The Hospitalist

HM20 Virtual session title

Call Me Maybe: Balancing Resident Autonomy with Sensible Supervision

Presenter

Daniel Steinberg, MD, SFHM, FACP

Session summary

In this session, Dr. Steinberg, professor of medicine and medical education, associate chair for education, and residency program director in the department of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, presented key factors, techniques, and approaches to supervising residents. He discussed the important balance of resident autonomy and supervision, especially since attendings need to focus on learner education along with patient care and safety.

Dr. Steinberg stated that resident supervision is driven by three factors: what residents need, what residents want, and what the supervisor can provide. Although data is mixed on whether supervision improves patient outcomes, supervision is essential for patient care and resident education. Dr. Steinberg showcased several relevant medical education studies relating to supervision and focused on a key question: Do you trust the resident?

The review of medical education literature discussed the meaning and development of trust, oral case presentations to determine trust, and the influence of supervisor experience. One study looked at the attendings’ remote access of EMR, which allows for remote supervision as a great way to determine trust of the resident. Another study showed that attendings want more communication than what residents provide and that the saying “Page me if you need me” does not encourage communication from residents as much as attendings would desire.
 

Key takeaways

• Resident supervision is driven by what residents need, what residents want, and what the supervisor can provide.
• Trust can be determined from direct supervision, oral presentations, and remote access of EMR, but it is also influenced by attending experience and style.
• To increase resident communication with the attending, do not say “Page me if you need me.” Instead, an attending should specifically state when a call to an attending is required.

Dr. Tantoco is an academic med-peds hospitalist practicing at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. She is an instructor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics at Northwestern University, also in Chicago.

HM20 Virtual session title

Call Me Maybe: Balancing Resident Autonomy with Sensible Supervision

Presenter

Daniel Steinberg, MD, SFHM, FACP

Session summary

In this session, Dr. Steinberg, professor of medicine and medical education, associate chair for education, and residency program director in the department of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, presented key factors, techniques, and approaches to supervising residents. He discussed the important balance of resident autonomy and supervision, especially since attendings need to focus on learner education along with patient care and safety.

Dr. Steinberg stated that resident supervision is driven by three factors: what residents need, what residents want, and what the supervisor can provide. Although data is mixed on whether supervision improves patient outcomes, supervision is essential for patient care and resident education. Dr. Steinberg showcased several relevant medical education studies relating to supervision and focused on a key question: Do you trust the resident?

The review of medical education literature discussed the meaning and development of trust, oral case presentations to determine trust, and the influence of supervisor experience. One study looked at the attendings’ remote access of EMR, which allows for remote supervision as a great way to determine trust of the resident. Another study showed that attendings want more communication than what residents provide and that the saying “Page me if you need me” does not encourage communication from residents as much as attendings would desire.
 

Key takeaways

• Resident supervision is driven by what residents need, what residents want, and what the supervisor can provide.
• Trust can be determined from direct supervision, oral presentations, and remote access of EMR, but it is also influenced by attending experience and style.
• To increase resident communication with the attending, do not say “Page me if you need me.” Instead, an attending should specifically state when a call to an attending is required.

Dr. Tantoco is an academic med-peds hospitalist practicing at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. She is an instructor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics at Northwestern University, also in Chicago.

HM20 Virtual session title

Call Me Maybe: Balancing Resident Autonomy with Sensible Supervision

Presenter

Daniel Steinberg, MD, SFHM, FACP

Session summary

In this session, Dr. Steinberg, professor of medicine and medical education, associate chair for education, and residency program director in the department of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, presented key factors, techniques, and approaches to supervising residents. He discussed the important balance of resident autonomy and supervision, especially since attendings need to focus on learner education along with patient care and safety.

Dr. Steinberg stated that resident supervision is driven by three factors: what residents need, what residents want, and what the supervisor can provide. Although data is mixed on whether supervision improves patient outcomes, supervision is essential for patient care and resident education. Dr. Steinberg showcased several relevant medical education studies relating to supervision and focused on a key question: Do you trust the resident?

The review of medical education literature discussed the meaning and development of trust, oral case presentations to determine trust, and the influence of supervisor experience. One study looked at the attendings’ remote access of EMR, which allows for remote supervision as a great way to determine trust of the resident. Another study showed that attendings want more communication than what residents provide and that the saying “Page me if you need me” does not encourage communication from residents as much as attendings would desire.
 

Key takeaways

• Resident supervision is driven by what residents need, what residents want, and what the supervisor can provide.
• Trust can be determined from direct supervision, oral presentations, and remote access of EMR, but it is also influenced by attending experience and style.
• To increase resident communication with the attending, do not say “Page me if you need me.” Instead, an attending should specifically state when a call to an attending is required.

Dr. Tantoco is an academic med-peds hospitalist practicing at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. She is an instructor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics at Northwestern University, also in Chicago.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

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.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

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.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

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.

One of every 10 pregnant or recently pregnant women in hospital was diagnosed with COVID-19, yet up to three-quarters were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, according to a living systematic review from the PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

The study, published in BMJ, shows an increased risk of preterm delivery, as well as the need for invasive ventilation in these women, wrote John Allotey, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The findings “will produce a strong evidence base for living guidelines on COVID-19 and pregnancy,” they noted.

The systematic review included 77 studies, one-third each from the United States and China, with the remaining studies from Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The studies included women with COVID-19, of whom 13,118 were either pregnant or in the postpartum or postabortion period and 83,486 were of reproductive age but not pregnant. Some studies also included healthy pregnant women for comparison.

In the pregnant and recently pregnant women, the most common COVID-19 symptoms were fever (40%) and cough (39%), with lymphopenia (35%) and raised C reactive protein levels (49%) being the most common laboratory findings. Pregnant and recently pregnant women with COVID-19 were less likely to have fever (odds ratio, 0.43) and myalgia (OR, 0.48), compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19, reported the authors.

The overall preterm and spontaneous preterm birth rates in the COVID-19–positive women were 17% and 6% respectively. Dr. Allotey and authors noted that “these preterm births could be medically indicated, as the overall rates of spontaneous preterm births in pregnant women with COVID-19 was broadly similar to those observed in the pre-pandemic period.” There were 18 stillbirths and 6 neonatal deaths in the COVID-19 cohort.

Overall, 73 (0.1%) of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 died from any cause, and severe COVID-19 infection was diagnosed in 13%. Maternal risk factors associated with severe infection included older age (OR, 1.78), high body mass index (OR, 2.3), chronic hypertension (OR, 2.0), and preexisting diabetes (OR, 2.51). Compared with nonpregnant women with COVID-19, pregnant or recently pregnant women with the infection were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (OR, 1.62) and needing invasive ventilation (OR, 1.88).

The report included studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 26, 2020, but the living systematic review will involve weekly search updates, with analysis performed every 2-4 weeks and reported through a dedicated website.
 

The value of a living meta-analysis

Asked to comment on the findings, Torri Metz, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, expressed surprise at the 10% rate of infection in the pregnant or recently pregnant population. “This is higher than currently observed at many hospitals in the United States,” she said in an interview. “This may overestimate the actual risk as many of these studies were published early in the pandemic and did not universally sample women who were pregnant for SARS-CoV-2.”

She noted the value of a living meta-analysis in that it will be updated on a regular basis as new evidence emerges. “During this time of rapidly accumulating publications about COVID-19 infection, clinicians will find it useful to have a resource in which the available data can be combined in one source.”

And there are still some outstanding questions that new studies hopefully will shed light on, she added. “The authors found that many of the risk factors for severe disease, like diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure, in nonpregnant adults are the same in the pregnant population. What remains unknown is if pregnant patients with COVID-19 infection are at higher risk than those who are not pregnant. The authors note that this information is still limited and largely influenced in this published analysis by a CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study in which the majority of patients had unknown pregnancy status. We also do not know if COVID-19 infection is associated with any birth defects since the majority of women with COVID-19 infection in the first trimester have not yet delivered.”

Malavika Prabhu, MD, an obstetetrician/gyneologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City added that “this systematic review and meta analysis, which is a compilation of other studies done around the globe, confirms that pregnant women with preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of invasive ventilation, compared to nonpregnant women with COVID-19, particularly if they have a preexisting medical condition.”

She said the preterm delivery rate of COVID-positive women is “challenging to interpret given that the total preterm birth rate potentially included many medically indicated preterm deliveries – which is to be expected – and there is no comparison group for spontaneous preterm birth presented”.

Other outstanding questions about COVID-19 pregnancies include whether they are associated with preeclampsia or smaller/growth restricted infants and why the cesarean delivery rate is high, she said. “But some of these questions are tough to answer with this data because it primarily reflects a COVID infection close to the delivery, not one that occurred several months prior to a delivery.”

Deborah Money, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, medicine, and the school of population and public health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that “this is a group that have been doing ongoing living systematic reviews of the literature scanning for pregnancy outcomes. They post their information in real time on their website, so many of us in this area follow these postings as their methodology is robust and they work hard to only include high-quality literature and avoid duplication of cases in multiple papers. There has been a problem of re-reporting the same severe cases of COVID-19 in the literature.”

This “amplifies the importance of collecting Canadian-specific data to ensure that we understand if these kind of outcomes will also be found in Canada. The data presented in this paper represent outcomes from a broad range of countries with different methods of collecting information on pregnancy and highly variable prenatal care systems. This makes our pan-Canadian study of outcomes of COVID-19 for pregnant women and their infants, CANCOVID-Preg, even more important,” she said.

“Globally, we all must continue to monitor outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy to minimize adverse impact on women and their infants,” said Dr. Money, who was not involved in the study.

The study was partially funded by the World Health Organization and supported by Katie’s Team, a dedicated patient and public involvement group in Women’s Health. Dr. Metz is principal investigator for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network COVID-19 study; the study is funded by NICHD and enrollment is ongoing. Dr. Prabhu had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Money received funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a small grant from theBC Women’s Foundation for COVID-19 in pregnancy research.

SOURCE: Allotey J et al. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320.

One of every 10 pregnant or recently pregnant women in hospital was diagnosed with COVID-19, yet up to three-quarters were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, according to a living systematic review from the PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

The study, published in BMJ, shows an increased risk of preterm delivery, as well as the need for invasive ventilation in these women, wrote John Allotey, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The findings “will produce a strong evidence base for living guidelines on COVID-19 and pregnancy,” they noted.

The systematic review included 77 studies, one-third each from the United States and China, with the remaining studies from Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The studies included women with COVID-19, of whom 13,118 were either pregnant or in the postpartum or postabortion period and 83,486 were of reproductive age but not pregnant. Some studies also included healthy pregnant women for comparison.

In the pregnant and recently pregnant women, the most common COVID-19 symptoms were fever (40%) and cough (39%), with lymphopenia (35%) and raised C reactive protein levels (49%) being the most common laboratory findings. Pregnant and recently pregnant women with COVID-19 were less likely to have fever (odds ratio, 0.43) and myalgia (OR, 0.48), compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19, reported the authors.

The overall preterm and spontaneous preterm birth rates in the COVID-19–positive women were 17% and 6% respectively. Dr. Allotey and authors noted that “these preterm births could be medically indicated, as the overall rates of spontaneous preterm births in pregnant women with COVID-19 was broadly similar to those observed in the pre-pandemic period.” There were 18 stillbirths and 6 neonatal deaths in the COVID-19 cohort.

Overall, 73 (0.1%) of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 died from any cause, and severe COVID-19 infection was diagnosed in 13%. Maternal risk factors associated with severe infection included older age (OR, 1.78), high body mass index (OR, 2.3), chronic hypertension (OR, 2.0), and preexisting diabetes (OR, 2.51). Compared with nonpregnant women with COVID-19, pregnant or recently pregnant women with the infection were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (OR, 1.62) and needing invasive ventilation (OR, 1.88).

The report included studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 26, 2020, but the living systematic review will involve weekly search updates, with analysis performed every 2-4 weeks and reported through a dedicated website.
 

The value of a living meta-analysis

Asked to comment on the findings, Torri Metz, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, expressed surprise at the 10% rate of infection in the pregnant or recently pregnant population. “This is higher than currently observed at many hospitals in the United States,” she said in an interview. “This may overestimate the actual risk as many of these studies were published early in the pandemic and did not universally sample women who were pregnant for SARS-CoV-2.”

She noted the value of a living meta-analysis in that it will be updated on a regular basis as new evidence emerges. “During this time of rapidly accumulating publications about COVID-19 infection, clinicians will find it useful to have a resource in which the available data can be combined in one source.”

And there are still some outstanding questions that new studies hopefully will shed light on, she added. “The authors found that many of the risk factors for severe disease, like diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure, in nonpregnant adults are the same in the pregnant population. What remains unknown is if pregnant patients with COVID-19 infection are at higher risk than those who are not pregnant. The authors note that this information is still limited and largely influenced in this published analysis by a CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study in which the majority of patients had unknown pregnancy status. We also do not know if COVID-19 infection is associated with any birth defects since the majority of women with COVID-19 infection in the first trimester have not yet delivered.”

Malavika Prabhu, MD, an obstetetrician/gyneologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City added that “this systematic review and meta analysis, which is a compilation of other studies done around the globe, confirms that pregnant women with preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of invasive ventilation, compared to nonpregnant women with COVID-19, particularly if they have a preexisting medical condition.”

She said the preterm delivery rate of COVID-positive women is “challenging to interpret given that the total preterm birth rate potentially included many medically indicated preterm deliveries – which is to be expected – and there is no comparison group for spontaneous preterm birth presented”.

Other outstanding questions about COVID-19 pregnancies include whether they are associated with preeclampsia or smaller/growth restricted infants and why the cesarean delivery rate is high, she said. “But some of these questions are tough to answer with this data because it primarily reflects a COVID infection close to the delivery, not one that occurred several months prior to a delivery.”

Deborah Money, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, medicine, and the school of population and public health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that “this is a group that have been doing ongoing living systematic reviews of the literature scanning for pregnancy outcomes. They post their information in real time on their website, so many of us in this area follow these postings as their methodology is robust and they work hard to only include high-quality literature and avoid duplication of cases in multiple papers. There has been a problem of re-reporting the same severe cases of COVID-19 in the literature.”

This “amplifies the importance of collecting Canadian-specific data to ensure that we understand if these kind of outcomes will also be found in Canada. The data presented in this paper represent outcomes from a broad range of countries with different methods of collecting information on pregnancy and highly variable prenatal care systems. This makes our pan-Canadian study of outcomes of COVID-19 for pregnant women and their infants, CANCOVID-Preg, even more important,” she said.

“Globally, we all must continue to monitor outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy to minimize adverse impact on women and their infants,” said Dr. Money, who was not involved in the study.

The study was partially funded by the World Health Organization and supported by Katie’s Team, a dedicated patient and public involvement group in Women’s Health. Dr. Metz is principal investigator for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network COVID-19 study; the study is funded by NICHD and enrollment is ongoing. Dr. Prabhu had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Money received funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a small grant from theBC Women’s Foundation for COVID-19 in pregnancy research.

SOURCE: Allotey J et al. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320.

One of every 10 pregnant or recently pregnant women in hospital was diagnosed with COVID-19, yet up to three-quarters were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, according to a living systematic review from the PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

The study, published in BMJ, shows an increased risk of preterm delivery, as well as the need for invasive ventilation in these women, wrote John Allotey, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The findings “will produce a strong evidence base for living guidelines on COVID-19 and pregnancy,” they noted.

The systematic review included 77 studies, one-third each from the United States and China, with the remaining studies from Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The studies included women with COVID-19, of whom 13,118 were either pregnant or in the postpartum or postabortion period and 83,486 were of reproductive age but not pregnant. Some studies also included healthy pregnant women for comparison.

In the pregnant and recently pregnant women, the most common COVID-19 symptoms were fever (40%) and cough (39%), with lymphopenia (35%) and raised C reactive protein levels (49%) being the most common laboratory findings. Pregnant and recently pregnant women with COVID-19 were less likely to have fever (odds ratio, 0.43) and myalgia (OR, 0.48), compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19, reported the authors.

The overall preterm and spontaneous preterm birth rates in the COVID-19–positive women were 17% and 6% respectively. Dr. Allotey and authors noted that “these preterm births could be medically indicated, as the overall rates of spontaneous preterm births in pregnant women with COVID-19 was broadly similar to those observed in the pre-pandemic period.” There were 18 stillbirths and 6 neonatal deaths in the COVID-19 cohort.

Overall, 73 (0.1%) of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 died from any cause, and severe COVID-19 infection was diagnosed in 13%. Maternal risk factors associated with severe infection included older age (OR, 1.78), high body mass index (OR, 2.3), chronic hypertension (OR, 2.0), and preexisting diabetes (OR, 2.51). Compared with nonpregnant women with COVID-19, pregnant or recently pregnant women with the infection were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (OR, 1.62) and needing invasive ventilation (OR, 1.88).

The report included studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 26, 2020, but the living systematic review will involve weekly search updates, with analysis performed every 2-4 weeks and reported through a dedicated website.
 

The value of a living meta-analysis

Asked to comment on the findings, Torri Metz, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, expressed surprise at the 10% rate of infection in the pregnant or recently pregnant population. “This is higher than currently observed at many hospitals in the United States,” she said in an interview. “This may overestimate the actual risk as many of these studies were published early in the pandemic and did not universally sample women who were pregnant for SARS-CoV-2.”

She noted the value of a living meta-analysis in that it will be updated on a regular basis as new evidence emerges. “During this time of rapidly accumulating publications about COVID-19 infection, clinicians will find it useful to have a resource in which the available data can be combined in one source.”

And there are still some outstanding questions that new studies hopefully will shed light on, she added. “The authors found that many of the risk factors for severe disease, like diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure, in nonpregnant adults are the same in the pregnant population. What remains unknown is if pregnant patients with COVID-19 infection are at higher risk than those who are not pregnant. The authors note that this information is still limited and largely influenced in this published analysis by a CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study in which the majority of patients had unknown pregnancy status. We also do not know if COVID-19 infection is associated with any birth defects since the majority of women with COVID-19 infection in the first trimester have not yet delivered.”

Malavika Prabhu, MD, an obstetetrician/gyneologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City added that “this systematic review and meta analysis, which is a compilation of other studies done around the globe, confirms that pregnant women with preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of invasive ventilation, compared to nonpregnant women with COVID-19, particularly if they have a preexisting medical condition.”

She said the preterm delivery rate of COVID-positive women is “challenging to interpret given that the total preterm birth rate potentially included many medically indicated preterm deliveries – which is to be expected – and there is no comparison group for spontaneous preterm birth presented”.

Other outstanding questions about COVID-19 pregnancies include whether they are associated with preeclampsia or smaller/growth restricted infants and why the cesarean delivery rate is high, she said. “But some of these questions are tough to answer with this data because it primarily reflects a COVID infection close to the delivery, not one that occurred several months prior to a delivery.”

Deborah Money, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, medicine, and the school of population and public health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that “this is a group that have been doing ongoing living systematic reviews of the literature scanning for pregnancy outcomes. They post their information in real time on their website, so many of us in this area follow these postings as their methodology is robust and they work hard to only include high-quality literature and avoid duplication of cases in multiple papers. There has been a problem of re-reporting the same severe cases of COVID-19 in the literature.”

This “amplifies the importance of collecting Canadian-specific data to ensure that we understand if these kind of outcomes will also be found in Canada. The data presented in this paper represent outcomes from a broad range of countries with different methods of collecting information on pregnancy and highly variable prenatal care systems. This makes our pan-Canadian study of outcomes of COVID-19 for pregnant women and their infants, CANCOVID-Preg, even more important,” she said.

“Globally, we all must continue to monitor outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy to minimize adverse impact on women and their infants,” said Dr. Money, who was not involved in the study.

The study was partially funded by the World Health Organization and supported by Katie’s Team, a dedicated patient and public involvement group in Women’s Health. Dr. Metz is principal investigator for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network COVID-19 study; the study is funded by NICHD and enrollment is ongoing. Dr. Prabhu had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Money received funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a small grant from theBC Women’s Foundation for COVID-19 in pregnancy research.

SOURCE: Allotey J et al. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320.

Presenters

Michael Bryant, MD – Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles

Kimberly Manning, MD – Emory University, Atlanta

Kimberly Reynolds, MD – University of Miami

Samir Shah, MD, MSCE, MHM – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Moderator

Erin Shaughnessy, MD – Phoenix Children’s Hospital

Session summary

This session was devoted to a discussion about how pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) as a field can address racism in medicine. The structural inequity rooted in poverty, housing problems, and differential education represents the essential social determinant of health. No longer can pediatric hospitalists neglect or be in denial of the crucial role that race plays in propagating further inequalities in our society and at our workplace. Historically Black people were exploited in research and still are disproportionately affected when it comes to infant prematurity and mortality, asthma, pain treatments, and so on. The pediatric hospitalist must explore and understand the reasons behind nonadherence and noncompliance among Black patients and always seek to understand before criticizing.

Within learning environments, we must improve how to “autocorrect” and proactively work on our own biases. Dr. Bryant pointed out that each institution has the responsibility to build on the civil rights movement and seize the moment to create a robust response to the inequities manifested during the COVID-19 epidemic, as well as the events following the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmoud Arbery, and many others. Dr. Shah called on the PHM community to take on that obligation by “stepping into the tension,” as Mark Shapiro, MD, has suggested in a conversation/podcast with Dr. Unaka.

As pediatric hospitalists, we will have to show up both individually and as constituents of institutions to address racism by specific projects looking at all data relevant for racism rather than race in quality and safety – thereby amplifying the voices of our Black patients and families, remarked Dr. Unaka. There was a brief reflection on the use of the word “allies” by Dr. Manning and Dr. Reynolds to remind the more than 200 session participants that a bidirectional framework of this process is crucial and that there is a clear need for a partnership to a common goal that should start by “a laydown of privilege of those who have it” to establish equal playing fields once and for all.

Dr. Bryant encouraged a deliberate and early thoughtful process to identify those with opportunities and help young Black people explore journeys in medicine and increase diversity among PHM faculty. Dr. Manning reminded the audience of the power that relationships have and hold in our lives, and not only those of mentors and mentees, but also relationships among all of us as humans. As with those simple situations in which we mess up and have to be able to admit it, apologize for it, and learn to move on, this requires also showing up as a mentee, articulating one’s needs, and learning to break the habits rooted in biases. Dr. Unaka warned against stereotypes and reminded us to look deeper and understand better all of our learners and their blind spots, as well as our own.
 

Key takeaways

• The field of PHM must recognize the role that race plays in propagating inequalities.
• Learning and mentorship environments have to be assessed for the safety of all learners and adjusted to correct (and autocorrect) as many biases as possible.
• Institutions must assume responsibilities to establish a conscious, robust response to injustice and racism in a timely and specific manner.
• Further research efforts must be made to address racism, rather than race.
• The PHM community must show up to create a new, healthy, and deliberate bidirectional framework to endorse and support diversity.

Dr. Giordano is assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University and a pediatric hospitalist at NewYork–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital, both in New York, with an interest in surgical comanagement. She serves on the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Pediatric Special Interest Group Executive Committee and is the chair of the Education Subcommittee. She is also an advisory board member for the New York/Westchester SHM Chapter.

Presenters

Michael Bryant, MD – Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles

Kimberly Manning, MD – Emory University, Atlanta

Kimberly Reynolds, MD – University of Miami

Samir Shah, MD, MSCE, MHM – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Moderator

Erin Shaughnessy, MD – Phoenix Children’s Hospital

Session summary

This session was devoted to a discussion about how pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) as a field can address racism in medicine. The structural inequity rooted in poverty, housing problems, and differential education represents the essential social determinant of health. No longer can pediatric hospitalists neglect or be in denial of the crucial role that race plays in propagating further inequalities in our society and at our workplace. Historically Black people were exploited in research and still are disproportionately affected when it comes to infant prematurity and mortality, asthma, pain treatments, and so on. The pediatric hospitalist must explore and understand the reasons behind nonadherence and noncompliance among Black patients and always seek to understand before criticizing.

Within learning environments, we must improve how to “autocorrect” and proactively work on our own biases. Dr. Bryant pointed out that each institution has the responsibility to build on the civil rights movement and seize the moment to create a robust response to the inequities manifested during the COVID-19 epidemic, as well as the events following the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmoud Arbery, and many others. Dr. Shah called on the PHM community to take on that obligation by “stepping into the tension,” as Mark Shapiro, MD, has suggested in a conversation/podcast with Dr. Unaka.

As pediatric hospitalists, we will have to show up both individually and as constituents of institutions to address racism by specific projects looking at all data relevant for racism rather than race in quality and safety – thereby amplifying the voices of our Black patients and families, remarked Dr. Unaka. There was a brief reflection on the use of the word “allies” by Dr. Manning and Dr. Reynolds to remind the more than 200 session participants that a bidirectional framework of this process is crucial and that there is a clear need for a partnership to a common goal that should start by “a laydown of privilege of those who have it” to establish equal playing fields once and for all.

Dr. Bryant encouraged a deliberate and early thoughtful process to identify those with opportunities and help young Black people explore journeys in medicine and increase diversity among PHM faculty. Dr. Manning reminded the audience of the power that relationships have and hold in our lives, and not only those of mentors and mentees, but also relationships among all of us as humans. As with those simple situations in which we mess up and have to be able to admit it, apologize for it, and learn to move on, this requires also showing up as a mentee, articulating one’s needs, and learning to break the habits rooted in biases. Dr. Unaka warned against stereotypes and reminded us to look deeper and understand better all of our learners and their blind spots, as well as our own.
 

Key takeaways

• The field of PHM must recognize the role that race plays in propagating inequalities.
• Learning and mentorship environments have to be assessed for the safety of all learners and adjusted to correct (and autocorrect) as many biases as possible.
• Institutions must assume responsibilities to establish a conscious, robust response to injustice and racism in a timely and specific manner.
• Further research efforts must be made to address racism, rather than race.
• The PHM community must show up to create a new, healthy, and deliberate bidirectional framework to endorse and support diversity.

Dr. Giordano is assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University and a pediatric hospitalist at NewYork–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital, both in New York, with an interest in surgical comanagement. She serves on the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Pediatric Special Interest Group Executive Committee and is the chair of the Education Subcommittee. She is also an advisory board member for the New York/Westchester SHM Chapter.

Presenters

Michael Bryant, MD – Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles

Kimberly Manning, MD – Emory University, Atlanta

Kimberly Reynolds, MD – University of Miami

Samir Shah, MD, MSCE, MHM – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd – Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Moderator

Erin Shaughnessy, MD – Phoenix Children’s Hospital

Session summary

This session was devoted to a discussion about how pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) as a field can address racism in medicine. The structural inequity rooted in poverty, housing problems, and differential education represents the essential social determinant of health. No longer can pediatric hospitalists neglect or be in denial of the crucial role that race plays in propagating further inequalities in our society and at our workplace. Historically Black people were exploited in research and still are disproportionately affected when it comes to infant prematurity and mortality, asthma, pain treatments, and so on. The pediatric hospitalist must explore and understand the reasons behind nonadherence and noncompliance among Black patients and always seek to understand before criticizing.

Within learning environments, we must improve how to “autocorrect” and proactively work on our own biases. Dr. Bryant pointed out that each institution has the responsibility to build on the civil rights movement and seize the moment to create a robust response to the inequities manifested during the COVID-19 epidemic, as well as the events following the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmoud Arbery, and many others. Dr. Shah called on the PHM community to take on that obligation by “stepping into the tension,” as Mark Shapiro, MD, has suggested in a conversation/podcast with Dr. Unaka.

As pediatric hospitalists, we will have to show up both individually and as constituents of institutions to address racism by specific projects looking at all data relevant for racism rather than race in quality and safety – thereby amplifying the voices of our Black patients and families, remarked Dr. Unaka. There was a brief reflection on the use of the word “allies” by Dr. Manning and Dr. Reynolds to remind the more than 200 session participants that a bidirectional framework of this process is crucial and that there is a clear need for a partnership to a common goal that should start by “a laydown of privilege of those who have it” to establish equal playing fields once and for all.

Dr. Bryant encouraged a deliberate and early thoughtful process to identify those with opportunities and help young Black people explore journeys in medicine and increase diversity among PHM faculty. Dr. Manning reminded the audience of the power that relationships have and hold in our lives, and not only those of mentors and mentees, but also relationships among all of us as humans. As with those simple situations in which we mess up and have to be able to admit it, apologize for it, and learn to move on, this requires also showing up as a mentee, articulating one’s needs, and learning to break the habits rooted in biases. Dr. Unaka warned against stereotypes and reminded us to look deeper and understand better all of our learners and their blind spots, as well as our own.
 

Key takeaways

• The field of PHM must recognize the role that race plays in propagating inequalities.
• Learning and mentorship environments have to be assessed for the safety of all learners and adjusted to correct (and autocorrect) as many biases as possible.
• Institutions must assume responsibilities to establish a conscious, robust response to injustice and racism in a timely and specific manner.
• Further research efforts must be made to address racism, rather than race.
• The PHM community must show up to create a new, healthy, and deliberate bidirectional framework to endorse and support diversity.

Dr. Giordano is assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University and a pediatric hospitalist at NewYork–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital, both in New York, with an interest in surgical comanagement. She serves on the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Pediatric Special Interest Group Executive Committee and is the chair of the Education Subcommittee. She is also an advisory board member for the New York/Westchester SHM Chapter.

About 22% of children with COVID-19 infections were asymptomatic, and 66% of the symptomatic children had unrecognized symptoms at the time of diagnosis, based on data from a case series of 91 confirmed cases.

South_agency/Getty Images

Although recent reports suggest that COVID-19 infections in children are generally mild, data on the full spectrum of illness and duration of viral RNA in children are limited, wrote Mi Seon Han, MD, PhD, of Seoul (South Korea) Metropolitan Government–Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, and colleagues.

To examine the full clinical course and duration of COVID-19 RNA detectability in children with confirmed infections, the researchers reviewed data from 91 individuals with confirmed infections. The children ranged in age from 27 days to 18 years, and 58% were male. The children were monitored at 20 hospitals and 2 isolation facilities for a mean 21.9 days. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Overall, COVID-19 viral RNA was present in the study population for a mean 17.6 days, with testing done at a median interval of 3 days. A total of 20 children (22%) were asymptomatic throughout the study period. In these children, viral RNA was detected for a mean 14 days.

“The major hurdle implicated in this study in diagnosing and treating children with COVID-19 is that a considerable number of children are asymptomatic, and even if symptoms are present, they are unrecognized and overlooked before COVID-19 is diagnosed,” the researchers noted.

Of the 71 symptomatic children, 47 (66%) had unrecognized symptoms prior to diagnosis, 18 (25%) developed symptoms after diagnosis, and 6 (9%) were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset. The symptomatic children were symptomatic for a median of 11 days; 43 (61%) remained symptomatic at 7 days’ follow-up after the study period, 27 (38%) were symptomatic at 14 days, and 7 (10%) were symptomatic at 21 days.

A total of 41 children had upper respiratory infections (58%) and 22 children (24%) had lower respiratory tract infections. No difference in the duration of virus RNA was detected between children with upper respiratory tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections (average, 18.7 days vs. 19.9 days).

Among the symptomatic children, 46 (65%) had mild cases and 20 (28%) had moderate cases.

For treatment, 14 children (15%) received lopinavir-ritonavir and/or hydroxychloroquine. Two patients had severe illness and received oxygen via nasal prong, without the need for mechanical ventilation. All the children in the case series recovered from their infections with no fatalities.

The study’s main limitation was the inability to analyze the transmission potential of the children because of the quarantine and isolation policies in Korea, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers did not perform follow-up testing at consistent intervals, so the duration of COVID-19 RNA detection may be inexact.

However, the results suggest “that suspecting and diagnosing COVID-19 in children based on their symptoms without epidemiologic information and virus testing is very challenging,” the researchers emphasized.

“Most of the children with COVID-19 have silent disease, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA can still be detected in the respiratory tract for a prolonged period,” they wrote. More research is needed to explore the potential for disease transmission by children in the community, and increased surveillance with laboratory screening can help identify children with unrecognized infections.

The study is the first known to focus on the frequency of asymptomatic infection in children and the duration of symptoms in both asymptomatic and symptomatic children, Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, and Meghan Delaney, DO, both affiliated with Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute, Washington, and George Washington University, Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The structure of the Korean public health system “allowed for the sequential observation, testing (median testing interval of every 3 days), and comparison of 91 asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic children with mild to moderate upper and lower respiratory tract infection, identified primarily by contact tracing from laboratory-proven cases.”

Two take-home points from the study are that not all infected children are symptomatic, and the duration of symptoms in those who are varies widely, they noted. “Interestingly, this study aligns with adult data in which up to 40% of adults may remain asymptomatic in the face of infection.”

However, “The third and most important take-home point from this study relates to the duration of viral shedding in infected pediatric patients,” Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Delaney said (JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3996).

“Fully half of symptomatic children with both upper and lower tract disease were still shedding virus at 21 days. These are striking data, particularly since 86 of 88 diagnosed children (98%) either had no symptoms or mild or moderate disease,” they explained. The results highlight the need for improvements in qualitative molecular testing and formal studies to identify differences in results from different testing scenarios, such as hospital entry, preprocedure screening, and symptomatic testing. In addition, “these findings are highly relevant to the development of public health strategies to mitigate and contain spread within communities, particularly as affected communities begin their recovery phases.”

The study is important because “schools are opening, and we don’t know what is going to happen,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, of Rochester General Hospital, N.Y., said in an interview.

“Clinicians, parents, students, school administrators and politicians are worried,” he said. “This study adds to others recently published, bringing into focus the challenges to several suppositions that existed when the COVID-19 pandemic began and over the summer.”

“This study of 91 Korean children tells us that taking a child’s temperature as a screening tool to decide if they may enter school will not be a highly successful strategy,” he said. “Many children are without fever and asymptomatic when infected and contagious. The notion that children shed less virus or shed it for shorter lengths of time we keep learning from this type of research is not true. In another recent study the authors found that children shed as much of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an adult in the ICU on a ventilator.”

Dr. Pichichero said he was not surprised by the study findings. “A similar paper was published last week in the Journal of Pediatrics from Massachusetts General Hospital, so the findings in the JAMA paper are similar to what has been reported in the United States.”

“Availability of testing will continue to be a challenge in some communities,” said Dr. Pichichero. “Here in the Rochester, New York, area we will use a screening questionnaire based on the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] symptom criteria of SARS-CoV-2 infections to decide whom to test.”

As for additional research, “We have so much more to learn about SARS-CoV-2 in children,” he emphasized. “The focus has been on adults because the morbidity and mortality has been greatest in adults, especially the elderly and those with compromised health.”

“The National Institutes of Health has issued a call for more research in children to characterize the spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 illness, including the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C] and try to identify biomarkers and/or biosignatures for a prognostic algorithm to predict the longitudinal risk of disease severity after a child is exposed to and may be infected with SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pichichero. “NIH has asked researchers to answer the following questions.”

• Why do children have milder illness?
• Are there differences in childhood biology (e.g., gender, puberty, etc.) that contribute to illness severity?
• Are there genetic host differences associated with different disease severity phenotypes, including MIS-C?
• Are there innate mucosal, humoral, cellular and other adaptive immune profiles that are associated with reduced or increased risk of progressive disease, including previous coronavirus infections?
• Will SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cause worse disease as seen with antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in other viral infections (e.g., dengue)? Will future vaccines carry a risk of the ADE phenomenon?
• Does substance use (e.g., nicotine, marijuana) exacerbate or trigger MIS-C through immune activation?

“We have no knowledge yet about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of children, especially young children,” Dr. Pichichero emphasized. “There are different types of vaccines – messenger RNA, adenovirus vector and purified spike proteins of the virus – among others, but questions remain: Will the vaccines work in children? What about side effects? Will the antibodies and cellular immunity protect partially or completely?”

The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pichichero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Han MS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3988.

About 22% of children with COVID-19 infections were asymptomatic, and 66% of the symptomatic children had unrecognized symptoms at the time of diagnosis, based on data from a case series of 91 confirmed cases.

South_agency/Getty Images

Although recent reports suggest that COVID-19 infections in children are generally mild, data on the full spectrum of illness and duration of viral RNA in children are limited, wrote Mi Seon Han, MD, PhD, of Seoul (South Korea) Metropolitan Government–Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, and colleagues.

To examine the full clinical course and duration of COVID-19 RNA detectability in children with confirmed infections, the researchers reviewed data from 91 individuals with confirmed infections. The children ranged in age from 27 days to 18 years, and 58% were male. The children were monitored at 20 hospitals and 2 isolation facilities for a mean 21.9 days. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Overall, COVID-19 viral RNA was present in the study population for a mean 17.6 days, with testing done at a median interval of 3 days. A total of 20 children (22%) were asymptomatic throughout the study period. In these children, viral RNA was detected for a mean 14 days.

“The major hurdle implicated in this study in diagnosing and treating children with COVID-19 is that a considerable number of children are asymptomatic, and even if symptoms are present, they are unrecognized and overlooked before COVID-19 is diagnosed,” the researchers noted.

Of the 71 symptomatic children, 47 (66%) had unrecognized symptoms prior to diagnosis, 18 (25%) developed symptoms after diagnosis, and 6 (9%) were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset. The symptomatic children were symptomatic for a median of 11 days; 43 (61%) remained symptomatic at 7 days’ follow-up after the study period, 27 (38%) were symptomatic at 14 days, and 7 (10%) were symptomatic at 21 days.

A total of 41 children had upper respiratory infections (58%) and 22 children (24%) had lower respiratory tract infections. No difference in the duration of virus RNA was detected between children with upper respiratory tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections (average, 18.7 days vs. 19.9 days).

Among the symptomatic children, 46 (65%) had mild cases and 20 (28%) had moderate cases.

For treatment, 14 children (15%) received lopinavir-ritonavir and/or hydroxychloroquine. Two patients had severe illness and received oxygen via nasal prong, without the need for mechanical ventilation. All the children in the case series recovered from their infections with no fatalities.

The study’s main limitation was the inability to analyze the transmission potential of the children because of the quarantine and isolation policies in Korea, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers did not perform follow-up testing at consistent intervals, so the duration of COVID-19 RNA detection may be inexact.

However, the results suggest “that suspecting and diagnosing COVID-19 in children based on their symptoms without epidemiologic information and virus testing is very challenging,” the researchers emphasized.

“Most of the children with COVID-19 have silent disease, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA can still be detected in the respiratory tract for a prolonged period,” they wrote. More research is needed to explore the potential for disease transmission by children in the community, and increased surveillance with laboratory screening can help identify children with unrecognized infections.

The study is the first known to focus on the frequency of asymptomatic infection in children and the duration of symptoms in both asymptomatic and symptomatic children, Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, and Meghan Delaney, DO, both affiliated with Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute, Washington, and George Washington University, Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The structure of the Korean public health system “allowed for the sequential observation, testing (median testing interval of every 3 days), and comparison of 91 asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic children with mild to moderate upper and lower respiratory tract infection, identified primarily by contact tracing from laboratory-proven cases.”

Two take-home points from the study are that not all infected children are symptomatic, and the duration of symptoms in those who are varies widely, they noted. “Interestingly, this study aligns with adult data in which up to 40% of adults may remain asymptomatic in the face of infection.”

However, “The third and most important take-home point from this study relates to the duration of viral shedding in infected pediatric patients,” Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Delaney said (JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3996).

“Fully half of symptomatic children with both upper and lower tract disease were still shedding virus at 21 days. These are striking data, particularly since 86 of 88 diagnosed children (98%) either had no symptoms or mild or moderate disease,” they explained. The results highlight the need for improvements in qualitative molecular testing and formal studies to identify differences in results from different testing scenarios, such as hospital entry, preprocedure screening, and symptomatic testing. In addition, “these findings are highly relevant to the development of public health strategies to mitigate and contain spread within communities, particularly as affected communities begin their recovery phases.”

The study is important because “schools are opening, and we don’t know what is going to happen,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, of Rochester General Hospital, N.Y., said in an interview.

“Clinicians, parents, students, school administrators and politicians are worried,” he said. “This study adds to others recently published, bringing into focus the challenges to several suppositions that existed when the COVID-19 pandemic began and over the summer.”

“This study of 91 Korean children tells us that taking a child’s temperature as a screening tool to decide if they may enter school will not be a highly successful strategy,” he said. “Many children are without fever and asymptomatic when infected and contagious. The notion that children shed less virus or shed it for shorter lengths of time we keep learning from this type of research is not true. In another recent study the authors found that children shed as much of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an adult in the ICU on a ventilator.”

Dr. Pichichero said he was not surprised by the study findings. “A similar paper was published last week in the Journal of Pediatrics from Massachusetts General Hospital, so the findings in the JAMA paper are similar to what has been reported in the United States.”

“Availability of testing will continue to be a challenge in some communities,” said Dr. Pichichero. “Here in the Rochester, New York, area we will use a screening questionnaire based on the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] symptom criteria of SARS-CoV-2 infections to decide whom to test.”

As for additional research, “We have so much more to learn about SARS-CoV-2 in children,” he emphasized. “The focus has been on adults because the morbidity and mortality has been greatest in adults, especially the elderly and those with compromised health.”

“The National Institutes of Health has issued a call for more research in children to characterize the spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 illness, including the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C] and try to identify biomarkers and/or biosignatures for a prognostic algorithm to predict the longitudinal risk of disease severity after a child is exposed to and may be infected with SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pichichero. “NIH has asked researchers to answer the following questions.”

• Why do children have milder illness?
• Are there differences in childhood biology (e.g., gender, puberty, etc.) that contribute to illness severity?
• Are there genetic host differences associated with different disease severity phenotypes, including MIS-C?
• Are there innate mucosal, humoral, cellular and other adaptive immune profiles that are associated with reduced or increased risk of progressive disease, including previous coronavirus infections?
• Will SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cause worse disease as seen with antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in other viral infections (e.g., dengue)? Will future vaccines carry a risk of the ADE phenomenon?
• Does substance use (e.g., nicotine, marijuana) exacerbate or trigger MIS-C through immune activation?

“We have no knowledge yet about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of children, especially young children,” Dr. Pichichero emphasized. “There are different types of vaccines – messenger RNA, adenovirus vector and purified spike proteins of the virus – among others, but questions remain: Will the vaccines work in children? What about side effects? Will the antibodies and cellular immunity protect partially or completely?”

The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pichichero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Han MS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3988.

About 22% of children with COVID-19 infections were asymptomatic, and 66% of the symptomatic children had unrecognized symptoms at the time of diagnosis, based on data from a case series of 91 confirmed cases.

South_agency/Getty Images

Although recent reports suggest that COVID-19 infections in children are generally mild, data on the full spectrum of illness and duration of viral RNA in children are limited, wrote Mi Seon Han, MD, PhD, of Seoul (South Korea) Metropolitan Government–Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, and colleagues.

To examine the full clinical course and duration of COVID-19 RNA detectability in children with confirmed infections, the researchers reviewed data from 91 individuals with confirmed infections. The children ranged in age from 27 days to 18 years, and 58% were male. The children were monitored at 20 hospitals and 2 isolation facilities for a mean 21.9 days. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Overall, COVID-19 viral RNA was present in the study population for a mean 17.6 days, with testing done at a median interval of 3 days. A total of 20 children (22%) were asymptomatic throughout the study period. In these children, viral RNA was detected for a mean 14 days.

“The major hurdle implicated in this study in diagnosing and treating children with COVID-19 is that a considerable number of children are asymptomatic, and even if symptoms are present, they are unrecognized and overlooked before COVID-19 is diagnosed,” the researchers noted.

Of the 71 symptomatic children, 47 (66%) had unrecognized symptoms prior to diagnosis, 18 (25%) developed symptoms after diagnosis, and 6 (9%) were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset. The symptomatic children were symptomatic for a median of 11 days; 43 (61%) remained symptomatic at 7 days’ follow-up after the study period, 27 (38%) were symptomatic at 14 days, and 7 (10%) were symptomatic at 21 days.

A total of 41 children had upper respiratory infections (58%) and 22 children (24%) had lower respiratory tract infections. No difference in the duration of virus RNA was detected between children with upper respiratory tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections (average, 18.7 days vs. 19.9 days).

Among the symptomatic children, 46 (65%) had mild cases and 20 (28%) had moderate cases.

For treatment, 14 children (15%) received lopinavir-ritonavir and/or hydroxychloroquine. Two patients had severe illness and received oxygen via nasal prong, without the need for mechanical ventilation. All the children in the case series recovered from their infections with no fatalities.

The study’s main limitation was the inability to analyze the transmission potential of the children because of the quarantine and isolation policies in Korea, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers did not perform follow-up testing at consistent intervals, so the duration of COVID-19 RNA detection may be inexact.

However, the results suggest “that suspecting and diagnosing COVID-19 in children based on their symptoms without epidemiologic information and virus testing is very challenging,” the researchers emphasized.

“Most of the children with COVID-19 have silent disease, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA can still be detected in the respiratory tract for a prolonged period,” they wrote. More research is needed to explore the potential for disease transmission by children in the community, and increased surveillance with laboratory screening can help identify children with unrecognized infections.

The study is the first known to focus on the frequency of asymptomatic infection in children and the duration of symptoms in both asymptomatic and symptomatic children, Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, and Meghan Delaney, DO, both affiliated with Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute, Washington, and George Washington University, Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The structure of the Korean public health system “allowed for the sequential observation, testing (median testing interval of every 3 days), and comparison of 91 asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic children with mild to moderate upper and lower respiratory tract infection, identified primarily by contact tracing from laboratory-proven cases.”

Two take-home points from the study are that not all infected children are symptomatic, and the duration of symptoms in those who are varies widely, they noted. “Interestingly, this study aligns with adult data in which up to 40% of adults may remain asymptomatic in the face of infection.”

However, “The third and most important take-home point from this study relates to the duration of viral shedding in infected pediatric patients,” Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Delaney said (JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3996).

“Fully half of symptomatic children with both upper and lower tract disease were still shedding virus at 21 days. These are striking data, particularly since 86 of 88 diagnosed children (98%) either had no symptoms or mild or moderate disease,” they explained. The results highlight the need for improvements in qualitative molecular testing and formal studies to identify differences in results from different testing scenarios, such as hospital entry, preprocedure screening, and symptomatic testing. In addition, “these findings are highly relevant to the development of public health strategies to mitigate and contain spread within communities, particularly as affected communities begin their recovery phases.”

The study is important because “schools are opening, and we don’t know what is going to happen,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, of Rochester General Hospital, N.Y., said in an interview.

“Clinicians, parents, students, school administrators and politicians are worried,” he said. “This study adds to others recently published, bringing into focus the challenges to several suppositions that existed when the COVID-19 pandemic began and over the summer.”

“This study of 91 Korean children tells us that taking a child’s temperature as a screening tool to decide if they may enter school will not be a highly successful strategy,” he said. “Many children are without fever and asymptomatic when infected and contagious. The notion that children shed less virus or shed it for shorter lengths of time we keep learning from this type of research is not true. In another recent study the authors found that children shed as much of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an adult in the ICU on a ventilator.”

Dr. Pichichero said he was not surprised by the study findings. “A similar paper was published last week in the Journal of Pediatrics from Massachusetts General Hospital, so the findings in the JAMA paper are similar to what has been reported in the United States.”

“Availability of testing will continue to be a challenge in some communities,” said Dr. Pichichero. “Here in the Rochester, New York, area we will use a screening questionnaire based on the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] symptom criteria of SARS-CoV-2 infections to decide whom to test.”

As for additional research, “We have so much more to learn about SARS-CoV-2 in children,” he emphasized. “The focus has been on adults because the morbidity and mortality has been greatest in adults, especially the elderly and those with compromised health.”

“The National Institutes of Health has issued a call for more research in children to characterize the spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 illness, including the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C] and try to identify biomarkers and/or biosignatures for a prognostic algorithm to predict the longitudinal risk of disease severity after a child is exposed to and may be infected with SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pichichero. “NIH has asked researchers to answer the following questions.”

• Why do children have milder illness?
• Are there differences in childhood biology (e.g., gender, puberty, etc.) that contribute to illness severity?
• Are there genetic host differences associated with different disease severity phenotypes, including MIS-C?
• Are there innate mucosal, humoral, cellular and other adaptive immune profiles that are associated with reduced or increased risk of progressive disease, including previous coronavirus infections?
• Will SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cause worse disease as seen with antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in other viral infections (e.g., dengue)? Will future vaccines carry a risk of the ADE phenomenon?
• Does substance use (e.g., nicotine, marijuana) exacerbate or trigger MIS-C through immune activation?

“We have no knowledge yet about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of children, especially young children,” Dr. Pichichero emphasized. “There are different types of vaccines – messenger RNA, adenovirus vector and purified spike proteins of the virus – among others, but questions remain: Will the vaccines work in children? What about side effects? Will the antibodies and cellular immunity protect partially or completely?”

The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pichichero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Han MS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3988.

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

An ultralow dose of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) may safely cut the risk for stroke in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) whose bleeding risk is considered too high for standard dosages, suggests a randomized trial conducted in Japan.

Many of the study’s 984 mostly octogenarian patients were objectively frail with poor renal function, low body weight, a history of serious bleeding, or other conditions that made them poor candidates for regular-dose oral anticoagulation. Yet those who took the factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa) at the off-label dosage of 15 mg once daily showed a two-thirds drop in risk for stroke or systemic embolism (P < .001), compared with patients who received placebo. There were no fatal bleeds and virtually no intracranial hemorrhages.

For such high-risk patients with nonvalvular AFib who otherwise would not be given an OAC, edoxaban 15 mg “can be an acceptable treatment option in decreasing the risk of devastating stroke”; however, “it may increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, so care should be given in every patient,” said Ken Okumura, MD, PhD. Indeed, the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding tripled among the patients who received edoxaban, compared with those given placebo, at about 2.3% per year versus 0.8% per year.

Although their 87% increased risk for major bleeding did not reach significance, it hit close, with a P value of .09 in the trial, called Edoxaban Low-Dose for Elder Care Atrial Fibrillation Patients (ELDERCARE-AF).

Dr. Okumura, of Saiseikai Kumamoto (Japan) Hospital, presented the study August 30 during the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. He is lead author of an article describing the study, which was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Many patients with AFib suffer strokes if they are not given oral anticoagulation because of “fear of major bleeding caused by standard OAC therapy,” Dr. Okumura noted. Others are inappropriately administered antiplatelets or anticoagulants at conventional dosages. “There is no standard of practice in Japan for patients like those in the present trial,” Dr. Okumura said. “However, I believe the present study opens a new possible path of thromboprophylaxis in such high-risk patients.”

Even with its relatively few bleeding events, ELDERCARE-AF “does suggest that the risk of the worst types of bleeds is not that high,” said Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Gastrointestinal bleeding is annoying, and it will probably stop people from taking their edoxaban, but for the most part it doesn’t kill people.”

Moreover, he added, the trial suggests that low-dose edoxaban, in exchange for a steep reduction in thromboembolic risk, “doesn’t add to your risk of intracranial hemorrhage!”

ELDERCARE-AF may give practitioners “yet another reason to rethink” whether a low-dose DOAC such as edoxaban 15 mg/day may well be a good approach for such patients with AFib who are not receiving standard-dose OAC because of a perceived high risk for serious bleeding, said Dr. Singer, who was not involved in the study.

The trial randomly and evenly assigned 984 patients with AF in Japan to take either edoxaban 15 mg/day or placebo. The patients, who were at least 80 years old and had a CHADS2 score of 2 or higher, were judged inappropriate candidates for OAC at dosages approved for stroke prevention.

The mean age of the patients was 86.6, more than a decade older than patients “in the previous landmark clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants,” and were 5-10 years older than the general AFib population, reported Dr. Okumura and colleagues.

Their mean weight was 52 kg, and mean creatinine clearance was 36.3 mL/min; 41% were classified as frail according to validated assessment tools.

Of the 303 patients who did not complete the trial, 158 voluntarily withdrew for various reasons. The withdrawal rate was similar in the two treatment arms. Outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat, the report noted.

The annualized rate of stroke or systemic embolism, the primary efficacy endpoint, was 2.3% for those who received edoxaban and 6.7% for the control group. Corresponding rates for the primary safety endpoint, major bleeding as determined by International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria, were 3.3% and 1.8%, respectively.

“The question is, can the Food and Drug Administration act on this information? I doubt it can. What will be needed is to reproduce the study in a U.S. population to see if it holds,” Dr. Singer proposed.

“Edoxaban isn’t used much in the U.S. This could heighten interest. And who knows, there may be a gold rush,” he said, if the strategy were to pan out for the other DOACs, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), apixaban (Eliquis), and dabigatran (Pradaxa).

ELDERCARE-AF was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, from which Dr. Okumura reported receiving grants and personal fees; he also disclosed personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Bayer.

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

An ultralow dose of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) may safely cut the risk for stroke in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) whose bleeding risk is considered too high for standard dosages, suggests a randomized trial conducted in Japan.

Many of the study’s 984 mostly octogenarian patients were objectively frail with poor renal function, low body weight, a history of serious bleeding, or other conditions that made them poor candidates for regular-dose oral anticoagulation. Yet those who took the factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa) at the off-label dosage of 15 mg once daily showed a two-thirds drop in risk for stroke or systemic embolism (P < .001), compared with patients who received placebo. There were no fatal bleeds and virtually no intracranial hemorrhages.

For such high-risk patients with nonvalvular AFib who otherwise would not be given an OAC, edoxaban 15 mg “can be an acceptable treatment option in decreasing the risk of devastating stroke”; however, “it may increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, so care should be given in every patient,” said Ken Okumura, MD, PhD. Indeed, the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding tripled among the patients who received edoxaban, compared with those given placebo, at about 2.3% per year versus 0.8% per year.

Although their 87% increased risk for major bleeding did not reach significance, it hit close, with a P value of .09 in the trial, called Edoxaban Low-Dose for Elder Care Atrial Fibrillation Patients (ELDERCARE-AF).

Dr. Okumura, of Saiseikai Kumamoto (Japan) Hospital, presented the study August 30 during the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. He is lead author of an article describing the study, which was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Many patients with AFib suffer strokes if they are not given oral anticoagulation because of “fear of major bleeding caused by standard OAC therapy,” Dr. Okumura noted. Others are inappropriately administered antiplatelets or anticoagulants at conventional dosages. “There is no standard of practice in Japan for patients like those in the present trial,” Dr. Okumura said. “However, I believe the present study opens a new possible path of thromboprophylaxis in such high-risk patients.”

Even with its relatively few bleeding events, ELDERCARE-AF “does suggest that the risk of the worst types of bleeds is not that high,” said Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Gastrointestinal bleeding is annoying, and it will probably stop people from taking their edoxaban, but for the most part it doesn’t kill people.”

Moreover, he added, the trial suggests that low-dose edoxaban, in exchange for a steep reduction in thromboembolic risk, “doesn’t add to your risk of intracranial hemorrhage!”

ELDERCARE-AF may give practitioners “yet another reason to rethink” whether a low-dose DOAC such as edoxaban 15 mg/day may well be a good approach for such patients with AFib who are not receiving standard-dose OAC because of a perceived high risk for serious bleeding, said Dr. Singer, who was not involved in the study.

The trial randomly and evenly assigned 984 patients with AF in Japan to take either edoxaban 15 mg/day or placebo. The patients, who were at least 80 years old and had a CHADS2 score of 2 or higher, were judged inappropriate candidates for OAC at dosages approved for stroke prevention.

The mean age of the patients was 86.6, more than a decade older than patients “in the previous landmark clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants,” and were 5-10 years older than the general AFib population, reported Dr. Okumura and colleagues.

Their mean weight was 52 kg, and mean creatinine clearance was 36.3 mL/min; 41% were classified as frail according to validated assessment tools.

Of the 303 patients who did not complete the trial, 158 voluntarily withdrew for various reasons. The withdrawal rate was similar in the two treatment arms. Outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat, the report noted.

The annualized rate of stroke or systemic embolism, the primary efficacy endpoint, was 2.3% for those who received edoxaban and 6.7% for the control group. Corresponding rates for the primary safety endpoint, major bleeding as determined by International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria, were 3.3% and 1.8%, respectively.

“The question is, can the Food and Drug Administration act on this information? I doubt it can. What will be needed is to reproduce the study in a U.S. population to see if it holds,” Dr. Singer proposed.

“Edoxaban isn’t used much in the U.S. This could heighten interest. And who knows, there may be a gold rush,” he said, if the strategy were to pan out for the other DOACs, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), apixaban (Eliquis), and dabigatran (Pradaxa).

ELDERCARE-AF was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, from which Dr. Okumura reported receiving grants and personal fees; he also disclosed personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Bayer.

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

An ultralow dose of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) may safely cut the risk for stroke in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) whose bleeding risk is considered too high for standard dosages, suggests a randomized trial conducted in Japan.

Many of the study’s 984 mostly octogenarian patients were objectively frail with poor renal function, low body weight, a history of serious bleeding, or other conditions that made them poor candidates for regular-dose oral anticoagulation. Yet those who took the factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa) at the off-label dosage of 15 mg once daily showed a two-thirds drop in risk for stroke or systemic embolism (P < .001), compared with patients who received placebo. There were no fatal bleeds and virtually no intracranial hemorrhages.

For such high-risk patients with nonvalvular AFib who otherwise would not be given an OAC, edoxaban 15 mg “can be an acceptable treatment option in decreasing the risk of devastating stroke”; however, “it may increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, so care should be given in every patient,” said Ken Okumura, MD, PhD. Indeed, the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding tripled among the patients who received edoxaban, compared with those given placebo, at about 2.3% per year versus 0.8% per year.

Although their 87% increased risk for major bleeding did not reach significance, it hit close, with a P value of .09 in the trial, called Edoxaban Low-Dose for Elder Care Atrial Fibrillation Patients (ELDERCARE-AF).

Dr. Okumura, of Saiseikai Kumamoto (Japan) Hospital, presented the study August 30 during the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. He is lead author of an article describing the study, which was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Many patients with AFib suffer strokes if they are not given oral anticoagulation because of “fear of major bleeding caused by standard OAC therapy,” Dr. Okumura noted. Others are inappropriately administered antiplatelets or anticoagulants at conventional dosages. “There is no standard of practice in Japan for patients like those in the present trial,” Dr. Okumura said. “However, I believe the present study opens a new possible path of thromboprophylaxis in such high-risk patients.”

Even with its relatively few bleeding events, ELDERCARE-AF “does suggest that the risk of the worst types of bleeds is not that high,” said Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Gastrointestinal bleeding is annoying, and it will probably stop people from taking their edoxaban, but for the most part it doesn’t kill people.”

Moreover, he added, the trial suggests that low-dose edoxaban, in exchange for a steep reduction in thromboembolic risk, “doesn’t add to your risk of intracranial hemorrhage!”

ELDERCARE-AF may give practitioners “yet another reason to rethink” whether a low-dose DOAC such as edoxaban 15 mg/day may well be a good approach for such patients with AFib who are not receiving standard-dose OAC because of a perceived high risk for serious bleeding, said Dr. Singer, who was not involved in the study.

The trial randomly and evenly assigned 984 patients with AF in Japan to take either edoxaban 15 mg/day or placebo. The patients, who were at least 80 years old and had a CHADS2 score of 2 or higher, were judged inappropriate candidates for OAC at dosages approved for stroke prevention.

The mean age of the patients was 86.6, more than a decade older than patients “in the previous landmark clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants,” and were 5-10 years older than the general AFib population, reported Dr. Okumura and colleagues.

Their mean weight was 52 kg, and mean creatinine clearance was 36.3 mL/min; 41% were classified as frail according to validated assessment tools.

Of the 303 patients who did not complete the trial, 158 voluntarily withdrew for various reasons. The withdrawal rate was similar in the two treatment arms. Outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat, the report noted.

The annualized rate of stroke or systemic embolism, the primary efficacy endpoint, was 2.3% for those who received edoxaban and 6.7% for the control group. Corresponding rates for the primary safety endpoint, major bleeding as determined by International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria, were 3.3% and 1.8%, respectively.

“The question is, can the Food and Drug Administration act on this information? I doubt it can. What will be needed is to reproduce the study in a U.S. population to see if it holds,” Dr. Singer proposed.

“Edoxaban isn’t used much in the U.S. This could heighten interest. And who knows, there may be a gold rush,” he said, if the strategy were to pan out for the other DOACs, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), apixaban (Eliquis), and dabigatran (Pradaxa).

ELDERCARE-AF was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, from which Dr. Okumura reported receiving grants and personal fees; he also disclosed personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Bayer.

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

Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.

Comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and obesity also were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in this observational study of 11,721 adults. History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.

One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative. 

The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
 

COVID-19 and comorbidities

“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.

With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.

In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.

Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.

“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.

Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.

This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
 

Key findings

A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.

Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).

“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.

The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.  

Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).

When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.

Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.

People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.

Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
 

COVID-19 therapies?

Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.

The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.

“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.

Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.

A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.

The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.

The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”

The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.

“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
 

Some limitations

“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.

On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.” 

Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.

Comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and obesity also were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in this observational study of 11,721 adults. History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.

One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative. 

The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
 

COVID-19 and comorbidities

“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.

With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.

In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.

Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.

“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.

Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.

This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
 

Key findings

A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.

Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).

“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.

The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.  

Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).

When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.

Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.

People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.

Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
 

COVID-19 therapies?

Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.

The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.

“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.

Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.

A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.

The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.

The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”

The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.

“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
 

Some limitations

“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.

On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.” 

Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.

Comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and obesity also were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in this observational study of 11,721 adults. History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.

One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative. 

The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
 

COVID-19 and comorbidities

“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.

With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.

In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.

Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.

“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.

Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.

This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
 

Key findings

A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.

Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).

“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.

The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.  

Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).

When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.

Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.

People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.

Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
 

COVID-19 therapies?

Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.

The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.

“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.

Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.

A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.

The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.

The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”

The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.

“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
 

Some limitations

“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.

On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.” 

Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who also had certain interstitial lung abnormalities experienced more exacerbations and reduced lung function than those without such abnormalities, findings from a retrospective study has shown.

Interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) are considered precursor lesions of interstitial lung disease and previous studies suggested an association with poor outcomes among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but data on long-term clinical relevance are limited, wrote Tae Seung Lee, MD, of Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, and colleagues.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 363 COPD patients including 44 with equivocal ILA and 103 with definite ILA. Overall, the ILA patients were older and had poorer lung function than non-ILA patients. Patients received chest CT scan and longitudinal pulmonary function tests between January 2013 and December 2018.

Over an average follow-up period of 5.4 years, patients with ILA experienced significantly more acute COPD exacerbations than did those without ILA (adjusted odds ratio, 2.03). The percentages of frequent exacerbators among patients with no ILA, equivocal ILA, and definite ILA were 8.3%, 15.9%, and 20.4%, respectively.

“Acute exacerbation is an important event during the clinical course of COPD, because it is associated with temporary or persistent reductions in lung function, lower quality of life, hospitalization, and mortality,” the researchers noted.

In a multivariate analysis, the annual decline in lung function (FEV₁) was –35.7 in patients with equivocal ILA, compared with –28.0 in patients with no ILA and –15.9 in those with definite ILA.

“This may be due to the distribution of the spirometric stages in each group, and to the resulting changes in lung function,” the researchers wrote. In this study, “the equivocal ILA group had a significantly lower baseline FEV₁ than the other groups. In our study population, the lower the spirometric stage, the faster the annual decline in FEV₁, consistent with the results of a prior prospective study of a COPD cohort.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and relatively small number of ILA patients, as well as the limited evaluation of ILA and potential for selection bias, the researchers noted. However, the result support the impact of ILA on exacerbations and accelerated decline in lung function in COPD patients.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee TS et al. Chest. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.08.017.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who also had certain interstitial lung abnormalities experienced more exacerbations and reduced lung function than those without such abnormalities, findings from a retrospective study has shown.

Interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) are considered precursor lesions of interstitial lung disease and previous studies suggested an association with poor outcomes among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but data on long-term clinical relevance are limited, wrote Tae Seung Lee, MD, of Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, and colleagues.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 363 COPD patients including 44 with equivocal ILA and 103 with definite ILA. Overall, the ILA patients were older and had poorer lung function than non-ILA patients. Patients received chest CT scan and longitudinal pulmonary function tests between January 2013 and December 2018.

Over an average follow-up period of 5.4 years, patients with ILA experienced significantly more acute COPD exacerbations than did those without ILA (adjusted odds ratio, 2.03). The percentages of frequent exacerbators among patients with no ILA, equivocal ILA, and definite ILA were 8.3%, 15.9%, and 20.4%, respectively.

“Acute exacerbation is an important event during the clinical course of COPD, because it is associated with temporary or persistent reductions in lung function, lower quality of life, hospitalization, and mortality,” the researchers noted.

In a multivariate analysis, the annual decline in lung function (FEV₁) was –35.7 in patients with equivocal ILA, compared with –28.0 in patients with no ILA and –15.9 in those with definite ILA.

“This may be due to the distribution of the spirometric stages in each group, and to the resulting changes in lung function,” the researchers wrote. In this study, “the equivocal ILA group had a significantly lower baseline FEV₁ than the other groups. In our study population, the lower the spirometric stage, the faster the annual decline in FEV₁, consistent with the results of a prior prospective study of a COPD cohort.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and relatively small number of ILA patients, as well as the limited evaluation of ILA and potential for selection bias, the researchers noted. However, the result support the impact of ILA on exacerbations and accelerated decline in lung function in COPD patients.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee TS et al. Chest. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.08.017.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who also had certain interstitial lung abnormalities experienced more exacerbations and reduced lung function than those without such abnormalities, findings from a retrospective study has shown.

Interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) are considered precursor lesions of interstitial lung disease and previous studies suggested an association with poor outcomes among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but data on long-term clinical relevance are limited, wrote Tae Seung Lee, MD, of Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, and colleagues.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 363 COPD patients including 44 with equivocal ILA and 103 with definite ILA. Overall, the ILA patients were older and had poorer lung function than non-ILA patients. Patients received chest CT scan and longitudinal pulmonary function tests between January 2013 and December 2018.

Over an average follow-up period of 5.4 years, patients with ILA experienced significantly more acute COPD exacerbations than did those without ILA (adjusted odds ratio, 2.03). The percentages of frequent exacerbators among patients with no ILA, equivocal ILA, and definite ILA were 8.3%, 15.9%, and 20.4%, respectively.

“Acute exacerbation is an important event during the clinical course of COPD, because it is associated with temporary or persistent reductions in lung function, lower quality of life, hospitalization, and mortality,” the researchers noted.

In a multivariate analysis, the annual decline in lung function (FEV₁) was –35.7 in patients with equivocal ILA, compared with –28.0 in patients with no ILA and –15.9 in those with definite ILA.

“This may be due to the distribution of the spirometric stages in each group, and to the resulting changes in lung function,” the researchers wrote. In this study, “the equivocal ILA group had a significantly lower baseline FEV₁ than the other groups. In our study population, the lower the spirometric stage, the faster the annual decline in FEV₁, consistent with the results of a prior prospective study of a COPD cohort.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and relatively small number of ILA patients, as well as the limited evaluation of ILA and potential for selection bias, the researchers noted. However, the result support the impact of ILA on exacerbations and accelerated decline in lung function in COPD patients.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee TS et al. Chest. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.08.017.

A restrictive blood transfusion strategy in myocardial infarction patients with anemia proved safe, significantly less costly, and at least as effective as the standard liberal transfusion strategy in the landmark REALITY trial.

Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.

Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.

“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.

The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.

In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.

The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.

Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.

Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.

“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.

“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.

He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.

“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.

He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”

Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.

The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”

During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.

“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.

Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.

The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A restrictive blood transfusion strategy in myocardial infarction patients with anemia proved safe, significantly less costly, and at least as effective as the standard liberal transfusion strategy in the landmark REALITY trial.

Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.

Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.

“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.

The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.

In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.

The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.

Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.

Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.

“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.

“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.

He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.

“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.

He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”

Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.

The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”

During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.

“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.

Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.

The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A restrictive blood transfusion strategy in myocardial infarction patients with anemia proved safe, significantly less costly, and at least as effective as the standard liberal transfusion strategy in the landmark REALITY trial.

Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.

Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.

“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.

The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.

In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.

The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.

Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.

Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.

“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.

“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.

He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.

“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.

He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”

Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.

The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”

During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.

“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.

Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.

The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]