering the eyes and face, and putting on a gown for precaution.”

Reintubation of COVID-19 patients is not uncommon. She and her colleagues at Penn Medicine created procedures for having intubators at the ready outside the room in case the patient were to decompensate clinically. “Another thing we learned is that it’s useful to do a leak test prior to extubation, because there may be airway edema related to prolonged intubation in these patients,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “We found that, if a leak is absent on checking the cuff leak, the use of steroids for a day or 2 may help decrease airway edema. That improves the chances of extubation success.”
 

Strategies for aerosol containment

She concluded her remarks by reviewing airway control adjuncts and clinician safety. This includes physically isolating COVID-19 patients in negative pressure rooms and avoiding and minimizing aerosols, including the use of rapid intubation, “where we induce anesthesia for intubation but we don’t bag-mask the patient because that creates aerosols,” she said. The Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation guidelines advocate for the use of video laryngoscopy so that you can visualize the glottis easily “and make sure that you successfully intubate the glottis and not the esophagus,” she said.

A smart strategy for aerosol containment is to use the most experienced laryngoscopist available. “If you are in a teaching program, ideally you’re using your most experienced resident, or you’re using fellows or attending physicians,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “This is not the space for an inexperienced learner.”

Another way to make intubation faster and easier in COVID-19 patients is to use an intubation box, which features a plexiglass shield that enables the intubator to use their hands to get in the patient’s airway while being protected from viral droplets generated during intubation. The box can be cleaned after each use. Blueprints for an open source intubation box can be found at http://www.intubationbox.com.

Expert view on aerosol containment in COVID-19

“While there is a dearth of evidence from controlled trials, recommendations mentioned in this story are based on the best available evidence and are in agreement with guidelines from several expert groups,” said David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, FCCM, of the department of anesthesiology at Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, NC. “The recommendation of Dr. Lane-Fall’s that is perhaps most controversial is the use of an intubation box. Multiple designs for these intubation/aerosol containment devices have been proposed, and the data supporting their ease of use and efficacy has been mixed [See Anaesthesia 2020;75(8):1014-21 and Anaesthesia. 2020. doi: 10.1111/anae.15188]. While bag valve mask ventilation should be avoided if possible, it may be a valuable rescue tool in the severely hypoxemic patient when used with two-person technique to achieve a tight seal and a PEEP valve and an HME over the exhalation port to minimize aerosol spread.

“It cannot be stressed enough that the most skilled individual should be tasked with intubating the patient and as few providers as possible [usually three] should be in the room and have donned full PPE. Negative pressure rooms should be used whenever feasible. Noninvasive ventilation appears safer from an infection control standpoint than initially feared and its use has become more widespread. However, noninvasive ventilation is not without its hazards, and Dr. Lane-Fall’s enumeration of the patient characteristics applicable to the selection of patients for noninvasive ventilation are extremely important. At our institution, the use of noninvasive ventilation and especially high-flow oxygen therapy has increased. Staff have become more comfortable with the donning and doffing of PPE.”

Dr. Lane-Fall reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians intubated many patients with respiratory insufficiency because of concern for aerosolization with other methods.

“We were concerned that, if we put them on high-flow nasal cannula or a noninvasive ventilation, that we would create aerosols that would then be a risk to clinicians,” Meghan Lane-Fall, MD, MSHP, FCCM, said at a Society for Critical Care Medicine virtual meeting called COVID-19: What’s Next. “However, we’ve gotten much more comfortable with infection control. We’ve gotten much more comfortable with controlling these aerosols, with making sure that our clinicians are protected with the appropriate protective equipment. We’ve also realized that patients who end up becoming intubated have really poor outcomes, so we’ve looked at our practice critically and tried to figure out how to support patients noninvasively when that’s possible.”
 

Respiratory support options

According to Dr. Lane-Fall, an associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, there are two basic types of respiratory support in patients with moderate, severe, or critical COVID-19: noninvasive and invasive. Noninvasive options include CPAP or BiPAP which can be delivered through nasal pillows, masks, and helmets, as well as high-flow nasal oxygen. Invasive options include endotracheal intubation, tracheostomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), usually the veno-venous (VV) form. “But it’s uncommon to need VV ECMO, even in patients who have critical COVID-19,” she said.

Factors that favor noninvasive ventilation include stably high oxygen requirements, normal mental status, ward location of care, and moderate to severe COVID-19. Factors that favor invasive ventilation include someone who’s deteriorating rapidly, “whose oxygen requirements aren’t stable or who is cardiopulmonary compromised,” said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is also co–medical director of the Trauma Surgery Intensive Care Unit at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, also in Philadelphia. Other factors include the need for other invasive procedures such as surgery or if they have severe to critical COVID-19, “not just pneumonia, but [illness that’s] progressing into [acute respiratory distress syndrome],” she said.

Indications for urgent endotracheal intubation as opposed to giving a trial of noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal oxygen include altered mental status, inability to protect airway, copious amounts of secretions, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 8, severe respiratory acidosis, hypopnea or apnea, shock, or an inability to tolerate noninvasive support. “This is a relative contraindication,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “I’ve certainly talked people through the BiPAP mask or the helmet. If you tell a patient, ‘I don’t want to have to put in a breathing tube; I want to maintain you on this,’ often they’ll be able to work through it.”
 

Safety precautions

Aerosolizing procedures require attention to location, personnel, and equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is an anesthesiologist by training. “When you are intubating someone, whether they have COVID-19 or not, you are sort of in the belly of the beast,” she said. “You are very exposed to secretions that occur at the time of endotracheal intubation. That’s why it’s important for us to have PPE and barriers to protect ourselves from potential exposure to aerosols during the care of patients with COVID-19.”

In February 2020, the non-for-profit Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation published recommendations for airway management in patients with suspected COVID-19. A separate guidance was published the British Journal of Anaesthesiology based on emergency tracheal intubation in 202 patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. “The idea here is that you want to intubate under controlled conditions,” said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is an author of the guidance. “You want to use the most experienced operator. You want to have full PPE, including an N95 mask, or something more protective like a powered air purifying respirator or an N95 mask with a face shield. You want the eyes, nose, and mouth of the operator covered completely.”

CPR, another aerosolizing procedure, requires vigilant safety precautions as well. “We struggled with this a little bit at our institution, because our inclination as intensivists when someone is pulseless is to run into the room and start chest compressions and to start resuscitation,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “But the act of chest compression itself can create aerosols that can present risk to clinicians. We had to tell our clinicians that they have to put on PPE before they do CPR. The buzz phrase here is that there is no emergency in a pandemic. The idea here is that the good of that one patient is outweighed by the good of all the other patients that you could care for if you didn’t have COVID-19 as a clinician. So we have had to encourage our staff to put on PPE first before attending to patients first, even if it delays patient care. Once you have donned PPE, when you’re administering CPR, the number of staff should be minimized. You should have a compressor, and someone to relieve the compressor, and a code leader, someone tending to the airway. But in general, anyone who’s not actively involved should not be in the room.”
 

Risks during extubation

Extubation of COVID-19 patients is also an aerosolizing procedure not just because you’re pulling an endotracheal tube out of the airway but because coughing is a normal part of extubation. “We’ve had to be careful with how we approach extubation in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “Ideally you’re doing this in a negative pressure environment. We have also had to use full PPE, covering the eyes and face, and putting on a gown for precaution.”

Reintubation of COVID-19 patients is not uncommon. She and her colleagues at Penn Medicine created procedures for having intubators at the ready outside the room in case the patient were to decompensate clinically. “Another thing we learned is that it’s useful to do a leak test prior to extubation, because there may be airway edema related to prolonged intubation in these patients,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “We found that, if a leak is absent on checking the cuff leak, the use of steroids for a day or 2 may help decrease airway edema. That improves the chances of extubation success.”
 

Strategies for aerosol containment

She concluded her remarks by reviewing airway control adjuncts and clinician safety. This includes physically isolating COVID-19 patients in negative pressure rooms and avoiding and minimizing aerosols, including the use of rapid intubation, “where we induce anesthesia for intubation but we don’t bag-mask the patient because that creates aerosols,” she said. The Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation guidelines advocate for the use of video laryngoscopy so that you can visualize the glottis easily “and make sure that you successfully intubate the glottis and not the esophagus,” she said.

A smart strategy for aerosol containment is to use the most experienced laryngoscopist available. “If you are in a teaching program, ideally you’re using your most experienced resident, or you’re using fellows or attending physicians,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “This is not the space for an inexperienced learner.”

Another way to make intubation faster and easier in COVID-19 patients is to use an intubation box, which features a plexiglass shield that enables the intubator to use their hands to get in the patient’s airway while being protected from viral droplets generated during intubation. The box can be cleaned after each use. Blueprints for an open source intubation box can be found at http://www.intubationbox.com.

Expert view on aerosol containment in COVID-19

“While there is a dearth of evidence from controlled trials, recommendations mentioned in this story are based on the best available evidence and are in agreement with guidelines from several expert groups,” said David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, FCCM, of the department of anesthesiology at Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, NC. “The recommendation of Dr. Lane-Fall’s that is perhaps most controversial is the use of an intubation box. Multiple designs for these intubation/aerosol containment devices have been proposed, and the data supporting their ease of use and efficacy has been mixed [See Anaesthesia 2020;75(8):1014-21 and Anaesthesia. 2020. doi: 10.1111/anae.15188]. While bag valve mask ventilation should be avoided if possible, it may be a valuable rescue tool in the severely hypoxemic patient when used with two-person technique to achieve a tight seal and a PEEP valve and an HME over the exhalation port to minimize aerosol spread.

“It cannot be stressed enough that the most skilled individual should be tasked with intubating the patient and as few providers as possible [usually three] should be in the room and have donned full PPE. Negative pressure rooms should be used whenever feasible. Noninvasive ventilation appears safer from an infection control standpoint than initially feared and its use has become more widespread. However, noninvasive ventilation is not without its hazards, and Dr. Lane-Fall’s enumeration of the patient characteristics applicable to the selection of patients for noninvasive ventilation are extremely important. At our institution, the use of noninvasive ventilation and especially high-flow oxygen therapy has increased. Staff have become more comfortable with the donning and doffing of PPE.”

Dr. Lane-Fall reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Nocturnal oxygen therapy for patients with COPD and isolated nocturnal oxygen desaturation does not improve survival or delay disease progression, according to findings published Sept. 17 in The New England Journal of Medicine. The new report adds to evidence that the widely implemented and costly practice may be unnecessary.

Patients with COPD who do not qualify for long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) are commonly prescribed nocturnal oxygen in the belief that it can delay disease progression, possibly by decreasing alveolar hypoventilation and ventilation-perfusion mismatch.

But investigations so far and the new study from the International Nocturnal Oxygen (INOX) Trial have not borne this out.

“There is no indication that nocturnal oxygen has a positive or negative effect on survival or progression to long-term oxygen therapy in patients with nocturnal hypoxemia in COPD. Consequently, there is no reason for physicians to screen for nocturnal hypoxemia in COPD,” study leader Yves Lacasse, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Lacasse is from the Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.

The idea that the therapy helps is firmly entrenched.

In the early 1980s, two trials indicated that patients who had COPD and severe chronic daytime hypoxemia benefit from LTOT (15-18 hours a day or longer).

A decade later, two landmark trials (the Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy Trial and the British Medical Research Council Trial) added to evidence that LTOT may prolong life for patients with COPD and severe daytime hypoxemia.

“The good news from both trials was that oxygen saves lives. From this moment, oxygen therapy became a standard of care, and confirmatory trials would be considered unethical,” Lacasse explained.

“Oxygen therapy gained widespread acceptance by official organizations for treatment of most chronic cardiorespiratory conditions complicated by severe hypoxemia, even if proof of efficacy is lacking. New indications emerged, such as isolated nocturnal oxygen desaturation. Even in COPD, inappropriate prescriptions of home oxygen therapy are not unusual. Oxygen is everywhere,” Lacasse continued.

A meta-analysis from 2005 identified two trials that evaluated home oxygen therapy specifically for isolated nocturnal desaturation. Both found no survival benefit from nocturnal oxygen.

The study by Lacasse and colleagues assessed effects on mortality or worsening of disease (progression to LTOT) with 3-4 years of nocturnal oxygen supplementation.

Participants, whose oxygen saturation was less than 90% for at least 30% of the recording time on nocturnal oximetry, received oxygen or ambient air from a sham device as a placebo for at least 4 hours per session. The goal of treatment was nocturnal oxygen saturation exceeding 90% for at least 90% of the recorded time.

The trial protocol excluded patients with severe obesity, apnea, lung cancer, left heart failure, interstitial lung disease, or bronchiectasis.

The study was initially powered in 2010 to include 600 participants, with half to receive placebo. The study assumed mortality of 20% among control patients over 3 years; 20% of patients progressed to LTOT.

When recruiting lagged, the data safety monitoring board and steering committee extended follow-up to 4 years. In 2014, they requested an interim analysis, and recruitment ceased. Overall, 243 patients participated.

Lacasse cited several reasons for the difficulty with recruitment as well as retention: unwillingness to take the risk of receiving placebo instead of a readily available treatment, fading interest over time, and frailty that affects compliance.

Patients in the study came from 28 community or university-affiliated hospitals in Canada, Portugal, Spain, and France. At the 3-year mark, 39% of patients (48 of 123) who were assigned to nocturnal oxygen therapy and 42% (50 of 119) of those taking placebo had met criteria for LTOT or had died (difference, −3.0 percentage points; P = .64). The groups did not differ appreciably in rates of exacerbation and hospitalization.

The researchers could not analyze subgroups because the patients were very similar with regard to the severity of nocturnal oxygen desaturation, Lacasse said.

Economics enters into the picture – home oxygen therapy is second only to hospitalization as the most expensive healthcare expenditure associated with clinical care for COPD in developed countries. “The math is simple. There is enormous potential for saving money if the results of our clinical trial are applied appropriately,” said Lacasse.

William Bailey, MD, professor emeritus of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agrees that the practice is overused.

“There is a built-in bias in the medical community. Most believe that anyone with lung disease benefits from oxygen. Even some of our investigators had a hard time believing the results. The study was well designed, carefully carried out, and I feel confident that the results are reliable,” he said.

Shawn P. E. Nishi, MD, director of bronchoscopy and advanced pulmonary procedures, division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, mentioned the study’s main limitation, which the authors readily acknowledge.

“Unfortunately, the trial had difficulty recruiting subjects, with less than half of expected enrollment achieved, and was underpowered to make any conclusions. Other studies have examined nocturnal oxygen use and have not shown a mortality benefit,” Nishi explained.

She added that the study did not evaluate use of LTOT for improving outcomes other than mortality, including quality of life, cardiovascular morbidity, depression, cognitive function, exercise capacity, and frequency of COPD exacerbations or hospitalization.

Other limitations of the study include suboptimal adherence to the therapy and interpretation of the clinical significance on the basis of a survey of Canadian pulmonologists.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nocturnal oxygen therapy for patients with COPD and isolated nocturnal oxygen desaturation does not improve survival or delay disease progression, according to findings published Sept. 17 in The New England Journal of Medicine. The new report adds to evidence that the widely implemented and costly practice may be unnecessary.

Patients with COPD who do not qualify for long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) are commonly prescribed nocturnal oxygen in the belief that it can delay disease progression, possibly by decreasing alveolar hypoventilation and ventilation-perfusion mismatch.

But investigations so far and the new study from the International Nocturnal Oxygen (INOX) Trial have not borne this out.

“There is no indication that nocturnal oxygen has a positive or negative effect on survival or progression to long-term oxygen therapy in patients with nocturnal hypoxemia in COPD. Consequently, there is no reason for physicians to screen for nocturnal hypoxemia in COPD,” study leader Yves Lacasse, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Lacasse is from the Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.

The idea that the therapy helps is firmly entrenched.

In the early 1980s, two trials indicated that patients who had COPD and severe chronic daytime hypoxemia benefit from LTOT (15-18 hours a day or longer).

A decade later, two landmark trials (the Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy Trial and the British Medical Research Council Trial) added to evidence that LTOT may prolong life for patients with COPD and severe daytime hypoxemia.

“The good news from both trials was that oxygen saves lives. From this moment, oxygen therapy became a standard of care, and confirmatory trials would be considered unethical,” Lacasse explained.

“Oxygen therapy gained widespread acceptance by official organizations for treatment of most chronic cardiorespiratory conditions complicated by severe hypoxemia, even if proof of efficacy is lacking. New indications emerged, such as isolated nocturnal oxygen desaturation. Even in COPD, inappropriate prescriptions of home oxygen therapy are not unusual. Oxygen is everywhere,” Lacasse continued.

A meta-analysis from 2005 identified two trials that evaluated home oxygen therapy specifically for isolated nocturnal desaturation. Both found no survival benefit from nocturnal oxygen.

The study by Lacasse and colleagues assessed effects on mortality or worsening of disease (progression to LTOT) with 3-4 years of nocturnal oxygen supplementation.

Participants, whose oxygen saturation was less than 90% for at least 30% of the recording time on nocturnal oximetry, received oxygen or ambient air from a sham device as a placebo for at least 4 hours per session. The goal of treatment was nocturnal oxygen saturation exceeding 90% for at least 90% of the recorded time.

The trial protocol excluded patients with severe obesity, apnea, lung cancer, left heart failure, interstitial lung disease, or bronchiectasis.

The study was initially powered in 2010 to include 600 participants, with half to receive placebo. The study assumed mortality of 20% among control patients over 3 years; 20% of patients progressed to LTOT.

When recruiting lagged, the data safety monitoring board and steering committee extended follow-up to 4 years. In 2014, they requested an interim analysis, and recruitment ceased. Overall, 243 patients participated.

Lacasse cited several reasons for the difficulty with recruitment as well as retention: unwillingness to take the risk of receiving placebo instead of a readily available treatment, fading interest over time, and frailty that affects compliance.

Patients in the study came from 28 community or university-affiliated hospitals in Canada, Portugal, Spain, and France. At the 3-year mark, 39% of patients (48 of 123) who were assigned to nocturnal oxygen therapy and 42% (50 of 119) of those taking placebo had met criteria for LTOT or had died (difference, −3.0 percentage points; P = .64). The groups did not differ appreciably in rates of exacerbation and hospitalization.

The researchers could not analyze subgroups because the patients were very similar with regard to the severity of nocturnal oxygen desaturation, Lacasse said.

Economics enters into the picture – home oxygen therapy is second only to hospitalization as the most expensive healthcare expenditure associated with clinical care for COPD in developed countries. “The math is simple. There is enormous potential for saving money if the results of our clinical trial are applied appropriately,” said Lacasse.

William Bailey, MD, professor emeritus of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agrees that the practice is overused.

“There is a built-in bias in the medical community. Most believe that anyone with lung disease benefits from oxygen. Even some of our investigators had a hard time believing the results. The study was well designed, carefully carried out, and I feel confident that the results are reliable,” he said.

Shawn P. E. Nishi, MD, director of bronchoscopy and advanced pulmonary procedures, division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, mentioned the study’s main limitation, which the authors readily acknowledge.

“Unfortunately, the trial had difficulty recruiting subjects, with less than half of expected enrollment achieved, and was underpowered to make any conclusions. Other studies have examined nocturnal oxygen use and have not shown a mortality benefit,” Nishi explained.

She added that the study did not evaluate use of LTOT for improving outcomes other than mortality, including quality of life, cardiovascular morbidity, depression, cognitive function, exercise capacity, and frequency of COPD exacerbations or hospitalization.

Other limitations of the study include suboptimal adherence to the therapy and interpretation of the clinical significance on the basis of a survey of Canadian pulmonologists.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nocturnal oxygen therapy for patients with COPD and isolated nocturnal oxygen desaturation does not improve survival or delay disease progression, according to findings published Sept. 17 in The New England Journal of Medicine. The new report adds to evidence that the widely implemented and costly practice may be unnecessary.

Patients with COPD who do not qualify for long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) are commonly prescribed nocturnal oxygen in the belief that it can delay disease progression, possibly by decreasing alveolar hypoventilation and ventilation-perfusion mismatch.

But investigations so far and the new study from the International Nocturnal Oxygen (INOX) Trial have not borne this out.

“There is no indication that nocturnal oxygen has a positive or negative effect on survival or progression to long-term oxygen therapy in patients with nocturnal hypoxemia in COPD. Consequently, there is no reason for physicians to screen for nocturnal hypoxemia in COPD,” study leader Yves Lacasse, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Lacasse is from the Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.

The idea that the therapy helps is firmly entrenched.

In the early 1980s, two trials indicated that patients who had COPD and severe chronic daytime hypoxemia benefit from LTOT (15-18 hours a day or longer).

A decade later, two landmark trials (the Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy Trial and the British Medical Research Council Trial) added to evidence that LTOT may prolong life for patients with COPD and severe daytime hypoxemia.

“The good news from both trials was that oxygen saves lives. From this moment, oxygen therapy became a standard of care, and confirmatory trials would be considered unethical,” Lacasse explained.

“Oxygen therapy gained widespread acceptance by official organizations for treatment of most chronic cardiorespiratory conditions complicated by severe hypoxemia, even if proof of efficacy is lacking. New indications emerged, such as isolated nocturnal oxygen desaturation. Even in COPD, inappropriate prescriptions of home oxygen therapy are not unusual. Oxygen is everywhere,” Lacasse continued.

A meta-analysis from 2005 identified two trials that evaluated home oxygen therapy specifically for isolated nocturnal desaturation. Both found no survival benefit from nocturnal oxygen.

The study by Lacasse and colleagues assessed effects on mortality or worsening of disease (progression to LTOT) with 3-4 years of nocturnal oxygen supplementation.

Participants, whose oxygen saturation was less than 90% for at least 30% of the recording time on nocturnal oximetry, received oxygen or ambient air from a sham device as a placebo for at least 4 hours per session. The goal of treatment was nocturnal oxygen saturation exceeding 90% for at least 90% of the recorded time.

The trial protocol excluded patients with severe obesity, apnea, lung cancer, left heart failure, interstitial lung disease, or bronchiectasis.

The study was initially powered in 2010 to include 600 participants, with half to receive placebo. The study assumed mortality of 20% among control patients over 3 years; 20% of patients progressed to LTOT.

When recruiting lagged, the data safety monitoring board and steering committee extended follow-up to 4 years. In 2014, they requested an interim analysis, and recruitment ceased. Overall, 243 patients participated.

Lacasse cited several reasons for the difficulty with recruitment as well as retention: unwillingness to take the risk of receiving placebo instead of a readily available treatment, fading interest over time, and frailty that affects compliance.

Patients in the study came from 28 community or university-affiliated hospitals in Canada, Portugal, Spain, and France. At the 3-year mark, 39% of patients (48 of 123) who were assigned to nocturnal oxygen therapy and 42% (50 of 119) of those taking placebo had met criteria for LTOT or had died (difference, −3.0 percentage points; P = .64). The groups did not differ appreciably in rates of exacerbation and hospitalization.

The researchers could not analyze subgroups because the patients were very similar with regard to the severity of nocturnal oxygen desaturation, Lacasse said.

Economics enters into the picture – home oxygen therapy is second only to hospitalization as the most expensive healthcare expenditure associated with clinical care for COPD in developed countries. “The math is simple. There is enormous potential for saving money if the results of our clinical trial are applied appropriately,” said Lacasse.

William Bailey, MD, professor emeritus of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agrees that the practice is overused.

“There is a built-in bias in the medical community. Most believe that anyone with lung disease benefits from oxygen. Even some of our investigators had a hard time believing the results. The study was well designed, carefully carried out, and I feel confident that the results are reliable,” he said.

Shawn P. E. Nishi, MD, director of bronchoscopy and advanced pulmonary procedures, division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, mentioned the study’s main limitation, which the authors readily acknowledge.

“Unfortunately, the trial had difficulty recruiting subjects, with less than half of expected enrollment achieved, and was underpowered to make any conclusions. Other studies have examined nocturnal oxygen use and have not shown a mortality benefit,” Nishi explained.

She added that the study did not evaluate use of LTOT for improving outcomes other than mortality, including quality of life, cardiovascular morbidity, depression, cognitive function, exercise capacity, and frequency of COPD exacerbations or hospitalization.

Other limitations of the study include suboptimal adherence to the therapy and interpretation of the clinical significance on the basis of a survey of Canadian pulmonologists.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.