Infectious Disease Practitioner

The number of patients who presented with acute HIV infections at the University of Chicago’s ED more than doubled this year. At the same time, routine HIV visits dropped in the surrounding area.

David Pitrak, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the University of Chicago Medicine, and colleagues found that the incidence ratio of acute HIV infection (AHI) jumped to 14.4 this year, compared with the 6.8 average for the previous 4 years (IR, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-4.54; P < .05).

At a press conference at IDWeek 2020, he said that this year, acute patients made up one quarter of all new diagnoses (9 of 35), “the highest percentage we have ever seen.

“Patients with acute infection, especially those with symptoms, have extremely high viral loads and progress more rapidly. Because of those high viral loads, there’s risk of transmission to others, so rapid linkage to care and ART [antiretroviral treatment] is really important,” he said.

After the IDWeek abstract was submitted in September, Dr. Pitrak said, three additional AHI cases were diagnosed in the ED, bringing the IR of AHI during the pandemic to 2.57 (95% CI, 1.29-5.11).
 

Should all EDs link HIV screening to COVID-19 testing?

The ED at UCM incorporated blood draws for HIV screening as part of COVID-19 evaluations early on during the pandemic, and they recommend that practice for EDs across the nation.

After a positive test result, the ID team was able to quickly link the HIV patients to care and initiation of antiretroviral treatment without adding staff or resources, Dr. Pitrak said in an interview.

Dr. Pitrak and colleagues reviewed data from 13 health care centers on the south and west sides of Chicago. At most of the centers, fourth- and fifth-generation antibody tests were available. The investigators found that the number of HIV screens that were conducted dropped significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the height of the pandemic, HIV screening at the sites decreased an average of 58%, the researchers found. As of the end of June, the number was decreased by 32%.

“This is a global problem,” he said. “HIV services have been severely impacted worldwide, with the greatest impact on the LGBTQ community.”

UCM performed 19,111 HIV screens (11,133 in the ED) between Jan. 1 and Aug. 17 this year. It performed 14,754 COVID polymerase chain reaction tests in the ED between March 17 and Aug. 17. All of the acute cases were identified in the ED.

Dr. Pitrak mentioned some possible causes of an increase in the number of patients with acute cases who present in the ED. People who do not suspect they have AHI may be coming to the ED because they think they have COVID-19, inasmuch as many of the symptoms overlap. One of the AHI patients actually did have a coinfection, Dr. Pitrak noted.

“There is also the possibility that this could be bad news,” Dr. Pitrak said in an interview. “It could be that there are more acute cases presenting because there are more community transmissions.”

He noted that follow-up visits have been canceled or converted to telehealth visits during the pandemic, and the number of patients who are initiating pre-exposure prophylaxis has declined significantly.

“I hope we’re not seeing an increase in new transmissions after so much work has been done to decrease transmissions over the past few years,” he said.
 

Partnership with emergency physicians

Critical to screening these patients is building a solid partnership between ID and ED physicians.

Coauthor Kimberly Stanford, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in emergency medicine at UCM, said, “You need a champion within the emergency department who can help make sure that the work flow is not disrupted, that however you implement your screening program, you’re not putting extra work on the staff.

“We can feel extremely confident that if I send a test and it comes back positive, I know someone is going to call that patient and make sure they get into care.”

Although the testing is performed in the ED at UCM, the follow-up, linkage to care, and initiation of treatment are conducted by the ID specialists.

Beverly E. Sha, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases, department of internal medicine, Rush Medical College, Chicago, said in an interview that although she agrees that HIV screening programs in EDs “make absolute sense,” there are different ways to conduct such programs. Dr. Sha was not involved in Dr. Pitrak’s study.

At Rush’s ED, she says, HIV testing is linked with a complete blood count.

“If someone presents with fever, we would often be doing that test as well,” she said. “I think just globally increasing screening [in the ED] is what makes the most sense.”

Dr. Sha said they have not seen a similar surge in acute cases in the ED at Rush during the pandemic.

She noted, however, that UCM tested more than 11,000 people for HIV in the ED this year, whereas “we probably only did about 3500.

“The reason testing is so important, whether for HIV or COVID, is the more you test, the more you’re going to find,” she said, “especially in cities like Chicago.”

Dr. Pitrak received grant support from Gilead Sciences. His coauthors and Dr. Sha reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of patients who presented with acute HIV infections at the University of Chicago’s ED more than doubled this year. At the same time, routine HIV visits dropped in the surrounding area.

David Pitrak, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the University of Chicago Medicine, and colleagues found that the incidence ratio of acute HIV infection (AHI) jumped to 14.4 this year, compared with the 6.8 average for the previous 4 years (IR, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-4.54; P < .05).

At a press conference at IDWeek 2020, he said that this year, acute patients made up one quarter of all new diagnoses (9 of 35), “the highest percentage we have ever seen.

“Patients with acute infection, especially those with symptoms, have extremely high viral loads and progress more rapidly. Because of those high viral loads, there’s risk of transmission to others, so rapid linkage to care and ART [antiretroviral treatment] is really important,” he said.

After the IDWeek abstract was submitted in September, Dr. Pitrak said, three additional AHI cases were diagnosed in the ED, bringing the IR of AHI during the pandemic to 2.57 (95% CI, 1.29-5.11).
 

Should all EDs link HIV screening to COVID-19 testing?

The ED at UCM incorporated blood draws for HIV screening as part of COVID-19 evaluations early on during the pandemic, and they recommend that practice for EDs across the nation.

After a positive test result, the ID team was able to quickly link the HIV patients to care and initiation of antiretroviral treatment without adding staff or resources, Dr. Pitrak said in an interview.

Dr. Pitrak and colleagues reviewed data from 13 health care centers on the south and west sides of Chicago. At most of the centers, fourth- and fifth-generation antibody tests were available. The investigators found that the number of HIV screens that were conducted dropped significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the height of the pandemic, HIV screening at the sites decreased an average of 58%, the researchers found. As of the end of June, the number was decreased by 32%.

“This is a global problem,” he said. “HIV services have been severely impacted worldwide, with the greatest impact on the LGBTQ community.”

UCM performed 19,111 HIV screens (11,133 in the ED) between Jan. 1 and Aug. 17 this year. It performed 14,754 COVID polymerase chain reaction tests in the ED between March 17 and Aug. 17. All of the acute cases were identified in the ED.

Dr. Pitrak mentioned some possible causes of an increase in the number of patients with acute cases who present in the ED. People who do not suspect they have AHI may be coming to the ED because they think they have COVID-19, inasmuch as many of the symptoms overlap. One of the AHI patients actually did have a coinfection, Dr. Pitrak noted.

“There is also the possibility that this could be bad news,” Dr. Pitrak said in an interview. “It could be that there are more acute cases presenting because there are more community transmissions.”

He noted that follow-up visits have been canceled or converted to telehealth visits during the pandemic, and the number of patients who are initiating pre-exposure prophylaxis has declined significantly.

“I hope we’re not seeing an increase in new transmissions after so much work has been done to decrease transmissions over the past few years,” he said.
 

Partnership with emergency physicians

Critical to screening these patients is building a solid partnership between ID and ED physicians.

Coauthor Kimberly Stanford, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in emergency medicine at UCM, said, “You need a champion within the emergency department who can help make sure that the work flow is not disrupted, that however you implement your screening program, you’re not putting extra work on the staff.

“We can feel extremely confident that if I send a test and it comes back positive, I know someone is going to call that patient and make sure they get into care.”

Although the testing is performed in the ED at UCM, the follow-up, linkage to care, and initiation of treatment are conducted by the ID specialists.

Beverly E. Sha, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases, department of internal medicine, Rush Medical College, Chicago, said in an interview that although she agrees that HIV screening programs in EDs “make absolute sense,” there are different ways to conduct such programs. Dr. Sha was not involved in Dr. Pitrak’s study.

At Rush’s ED, she says, HIV testing is linked with a complete blood count.

“If someone presents with fever, we would often be doing that test as well,” she said. “I think just globally increasing screening [in the ED] is what makes the most sense.”

Dr. Sha said they have not seen a similar surge in acute cases in the ED at Rush during the pandemic.

She noted, however, that UCM tested more than 11,000 people for HIV in the ED this year, whereas “we probably only did about 3500.

“The reason testing is so important, whether for HIV or COVID, is the more you test, the more you’re going to find,” she said, “especially in cities like Chicago.”

Dr. Pitrak received grant support from Gilead Sciences. His coauthors and Dr. Sha reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of patients who presented with acute HIV infections at the University of Chicago’s ED more than doubled this year. At the same time, routine HIV visits dropped in the surrounding area.

David Pitrak, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the University of Chicago Medicine, and colleagues found that the incidence ratio of acute HIV infection (AHI) jumped to 14.4 this year, compared with the 6.8 average for the previous 4 years (IR, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-4.54; P < .05).

At a press conference at IDWeek 2020, he said that this year, acute patients made up one quarter of all new diagnoses (9 of 35), “the highest percentage we have ever seen.

“Patients with acute infection, especially those with symptoms, have extremely high viral loads and progress more rapidly. Because of those high viral loads, there’s risk of transmission to others, so rapid linkage to care and ART [antiretroviral treatment] is really important,” he said.

After the IDWeek abstract was submitted in September, Dr. Pitrak said, three additional AHI cases were diagnosed in the ED, bringing the IR of AHI during the pandemic to 2.57 (95% CI, 1.29-5.11).
 

Should all EDs link HIV screening to COVID-19 testing?

The ED at UCM incorporated blood draws for HIV screening as part of COVID-19 evaluations early on during the pandemic, and they recommend that practice for EDs across the nation.

After a positive test result, the ID team was able to quickly link the HIV patients to care and initiation of antiretroviral treatment without adding staff or resources, Dr. Pitrak said in an interview.

Dr. Pitrak and colleagues reviewed data from 13 health care centers on the south and west sides of Chicago. At most of the centers, fourth- and fifth-generation antibody tests were available. The investigators found that the number of HIV screens that were conducted dropped significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the height of the pandemic, HIV screening at the sites decreased an average of 58%, the researchers found. As of the end of June, the number was decreased by 32%.

“This is a global problem,” he said. “HIV services have been severely impacted worldwide, with the greatest impact on the LGBTQ community.”

UCM performed 19,111 HIV screens (11,133 in the ED) between Jan. 1 and Aug. 17 this year. It performed 14,754 COVID polymerase chain reaction tests in the ED between March 17 and Aug. 17. All of the acute cases were identified in the ED.

Dr. Pitrak mentioned some possible causes of an increase in the number of patients with acute cases who present in the ED. People who do not suspect they have AHI may be coming to the ED because they think they have COVID-19, inasmuch as many of the symptoms overlap. One of the AHI patients actually did have a coinfection, Dr. Pitrak noted.

“There is also the possibility that this could be bad news,” Dr. Pitrak said in an interview. “It could be that there are more acute cases presenting because there are more community transmissions.”

He noted that follow-up visits have been canceled or converted to telehealth visits during the pandemic, and the number of patients who are initiating pre-exposure prophylaxis has declined significantly.

“I hope we’re not seeing an increase in new transmissions after so much work has been done to decrease transmissions over the past few years,” he said.
 

Partnership with emergency physicians

Critical to screening these patients is building a solid partnership between ID and ED physicians.

Coauthor Kimberly Stanford, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in emergency medicine at UCM, said, “You need a champion within the emergency department who can help make sure that the work flow is not disrupted, that however you implement your screening program, you’re not putting extra work on the staff.

“We can feel extremely confident that if I send a test and it comes back positive, I know someone is going to call that patient and make sure they get into care.”

Although the testing is performed in the ED at UCM, the follow-up, linkage to care, and initiation of treatment are conducted by the ID specialists.

Beverly E. Sha, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases, department of internal medicine, Rush Medical College, Chicago, said in an interview that although she agrees that HIV screening programs in EDs “make absolute sense,” there are different ways to conduct such programs. Dr. Sha was not involved in Dr. Pitrak’s study.

At Rush’s ED, she says, HIV testing is linked with a complete blood count.

“If someone presents with fever, we would often be doing that test as well,” she said. “I think just globally increasing screening [in the ED] is what makes the most sense.”

Dr. Sha said they have not seen a similar surge in acute cases in the ED at Rush during the pandemic.

She noted, however, that UCM tested more than 11,000 people for HIV in the ED this year, whereas “we probably only did about 3500.

“The reason testing is so important, whether for HIV or COVID, is the more you test, the more you’re going to find,” she said, “especially in cities like Chicago.”

Dr. Pitrak received grant support from Gilead Sciences. His coauthors and Dr. Sha reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Major thromboembolic complications and adverse cardiovascular events occurred with high frequency in patients with COVID-19, especially in the intensive care setting, despite a high use of thromboprophylaxis, in a new large observational U.S. study.

“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. 

“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.

However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.

The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Rates similar to other very sick patients

The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.

“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”

He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”

Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.

“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.

“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.

The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.

“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”

For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White. 

Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.

Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.

“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”

Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.

“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
 

ARDS biggest risk factor

Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.

“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”

They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.

“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.

“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.

The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
 

Wait for randomized trials

In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.

Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.

“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”

He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.

“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.

This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Major thromboembolic complications and adverse cardiovascular events occurred with high frequency in patients with COVID-19, especially in the intensive care setting, despite a high use of thromboprophylaxis, in a new large observational U.S. study.

“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. 

“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.

However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.

The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Rates similar to other very sick patients

The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.

“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”

He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”

Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.

“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.

“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.

The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.

“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”

For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White. 

Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.

Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.

“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”

Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.

“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
 

ARDS biggest risk factor

Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.

“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”

They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.

“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.

“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.

The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
 

Wait for randomized trials

In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.

Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.

“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”

He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.

“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.

This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Major thromboembolic complications and adverse cardiovascular events occurred with high frequency in patients with COVID-19, especially in the intensive care setting, despite a high use of thromboprophylaxis, in a new large observational U.S. study.

“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. 

“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.

However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.

The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Rates similar to other very sick patients

The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.

“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”

He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”

Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.

“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.

“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.

The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.

“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”

For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White. 

Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.

Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.

“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”

Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.

“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
 

ARDS biggest risk factor

Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.

“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”

They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.

“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.

“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.

The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
 

Wait for randomized trials

In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.

Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.

“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”

He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.

“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.

This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

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

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

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

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

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

COVID-19 cases are surging in rural places across the Mountain States and Midwest, and when it hits health care workers, ready reinforcements aren’t easy to find.

In Montana, pandemic-induced staffing shortages have shuttered a clinic in the state’s capital, led a northwestern regional hospital to ask employees exposed to COVID-19 to continue to work and emptied a health department 400 miles to the east.

“Just one more person out and we wouldn’t be able to keep the surgeries going,” said Dr. Shelly Harkins, MD, chief medical officer of St. Peter’s Health in Helena, a city of roughly 32,000 where cases continue to spread. “When the virus is just all around you, it’s almost impossible to not be deemed a contact at some point. One case can take out a whole team of people in a blink of an eye.”

In North Dakota, where cases per resident are growing faster than any other state, hospitals may once again curtail elective surgeries and possibly seek government aid to hire more nurses if the situation gets worse, North Dakota Hospital Association President Tim Blasl said.

“How long can we run at this rate with the workforce that we have?” Blasl said. “You can have all the licensed beds you want, but if you don’t have anybody to staff those beds, it doesn’t do you any good.”

The northern Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Upper Midwest are seeing the highest surge of COVID-19 cases in the nation, as some residents have ignored recommendations for curtailing the virus, such as wearing masks and avoiding large gatherings. Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin have recently ranked among the top 10 U.S. states in confirmed cases per 100,000 residents over a 7-day period, according to an analysis  by the New York Times.

Such coronavirus infections – and the quarantines that occur because of them – are exacerbating the health care worker shortage that existed in these states well before the pandemic. Unlike in the nation’s metropolitan hubs, these outbreaks are scattered across hundreds of miles. And even in these states’ biggest cities, the ranks of medical professionals are in short supply. Specialists and registered nurses are sometimes harder to track down than ventilators, N95 masks or hospital beds. Without enough care providers, patients may not be able to get the medical attention they need.

Hospitals have asked staffers to cover extra shifts and learn new skills. They have brought in temporary workers from other parts of the country and transferred some patients to less-crowded hospitals. But, at St. Peter’s Health, if the hospital’s one kidney doctor gets sick or is told to quarantine, Dr. Harkins doesn’t expect to find a backup.

“We make a point to not have excessive staff because we have an obligation to keep the cost of health care down for a community – we just don’t have a lot of slack in our rope,” Dr. Harkins said. “What we don’t account for is a mass exodus of staff for 14 days.”

Some hospitals are already at patient capacity or are nearly there. That’s not just because of the growing number of COVID-19 patients. Elective surgeries have resumed, and medical emergencies don’t pause for a pandemic.

Some Montana hospitals formed agreements with local affiliates early in the pandemic to share staff if one came up short. But now that the disease is spreading fast – and widely – the hope is that their needs don’t peak all at once.

Montana state officials keep a list of primarily in-state volunteer workers ready to travel to towns with shortages of contact tracers, nurses and more. But during a press conference on Oct. 15, Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock said the state had exhausted that database, and its nationwide request for National Guard medical staffing hadn’t brought in new workers.

“If you are a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, paramedic, EMT, CNA or contact tracer, and are able to join our workforce, please do consider joining our team,” Gov. Bullock said.

This month, Kalispell Regional Medical Center in northwestern Montana even stopped quarantining COVID-exposed staff who remain asymptomatic, a change allowed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for health facilities facing staffing shortages.

“That’s very telling for what staffing is going through right now,” said Andrea Lueck, a registered nurse at the center. “We’re so tight that employees are called off of quarantine.”

Financial pressure early in the pandemic led the hospital to furlough staff, but it had to bring most of them back to work because it needs those bodies more than ever. The regional hub is based in Flathead County, which has recorded the state’s second-highest number of active COVID-19 cases.

Mellody Sharpton, a hospital spokesperson, said hospital workers who are exposed to someone infected with the virus are tested within three to five days and monitored for symptoms. The hospital is also pulling in new workers, with 25 traveling health professionals on hand and another 25 temporary ones on the way.

But Ms. Sharpton said the best way to conserve the hospital’s workforce is to stop the disease surge in the community.

Earlier in the pandemic, Central Montana Medical Center in Lewistown, a town of fewer than 6,000, experienced an exodus of part-time workers or those close to retirement who decided their jobs weren’t worth the risk. The facility recently secured two traveling workers, but both backed out because they couldn’t find housing. And, so far, roughly 40 of the hospital’s 322 employees have missed work for reasons connected to COVID-19.

“We’re at a critical staffing shortage and have been since the beginning of COVID,” said Joanie Slaybaugh, Central Montana Medical Center’s director of human resources. “We’re small enough, everybody feels an obligation to protect themselves and to protect each other. But it doesn’t take much to take out our staff.”

Roosevelt County, where roughly 11,000 live on the northeastern edge of Montana, had one of the nation’s highest rates of new cases as of Oct. 15. But by the end of the month, the county health department will lose half of its registered nurses as one person is about to retire and another was hired through a grant that’s ending. That leaves only one registered nurse aside from its director, Patty Presser. The health department already had to close earlier during the pandemic because of COVID exposure and not enough staffers to cover the gap. Now, if Ms. Presser can’t find nurse replacements in time, she hopes volunteers will step in, though she added they typically stay for only a few weeks.

“I need someone to do immunizations for my community, and you don’t become an immunization nurse in 14 days,” she said. “We don’t have the workforce here to deal with this virus, not even right now, and then I’m going to have my best two people go.”

Back in Helena, Dr. Harkins said St. Peter’s Health had to close a specialty outpatient clinic that treats chronic diseases for two weeks at the end of September because the entire staff had to quarantine.

Now the hospital is considering having doctors take turns spending a week working from home, so that if another wave of quarantines hits in the hospital, at least one untainted person can be brought back to work. But that won’t help for some specialties, like the hospital’s sole kidney doctor.

Every time Dr. Harkins’ phone rings, she said, she takes a breath and hopes it’s not another case that will force a whole division to close.

“Because I think immediately of the hundreds of people that need that service and won’t have it for 14 days,” she said.

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.

COVID-19 cases are surging in rural places across the Mountain States and Midwest, and when it hits health care workers, ready reinforcements aren’t easy to find.

In Montana, pandemic-induced staffing shortages have shuttered a clinic in the state’s capital, led a northwestern regional hospital to ask employees exposed to COVID-19 to continue to work and emptied a health department 400 miles to the east.

“Just one more person out and we wouldn’t be able to keep the surgeries going,” said Dr. Shelly Harkins, MD, chief medical officer of St. Peter’s Health in Helena, a city of roughly 32,000 where cases continue to spread. “When the virus is just all around you, it’s almost impossible to not be deemed a contact at some point. One case can take out a whole team of people in a blink of an eye.”

In North Dakota, where cases per resident are growing faster than any other state, hospitals may once again curtail elective surgeries and possibly seek government aid to hire more nurses if the situation gets worse, North Dakota Hospital Association President Tim Blasl said.

“How long can we run at this rate with the workforce that we have?” Blasl said. “You can have all the licensed beds you want, but if you don’t have anybody to staff those beds, it doesn’t do you any good.”

The northern Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Upper Midwest are seeing the highest surge of COVID-19 cases in the nation, as some residents have ignored recommendations for curtailing the virus, such as wearing masks and avoiding large gatherings. Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin have recently ranked among the top 10 U.S. states in confirmed cases per 100,000 residents over a 7-day period, according to an analysis  by the New York Times.

Such coronavirus infections – and the quarantines that occur because of them – are exacerbating the health care worker shortage that existed in these states well before the pandemic. Unlike in the nation’s metropolitan hubs, these outbreaks are scattered across hundreds of miles. And even in these states’ biggest cities, the ranks of medical professionals are in short supply. Specialists and registered nurses are sometimes harder to track down than ventilators, N95 masks or hospital beds. Without enough care providers, patients may not be able to get the medical attention they need.

Hospitals have asked staffers to cover extra shifts and learn new skills. They have brought in temporary workers from other parts of the country and transferred some patients to less-crowded hospitals. But, at St. Peter’s Health, if the hospital’s one kidney doctor gets sick or is told to quarantine, Dr. Harkins doesn’t expect to find a backup.

“We make a point to not have excessive staff because we have an obligation to keep the cost of health care down for a community – we just don’t have a lot of slack in our rope,” Dr. Harkins said. “What we don’t account for is a mass exodus of staff for 14 days.”

Some hospitals are already at patient capacity or are nearly there. That’s not just because of the growing number of COVID-19 patients. Elective surgeries have resumed, and medical emergencies don’t pause for a pandemic.

Some Montana hospitals formed agreements with local affiliates early in the pandemic to share staff if one came up short. But now that the disease is spreading fast – and widely – the hope is that their needs don’t peak all at once.

Montana state officials keep a list of primarily in-state volunteer workers ready to travel to towns with shortages of contact tracers, nurses and more. But during a press conference on Oct. 15, Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock said the state had exhausted that database, and its nationwide request for National Guard medical staffing hadn’t brought in new workers.

“If you are a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, paramedic, EMT, CNA or contact tracer, and are able to join our workforce, please do consider joining our team,” Gov. Bullock said.

This month, Kalispell Regional Medical Center in northwestern Montana even stopped quarantining COVID-exposed staff who remain asymptomatic, a change allowed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for health facilities facing staffing shortages.

“That’s very telling for what staffing is going through right now,” said Andrea Lueck, a registered nurse at the center. “We’re so tight that employees are called off of quarantine.”

Financial pressure early in the pandemic led the hospital to furlough staff, but it had to bring most of them back to work because it needs those bodies more than ever. The regional hub is based in Flathead County, which has recorded the state’s second-highest number of active COVID-19 cases.

Mellody Sharpton, a hospital spokesperson, said hospital workers who are exposed to someone infected with the virus are tested within three to five days and monitored for symptoms. The hospital is also pulling in new workers, with 25 traveling health professionals on hand and another 25 temporary ones on the way.

But Ms. Sharpton said the best way to conserve the hospital’s workforce is to stop the disease surge in the community.

Earlier in the pandemic, Central Montana Medical Center in Lewistown, a town of fewer than 6,000, experienced an exodus of part-time workers or those close to retirement who decided their jobs weren’t worth the risk. The facility recently secured two traveling workers, but both backed out because they couldn’t find housing. And, so far, roughly 40 of the hospital’s 322 employees have missed work for reasons connected to COVID-19.

“We’re at a critical staffing shortage and have been since the beginning of COVID,” said Joanie Slaybaugh, Central Montana Medical Center’s director of human resources. “We’re small enough, everybody feels an obligation to protect themselves and to protect each other. But it doesn’t take much to take out our staff.”

Roosevelt County, where roughly 11,000 live on the northeastern edge of Montana, had one of the nation’s highest rates of new cases as of Oct. 15. But by the end of the month, the county health department will lose half of its registered nurses as one person is about to retire and another was hired through a grant that’s ending. That leaves only one registered nurse aside from its director, Patty Presser. The health department already had to close earlier during the pandemic because of COVID exposure and not enough staffers to cover the gap. Now, if Ms. Presser can’t find nurse replacements in time, she hopes volunteers will step in, though she added they typically stay for only a few weeks.

“I need someone to do immunizations for my community, and you don’t become an immunization nurse in 14 days,” she said. “We don’t have the workforce here to deal with this virus, not even right now, and then I’m going to have my best two people go.”

Back in Helena, Dr. Harkins said St. Peter’s Health had to close a specialty outpatient clinic that treats chronic diseases for two weeks at the end of September because the entire staff had to quarantine.

Now the hospital is considering having doctors take turns spending a week working from home, so that if another wave of quarantines hits in the hospital, at least one untainted person can be brought back to work. But that won’t help for some specialties, like the hospital’s sole kidney doctor.

Every time Dr. Harkins’ phone rings, she said, she takes a breath and hopes it’s not another case that will force a whole division to close.

“Because I think immediately of the hundreds of people that need that service and won’t have it for 14 days,” she said.

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.

COVID-19 cases are surging in rural places across the Mountain States and Midwest, and when it hits health care workers, ready reinforcements aren’t easy to find.

In Montana, pandemic-induced staffing shortages have shuttered a clinic in the state’s capital, led a northwestern regional hospital to ask employees exposed to COVID-19 to continue to work and emptied a health department 400 miles to the east.

“Just one more person out and we wouldn’t be able to keep the surgeries going,” said Dr. Shelly Harkins, MD, chief medical officer of St. Peter’s Health in Helena, a city of roughly 32,000 where cases continue to spread. “When the virus is just all around you, it’s almost impossible to not be deemed a contact at some point. One case can take out a whole team of people in a blink of an eye.”

In North Dakota, where cases per resident are growing faster than any other state, hospitals may once again curtail elective surgeries and possibly seek government aid to hire more nurses if the situation gets worse, North Dakota Hospital Association President Tim Blasl said.

“How long can we run at this rate with the workforce that we have?” Blasl said. “You can have all the licensed beds you want, but if you don’t have anybody to staff those beds, it doesn’t do you any good.”

The northern Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Upper Midwest are seeing the highest surge of COVID-19 cases in the nation, as some residents have ignored recommendations for curtailing the virus, such as wearing masks and avoiding large gatherings. Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin have recently ranked among the top 10 U.S. states in confirmed cases per 100,000 residents over a 7-day period, according to an analysis  by the New York Times.

Such coronavirus infections – and the quarantines that occur because of them – are exacerbating the health care worker shortage that existed in these states well before the pandemic. Unlike in the nation’s metropolitan hubs, these outbreaks are scattered across hundreds of miles. And even in these states’ biggest cities, the ranks of medical professionals are in short supply. Specialists and registered nurses are sometimes harder to track down than ventilators, N95 masks or hospital beds. Without enough care providers, patients may not be able to get the medical attention they need.

Hospitals have asked staffers to cover extra shifts and learn new skills. They have brought in temporary workers from other parts of the country and transferred some patients to less-crowded hospitals. But, at St. Peter’s Health, if the hospital’s one kidney doctor gets sick or is told to quarantine, Dr. Harkins doesn’t expect to find a backup.

“We make a point to not have excessive staff because we have an obligation to keep the cost of health care down for a community – we just don’t have a lot of slack in our rope,” Dr. Harkins said. “What we don’t account for is a mass exodus of staff for 14 days.”

Some hospitals are already at patient capacity or are nearly there. That’s not just because of the growing number of COVID-19 patients. Elective surgeries have resumed, and medical emergencies don’t pause for a pandemic.

Some Montana hospitals formed agreements with local affiliates early in the pandemic to share staff if one came up short. But now that the disease is spreading fast – and widely – the hope is that their needs don’t peak all at once.

Montana state officials keep a list of primarily in-state volunteer workers ready to travel to towns with shortages of contact tracers, nurses and more. But during a press conference on Oct. 15, Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock said the state had exhausted that database, and its nationwide request for National Guard medical staffing hadn’t brought in new workers.

“If you are a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, paramedic, EMT, CNA or contact tracer, and are able to join our workforce, please do consider joining our team,” Gov. Bullock said.

This month, Kalispell Regional Medical Center in northwestern Montana even stopped quarantining COVID-exposed staff who remain asymptomatic, a change allowed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for health facilities facing staffing shortages.

“That’s very telling for what staffing is going through right now,” said Andrea Lueck, a registered nurse at the center. “We’re so tight that employees are called off of quarantine.”

Financial pressure early in the pandemic led the hospital to furlough staff, but it had to bring most of them back to work because it needs those bodies more than ever. The regional hub is based in Flathead County, which has recorded the state’s second-highest number of active COVID-19 cases.

Mellody Sharpton, a hospital spokesperson, said hospital workers who are exposed to someone infected with the virus are tested within three to five days and monitored for symptoms. The hospital is also pulling in new workers, with 25 traveling health professionals on hand and another 25 temporary ones on the way.

But Ms. Sharpton said the best way to conserve the hospital’s workforce is to stop the disease surge in the community.

Earlier in the pandemic, Central Montana Medical Center in Lewistown, a town of fewer than 6,000, experienced an exodus of part-time workers or those close to retirement who decided their jobs weren’t worth the risk. The facility recently secured two traveling workers, but both backed out because they couldn’t find housing. And, so far, roughly 40 of the hospital’s 322 employees have missed work for reasons connected to COVID-19.

“We’re at a critical staffing shortage and have been since the beginning of COVID,” said Joanie Slaybaugh, Central Montana Medical Center’s director of human resources. “We’re small enough, everybody feels an obligation to protect themselves and to protect each other. But it doesn’t take much to take out our staff.”

Roosevelt County, where roughly 11,000 live on the northeastern edge of Montana, had one of the nation’s highest rates of new cases as of Oct. 15. But by the end of the month, the county health department will lose half of its registered nurses as one person is about to retire and another was hired through a grant that’s ending. That leaves only one registered nurse aside from its director, Patty Presser. The health department already had to close earlier during the pandemic because of COVID exposure and not enough staffers to cover the gap. Now, if Ms. Presser can’t find nurse replacements in time, she hopes volunteers will step in, though she added they typically stay for only a few weeks.

“I need someone to do immunizations for my community, and you don’t become an immunization nurse in 14 days,” she said. “We don’t have the workforce here to deal with this virus, not even right now, and then I’m going to have my best two people go.”

Back in Helena, Dr. Harkins said St. Peter’s Health had to close a specialty outpatient clinic that treats chronic diseases for two weeks at the end of September because the entire staff had to quarantine.

Now the hospital is considering having doctors take turns spending a week working from home, so that if another wave of quarantines hits in the hospital, at least one untainted person can be brought back to work. But that won’t help for some specialties, like the hospital’s sole kidney doctor.

Every time Dr. Harkins’ phone rings, she said, she takes a breath and hopes it’s not another case that will force a whole division to close.

“Because I think immediately of the hundreds of people that need that service and won’t have it for 14 days,” she said.

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.

Some medical societies feature sessions at their annual meetings that feel like they’re 24 hours long, yet few have the courage to schedule a session that actually runs all day and all night. But the five societies sponsoring the IDWeek conference had that courage. The first 24 hours of the meeting was devoted to the most pressing infectious-disease crisis of the last 100 years: the COVID-19 pandemic. They called it “COVID-19: Chasing the Sun.”

Dr. Fauci predicts a vaccine answer in mid-November

In the first segment, at 10 am Eastern time, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the nation’s top infectious-disease expert, began the day by noting that five of the six companies the US invested in to develop a vaccine are conducting phase 3 trials. He said, “we feel confident that we will have an answer likely in mid-November to the beginning of December as to whether we have a safe and effective vaccine”. He added he was “cautiously optimistic” that “we will have a safe and effective vaccine by the end of the year, which we can begin to distribute as we go into 2021.” He highlighted the COVID-19 Prevention Network website for more information on the trials.

Glaring racial health disparities in U.S.

Some of the most glaring health disparities surrounding COVID-19 in the United States were described by Carlos del Rio, MD, professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. He pointed out that while white people have about 23 cases per 10,000 population, Blacks have about 62 cases per 10,000, and Latinos have 73 cases per 10,000. While whites don’t see a huge jump in cases until age 80, he said, “among Blacks and Latinos you start seeing that huge increase at a younger age. In fact, starting at age 20, you start seeing a major, major change.”

COVID-19 diagnostics

Audrey Odom John, MD, PhD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is working on a new way of diagnosing COVID-19 infection in children by testing their breath. “We’re really taking advantage of a fundamental biological fact, which is that people stink,” she said. Breath shows the health of the body as a whole, “and it’s easy to see how breath volatiles might arise from a respiratory infection.” Testing breath is easy and inexpensive, which makes it particularly attractive as a potential test globally, she said.

Long-term effects of COVID-19

Post-COVID illness threatens to overwhelm the health system in the United States, even if only 1% of the 8 million people who have been infected have some sort of long-term deficit, “which would be a very conservative estimate,” said John O’Horo, MD, MPH, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Neurologic dysfunction is going to be a “fairly significant thing to keep an eye on,” he added. Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer in infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the emotional aspects of the illness are “striking” and may be the major long-term effect for most patients.

Challenging cases in COVID-19: Through fire and water

In a case presented to panelists during an afternoon session, a Mexican-born woman, 42, presents to urgent care with fever, dyspnea, dry cough, and pleuritic pain, for over a week. Multiple family members have had recent respiratory illness as well. She is obese, on no medications, was not traveling. She’s a nonsmoker and lives in a multigenerational household in the Mission District of San Francisco. Her heart rate is 116, respiratory rate is 36, and her oxygen saturation on room air is 77%. She is admitted to a local hospital and quickly declines, is intubated and started on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). One day later she is transferred to a hospital for consideration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Panelists were asked a variety of questions about how they would treat this patient. For example, would they continue HCQ? Ravina Kullar, PharmD, MPH, an infectious disease expert from Newport Beach, Calif., answered that she would not continue the HCQ because of lack of evidence and potential harms. Asked whether she would start remdesivir, Dr. Kullar said she would steer her away from that if the patient developed renal failure. Co-moderator Peter Chin-Hong, MD, a medical educator with the University of California, San Francisco, noted that contact tracing will be important as the patient returns to her housing-dense community.
 

In-hospital infection prevention

The CDC acknowledged aerosol spread of COVID-19 this month, but David Weber, MD, MPH, professor in infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “this does not change anything we need to do in the hospital,” as long as protective pandemic protocols continue to be followed.

There is no evidence, he noted, that SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted far enough that a hospitalized patient could infect people in other rooms or corridors or floors. Opening windows in COVID-19 patients’ rooms is “not an option,” he said, and could be harmful as fungal elements in outside air may introduce new pathogens. The degree to which improved ventilation systems reduce transmission has not been identified and studies are needed to look at that, he said.
 

Preventing COVID transmission in the community

Mary-Margaret Fill, MD, deputy state epidemiologist in Tennessee, highlighted COVID-19’s spread in prisons. As of mid-October, she said, there are more than 147,000 cases among the U.S. prison population and there have been 1,246 deaths. This translates to a case rate of about 9800 cases per 100,000 people, she said, “double the highest case rate for any state in the country and over three times greater than our national case rate of about 2,500 cases per 100,000 persons.”

Testing varies widely, she noted. For instance, some states test only new prisoners, and some test only when they are symptomatic. One of the strategies to fight this spread is having staff, who go in and out of the community, be assigned to work with only certain groups at a prison. Another is widespread testing of all prisoners. And when prisoners have to leave the prison for care or court dates, a third strategy would be quarantining them upon their return.
 

COVID-19 vaccines

As the session stretched into the evening in the United States, Mary Marovich, MD, director of vaccine research, AIDS division, with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health, said while each of the government-funded vaccine studies has its own trial, there are standardized objectives for direct comparisons. The studies are being conducted within the same clinical trial networks, and collaborative laboratories apply the same immunoassays and define the infections in the same way. They are all randomized, placebo-controlled trials and all but one have a 30,000-volunteer sample size. She said that while a vaccine is the goal to end the pandemic, monoclonal antibodies, such as those in convalescent plasma, “may serve as a critical bridge.”

The good, the bad, and the ugly during COVID-19 in Latin America

Latin America and the Caribbean are currently the regions hardest hit by COVID-19. Gustavo D. Lopardo, of the Asociacion Panamericana de Infectologia, noted that even before the pandemic Latin America suffered from widespread poverty and inequality. While overcrowding and poverty are determining factors in the spread of the virus, diabetes and obesity – both highly prevalent – are worsening COVID outcomes.

The countries of the region have dealt with asynchronous waves of transmission within their borders by implementing different containment strategies, with dissimilar results. The presenters covered the spectrum of the pandemic, from the “ugly” in Peru, which has the highest mortality rate in the region, to the “good” in Uruguay, where testing is “winning against COVID-19.” Paradoxically, Chile has both the highest cumulative incidence and the lowest case fatality rate of COVID-19 in the region.

In the social and political turmoil imposed by COVID-19, Clóvis Arns da Cunha, MD, president of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and professor at the Federal University of Paraná, pointed out that “fake news [has become] a public health problem in Brazil” and elsewhere.
 

Diagnostics and therapeutics in Latin America

Eleven of the 15 countries with the highest death rate in the world are located in Latin America or the Caribbean. Dr. Arns de Cunha pointed out that tests are hard to come by and inadequate diagnostic testing is a major problem. Latin American countries have not been able to compete with the United States and Europe in purchasing polymerase chain reaction test kits from China and South Korea. The test is the best diagnostic tool in the first week of symptoms, but its scale-up has proved to be a challenge in Latin America.

Furthermore, the most sensitive serological markers, CLIA and ECLIA, which perform best after 2 weeks of symptom onset, are not widely available in Latin America where many patients do not have access to the public health system. The detection of silent hypoxemia in symptomatic patients with COVID-19 can save lives; hence, Arns da Cunha praised the program that distributed 100,000 digital oximeters to hundreds of cities in Brazil, targeting vulnerable populations.
 

The COVID-19 experience in Japan

Takuya Yamagishi, MD, PhD, chief of the Antimicrobial Resistance Research Center at the National Institute of Infectious Diseases in Japan, played an instrumental role in the epidemiological investigation that took place on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship in February 2020. That COVID-19 outbreak is the largest disease outbreak involving a cruise ship to date, with 712 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 13 deaths.

The ship-based quarantine prompted a massive public health response with unique challenges. In those early days, investigators uncovered important facts about COVID-19 epidemiology, generating hot debates regarding the public health strategy at the time. Notably, the majority of asymptomatically infected persons remained asymptomatic throughout the course of the infection, transmission from asymptomatic cases was almost as likely as transmission from symptomatic cases, and isolation of passengers in their cabins prevented inter-cabin transmission but not intra-cabin transmission.
 

Swift response in Asia Pacific region

Infectious-disease experts from Taiwan, Singapore, and Australia, who have been at the forefront of clinical care, research, and policy-making, spoke about their experiences.

Taiwan was one of the first countries to adopt a swift response to COVID-19, shortly after they recognized an outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology in China and long before the WHO declared a public health emergency, said Ping-Ing Lee, MD, PhD, from the National Taiwan University Children’s Hospital.

The country began onboard health checks on flights from Wuhan as early as Dec. 31, 2019. Dr. Lee attributed Taiwan’s success in prevention and control of COVID-19 to the rigorous use of face masks and environmental disinfection procedures. Regarding the country’s antilockdown stance, he said, “Lockdown may be effective; however, it is associated with a tremendous economic loss.”

In his presentation on remdesivir vs corticosteroids, David Lye, MBBS, said, “I think remdesivir as an antiviral seems to work well given early, but steroids will need to be studied further in terms of its conflicting evidence in multiple well-designed RCTs as well as [their] potential side effects.” He is director of the Infectious Disease Research and Training Office, National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Allen C. Cheng, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, noted that “control is possible. We seemed to have controlled this twice at the moment with fairly draconian action, but every day does matter.”
 

China past the first wave

China has already passed the first wave, explained Lei Zhou, MD, of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, but there are still some small-scale resurgences. So far a total of four waves have been identified. She also mentioned that contact tracing is intense and highlighted the case of Xinfadi Market in Beijing, the site of an outbreak in June 2020.

Gui-Qiang Wang, MD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Peking University First Hospital, emphasized the importance of a chest CT for the diagnosis of COVID-19. “In the early stage of the disease, patients may not show any symptoms; however, on CT scan you can see pneumonia. Also, early intervention of high-risk groups and monitoring of warning indicators for disease progression is extremely important,” he said.

“Early antiviral therapy is expected to stop progression, but still needs evaluation,” he said. “Convalescent plasma is safe and effective, but its source is limited; steroid therapy needs to explore appropriate population and timing; and thymosin α is safe, and its effect on outcomes needs large-sample clinical trial.”

Time to Call for an ‘Arab CDC?’

The eastern Mediterranean is geographically, politically, economically, and religiously a very distinct and sensitive region, and “COVID-19 is an added insult to this already frail region of the world,” said Zaid Haddadin, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Poor healthcare and poor public health services are a consequence of weak and fragile governments and infrastructure, the result of war and regional conflicts in many countries. Millions of war refugees live in camps with high population densities and shared facilities, which makes social distancing and community mitigation very challenging. Moreover, the culture includes frequent large social gatherings. Millions of pilgrims visit holy sites in different cities in these countries. There is also movement due to trade and tourism. Travel restrictions are challenging, and there is limited comprehension of precautionary measures.

Najwa Khuri-Bulos, professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases at the University of Jordan, was part of a task force headed by the country’s Ministry of Health. A lockdown was implemented, which helped flatten the curve, but the loosening of restrictions has led to a recent increase in cases. She said, “No country can succeed in controlling spread without the regional collaboration. Perhaps it is time to adopt the call for an Arab CDC.”
 

Africa is “not out of the woods yet”

The Africa CDC has three key pillars as the foundation for their COVID-19 strategy: preventing transmission, preventing deaths, and preventing social harm, according to Raji Tajudeen, MBBS, FWACP, MPH, head of the agency’s Public Health Institutes and Research Division. Africa, with 1.5 million cases of COVID-19, accounts for 5% of global cases. With a recovery rate of 83% and a case fatality rate of 2.4%, the African continent has fared much better than the rest of the world. “Significant improvements have been made, but we are not out of the woods yet,” he cautioned.

Richard Lessells, PhD, from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, agreed. “Unfortunately, South Africa has not been spared from the worst effects of this pandemic despite what you might read in the press and scientific coverage.” He added, “Over 50% of cases and up to two thirds of the deaths in the African region are coming from South Africa.” A bigger challenge for South Africa has been maintaining essential health services during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially since it is also at the heart of the HIV pandemic. On the brighter side, HIV itself has not emerged as a risk factor for COVID-19 infection or severe disease in South Africa.

Dimie Ogoina, MBBS, FWACP, president of the Nigerian Infectious Diseases Society, stated that COVID-19 has significantly affected access to healthcare in Nigeria, particularly immunizations and antenatal care. Immunization uptake is likely to have dropped by 50% in the country.
 

Diagnostic pitfalls in COVID-19

Technical errors associated with the SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic pipeline are a major source of variations in diagnosis, explained Jim Huggett, PhD, senior lecturer, analytical microbiology, University of Surrey, Guildford, England. He believes that PCR assays are currently too biased for a single cutoff to be broadly used, and false-positive signals are most likely because of contamination.

Dana Wolf, MD, Clinical Virology Unit, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center in Israel, presented a large-scale data analysis of more than 133,000 pooled samples. Such a pooling strategy appeared to be highly efficient for a wide range of prevalence rates (<1% to 6%). “Our empirical evidence strongly projects on the feasibility and benefits of pooling in the current pandemic setting, to enhance continued surveillance, control, and community reopening,” she said.

Corine Geurts van Kessel, MD, PhD, Department of Virology, Erasmus University Rotterdam (the Netherlands), discussing antibodies testing for SARS-CoV-2, pointed out that disease severity can affect testing accuracy. “Reinfection cases tell us that we cannot rely on immunity acquired by natural infection to confer herd immunity,” she said.
 

Misinformation in the first digital pandemic

The world is not only facing a devastating pandemic, but also an alarming “infodemic” of misinformation. Between January and March 2020, a new COVID-19–related tweet appeared on Twitter every 45 milliseconds. Müge Çevik, MD, MSc, MRCP, an infectious disease clinician, scientist, and science communicator, said that “the greatest challenge for science communication is reaching the audience.”

People have always been skeptical of science reporting by journalists and would rather have scientists communicate with them directly, she noted. Science communication plays a dual role. “On one hand is the need to promote science to a wide audience in order to inform and educate and inspire the next generation of scientists, and on the other hand there is also a need to engage effectively in public dialogue,” she added. Dr. Çevik and colleagues think that “The responsibility of academics should not end with finding the truth. It should end after communicating it.”
 

Treatment in the ICU

Matteo Bassetti, MD, with the University of Genoa (Italy), who was asked about when to use remdesivir in the intensive care unit and for how long, said, “In the majority of cases, 5 days is probably enough.” However, if there is high viremia, he said, physicians may choose to continue the regimen beyond 5 days. Data show it is important to prescribe this drug for patients with oxygen support in an early phase, within 10 days of the first symptoms, he added. “In the late phase, there is a very limited role for remdesivir, as we know that we are already out of the viremic phase.” He also emphasized that there is no role for hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir.

Breaking the chains of transmission

During the wrap-up session, former US CDC Director Tom Frieden, MD, said, “We’re not even halfway through it” about the pandemic trajectory. “And we have to be very clear that the risk of explosive spread will not end with a vaccine.” He is now president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives.

Different parts of the world will have very different experiences, Dr. Frieden said, noting that Africa, where 4% of the population is older than 65, has a very different risk level than Europe and the United States, where 10%-20% of people are in older age groups.

“We need a one-two punch,” he noted, first preventing spread, and when it does happen, boxing it in. Mask wearing is essential. “States in the US that mandated universal mask-wearing experienced much more rapid declines (in cases) for every 5 days the mandate was in place.”

Michael Ryan, MD, executive director for the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, added, “We need to collectively recommit to winning this game. We know how to break the chains of transmission. We need recommitment to a scientific, societal, and political strategy, and an alliance – a contract – between those entities to try to move us forward.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some medical societies feature sessions at their annual meetings that feel like they’re 24 hours long, yet few have the courage to schedule a session that actually runs all day and all night. But the five societies sponsoring the IDWeek conference had that courage. The first 24 hours of the meeting was devoted to the most pressing infectious-disease crisis of the last 100 years: the COVID-19 pandemic. They called it “COVID-19: Chasing the Sun.”

Dr. Fauci predicts a vaccine answer in mid-November

In the first segment, at 10 am Eastern time, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the nation’s top infectious-disease expert, began the day by noting that five of the six companies the US invested in to develop a vaccine are conducting phase 3 trials. He said, “we feel confident that we will have an answer likely in mid-November to the beginning of December as to whether we have a safe and effective vaccine”. He added he was “cautiously optimistic” that “we will have a safe and effective vaccine by the end of the year, which we can begin to distribute as we go into 2021.” He highlighted the COVID-19 Prevention Network website for more information on the trials.

Glaring racial health disparities in U.S.

Some of the most glaring health disparities surrounding COVID-19 in the United States were described by Carlos del Rio, MD, professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. He pointed out that while white people have about 23 cases per 10,000 population, Blacks have about 62 cases per 10,000, and Latinos have 73 cases per 10,000. While whites don’t see a huge jump in cases until age 80, he said, “among Blacks and Latinos you start seeing that huge increase at a younger age. In fact, starting at age 20, you start seeing a major, major change.”

COVID-19 diagnostics

Audrey Odom John, MD, PhD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is working on a new way of diagnosing COVID-19 infection in children by testing their breath. “We’re really taking advantage of a fundamental biological fact, which is that people stink,” she said. Breath shows the health of the body as a whole, “and it’s easy to see how breath volatiles might arise from a respiratory infection.” Testing breath is easy and inexpensive, which makes it particularly attractive as a potential test globally, she said.

Long-term effects of COVID-19

Post-COVID illness threatens to overwhelm the health system in the United States, even if only 1% of the 8 million people who have been infected have some sort of long-term deficit, “which would be a very conservative estimate,” said John O’Horo, MD, MPH, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Neurologic dysfunction is going to be a “fairly significant thing to keep an eye on,” he added. Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer in infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the emotional aspects of the illness are “striking” and may be the major long-term effect for most patients.

Challenging cases in COVID-19: Through fire and water

In a case presented to panelists during an afternoon session, a Mexican-born woman, 42, presents to urgent care with fever, dyspnea, dry cough, and pleuritic pain, for over a week. Multiple family members have had recent respiratory illness as well. She is obese, on no medications, was not traveling. She’s a nonsmoker and lives in a multigenerational household in the Mission District of San Francisco. Her heart rate is 116, respiratory rate is 36, and her oxygen saturation on room air is 77%. She is admitted to a local hospital and quickly declines, is intubated and started on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). One day later she is transferred to a hospital for consideration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Panelists were asked a variety of questions about how they would treat this patient. For example, would they continue HCQ? Ravina Kullar, PharmD, MPH, an infectious disease expert from Newport Beach, Calif., answered that she would not continue the HCQ because of lack of evidence and potential harms. Asked whether she would start remdesivir, Dr. Kullar said she would steer her away from that if the patient developed renal failure. Co-moderator Peter Chin-Hong, MD, a medical educator with the University of California, San Francisco, noted that contact tracing will be important as the patient returns to her housing-dense community.
 

In-hospital infection prevention

The CDC acknowledged aerosol spread of COVID-19 this month, but David Weber, MD, MPH, professor in infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “this does not change anything we need to do in the hospital,” as long as protective pandemic protocols continue to be followed.

There is no evidence, he noted, that SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted far enough that a hospitalized patient could infect people in other rooms or corridors or floors. Opening windows in COVID-19 patients’ rooms is “not an option,” he said, and could be harmful as fungal elements in outside air may introduce new pathogens. The degree to which improved ventilation systems reduce transmission has not been identified and studies are needed to look at that, he said.
 

Preventing COVID transmission in the community

Mary-Margaret Fill, MD, deputy state epidemiologist in Tennessee, highlighted COVID-19’s spread in prisons. As of mid-October, she said, there are more than 147,000 cases among the U.S. prison population and there have been 1,246 deaths. This translates to a case rate of about 9800 cases per 100,000 people, she said, “double the highest case rate for any state in the country and over three times greater than our national case rate of about 2,500 cases per 100,000 persons.”

Testing varies widely, she noted. For instance, some states test only new prisoners, and some test only when they are symptomatic. One of the strategies to fight this spread is having staff, who go in and out of the community, be assigned to work with only certain groups at a prison. Another is widespread testing of all prisoners. And when prisoners have to leave the prison for care or court dates, a third strategy would be quarantining them upon their return.
 

COVID-19 vaccines

As the session stretched into the evening in the United States, Mary Marovich, MD, director of vaccine research, AIDS division, with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health, said while each of the government-funded vaccine studies has its own trial, there are standardized objectives for direct comparisons. The studies are being conducted within the same clinical trial networks, and collaborative laboratories apply the same immunoassays and define the infections in the same way. They are all randomized, placebo-controlled trials and all but one have a 30,000-volunteer sample size. She said that while a vaccine is the goal to end the pandemic, monoclonal antibodies, such as those in convalescent plasma, “may serve as a critical bridge.”

The good, the bad, and the ugly during COVID-19 in Latin America

Latin America and the Caribbean are currently the regions hardest hit by COVID-19. Gustavo D. Lopardo, of the Asociacion Panamericana de Infectologia, noted that even before the pandemic Latin America suffered from widespread poverty and inequality. While overcrowding and poverty are determining factors in the spread of the virus, diabetes and obesity – both highly prevalent – are worsening COVID outcomes.

The countries of the region have dealt with asynchronous waves of transmission within their borders by implementing different containment strategies, with dissimilar results. The presenters covered the spectrum of the pandemic, from the “ugly” in Peru, which has the highest mortality rate in the region, to the “good” in Uruguay, where testing is “winning against COVID-19.” Paradoxically, Chile has both the highest cumulative incidence and the lowest case fatality rate of COVID-19 in the region.

In the social and political turmoil imposed by COVID-19, Clóvis Arns da Cunha, MD, president of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and professor at the Federal University of Paraná, pointed out that “fake news [has become] a public health problem in Brazil” and elsewhere.
 

Diagnostics and therapeutics in Latin America

Eleven of the 15 countries with the highest death rate in the world are located in Latin America or the Caribbean. Dr. Arns de Cunha pointed out that tests are hard to come by and inadequate diagnostic testing is a major problem. Latin American countries have not been able to compete with the United States and Europe in purchasing polymerase chain reaction test kits from China and South Korea. The test is the best diagnostic tool in the first week of symptoms, but its scale-up has proved to be a challenge in Latin America.

Furthermore, the most sensitive serological markers, CLIA and ECLIA, which perform best after 2 weeks of symptom onset, are not widely available in Latin America where many patients do not have access to the public health system. The detection of silent hypoxemia in symptomatic patients with COVID-19 can save lives; hence, Arns da Cunha praised the program that distributed 100,000 digital oximeters to hundreds of cities in Brazil, targeting vulnerable populations.
 

The COVID-19 experience in Japan

Takuya Yamagishi, MD, PhD, chief of the Antimicrobial Resistance Research Center at the National Institute of Infectious Diseases in Japan, played an instrumental role in the epidemiological investigation that took place on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship in February 2020. That COVID-19 outbreak is the largest disease outbreak involving a cruise ship to date, with 712 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 13 deaths.

The ship-based quarantine prompted a massive public health response with unique challenges. In those early days, investigators uncovered important facts about COVID-19 epidemiology, generating hot debates regarding the public health strategy at the time. Notably, the majority of asymptomatically infected persons remained asymptomatic throughout the course of the infection, transmission from asymptomatic cases was almost as likely as transmission from symptomatic cases, and isolation of passengers in their cabins prevented inter-cabin transmission but not intra-cabin transmission.
 

Swift response in Asia Pacific region

Infectious-disease experts from Taiwan, Singapore, and Australia, who have been at the forefront of clinical care, research, and policy-making, spoke about their experiences.

Taiwan was one of the first countries to adopt a swift response to COVID-19, shortly after they recognized an outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology in China and long before the WHO declared a public health emergency, said Ping-Ing Lee, MD, PhD, from the National Taiwan University Children’s Hospital.

The country began onboard health checks on flights from Wuhan as early as Dec. 31, 2019. Dr. Lee attributed Taiwan’s success in prevention and control of COVID-19 to the rigorous use of face masks and environmental disinfection procedures. Regarding the country’s antilockdown stance, he said, “Lockdown may be effective; however, it is associated with a tremendous economic loss.”

In his presentation on remdesivir vs corticosteroids, David Lye, MBBS, said, “I think remdesivir as an antiviral seems to work well given early, but steroids will need to be studied further in terms of its conflicting evidence in multiple well-designed RCTs as well as [their] potential side effects.” He is director of the Infectious Disease Research and Training Office, National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Allen C. Cheng, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, noted that “control is possible. We seemed to have controlled this twice at the moment with fairly draconian action, but every day does matter.”
 

China past the first wave

China has already passed the first wave, explained Lei Zhou, MD, of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, but there are still some small-scale resurgences. So far a total of four waves have been identified. She also mentioned that contact tracing is intense and highlighted the case of Xinfadi Market in Beijing, the site of an outbreak in June 2020.

Gui-Qiang Wang, MD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Peking University First Hospital, emphasized the importance of a chest CT for the diagnosis of COVID-19. “In the early stage of the disease, patients may not show any symptoms; however, on CT scan you can see pneumonia. Also, early intervention of high-risk groups and monitoring of warning indicators for disease progression is extremely important,” he said.

“Early antiviral therapy is expected to stop progression, but still needs evaluation,” he said. “Convalescent plasma is safe and effective, but its source is limited; steroid therapy needs to explore appropriate population and timing; and thymosin α is safe, and its effect on outcomes needs large-sample clinical trial.”

Time to Call for an ‘Arab CDC?’

The eastern Mediterranean is geographically, politically, economically, and religiously a very distinct and sensitive region, and “COVID-19 is an added insult to this already frail region of the world,” said Zaid Haddadin, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Poor healthcare and poor public health services are a consequence of weak and fragile governments and infrastructure, the result of war and regional conflicts in many countries. Millions of war refugees live in camps with high population densities and shared facilities, which makes social distancing and community mitigation very challenging. Moreover, the culture includes frequent large social gatherings. Millions of pilgrims visit holy sites in different cities in these countries. There is also movement due to trade and tourism. Travel restrictions are challenging, and there is limited comprehension of precautionary measures.

Najwa Khuri-Bulos, professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases at the University of Jordan, was part of a task force headed by the country’s Ministry of Health. A lockdown was implemented, which helped flatten the curve, but the loosening of restrictions has led to a recent increase in cases. She said, “No country can succeed in controlling spread without the regional collaboration. Perhaps it is time to adopt the call for an Arab CDC.”
 

Africa is “not out of the woods yet”

The Africa CDC has three key pillars as the foundation for their COVID-19 strategy: preventing transmission, preventing deaths, and preventing social harm, according to Raji Tajudeen, MBBS, FWACP, MPH, head of the agency’s Public Health Institutes and Research Division. Africa, with 1.5 million cases of COVID-19, accounts for 5% of global cases. With a recovery rate of 83% and a case fatality rate of 2.4%, the African continent has fared much better than the rest of the world. “Significant improvements have been made, but we are not out of the woods yet,” he cautioned.

Richard Lessells, PhD, from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, agreed. “Unfortunately, South Africa has not been spared from the worst effects of this pandemic despite what you might read in the press and scientific coverage.” He added, “Over 50% of cases and up to two thirds of the deaths in the African region are coming from South Africa.” A bigger challenge for South Africa has been maintaining essential health services during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially since it is also at the heart of the HIV pandemic. On the brighter side, HIV itself has not emerged as a risk factor for COVID-19 infection or severe disease in South Africa.

Dimie Ogoina, MBBS, FWACP, president of the Nigerian Infectious Diseases Society, stated that COVID-19 has significantly affected access to healthcare in Nigeria, particularly immunizations and antenatal care. Immunization uptake is likely to have dropped by 50% in the country.
 

Diagnostic pitfalls in COVID-19

Technical errors associated with the SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic pipeline are a major source of variations in diagnosis, explained Jim Huggett, PhD, senior lecturer, analytical microbiology, University of Surrey, Guildford, England. He believes that PCR assays are currently too biased for a single cutoff to be broadly used, and false-positive signals are most likely because of contamination.

Dana Wolf, MD, Clinical Virology Unit, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center in Israel, presented a large-scale data analysis of more than 133,000 pooled samples. Such a pooling strategy appeared to be highly efficient for a wide range of prevalence rates (<1% to 6%). “Our empirical evidence strongly projects on the feasibility and benefits of pooling in the current pandemic setting, to enhance continued surveillance, control, and community reopening,” she said.

Corine Geurts van Kessel, MD, PhD, Department of Virology, Erasmus University Rotterdam (the Netherlands), discussing antibodies testing for SARS-CoV-2, pointed out that disease severity can affect testing accuracy. “Reinfection cases tell us that we cannot rely on immunity acquired by natural infection to confer herd immunity,” she said.
 

Misinformation in the first digital pandemic

The world is not only facing a devastating pandemic, but also an alarming “infodemic” of misinformation. Between January and March 2020, a new COVID-19–related tweet appeared on Twitter every 45 milliseconds. Müge Çevik, MD, MSc, MRCP, an infectious disease clinician, scientist, and science communicator, said that “the greatest challenge for science communication is reaching the audience.”

People have always been skeptical of science reporting by journalists and would rather have scientists communicate with them directly, she noted. Science communication plays a dual role. “On one hand is the need to promote science to a wide audience in order to inform and educate and inspire the next generation of scientists, and on the other hand there is also a need to engage effectively in public dialogue,” she added. Dr. Çevik and colleagues think that “The responsibility of academics should not end with finding the truth. It should end after communicating it.”
 

Treatment in the ICU

Matteo Bassetti, MD, with the University of Genoa (Italy), who was asked about when to use remdesivir in the intensive care unit and for how long, said, “In the majority of cases, 5 days is probably enough.” However, if there is high viremia, he said, physicians may choose to continue the regimen beyond 5 days. Data show it is important to prescribe this drug for patients with oxygen support in an early phase, within 10 days of the first symptoms, he added. “In the late phase, there is a very limited role for remdesivir, as we know that we are already out of the viremic phase.” He also emphasized that there is no role for hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir.

Breaking the chains of transmission

During the wrap-up session, former US CDC Director Tom Frieden, MD, said, “We’re not even halfway through it” about the pandemic trajectory. “And we have to be very clear that the risk of explosive spread will not end with a vaccine.” He is now president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives.

Different parts of the world will have very different experiences, Dr. Frieden said, noting that Africa, where 4% of the population is older than 65, has a very different risk level than Europe and the United States, where 10%-20% of people are in older age groups.

“We need a one-two punch,” he noted, first preventing spread, and when it does happen, boxing it in. Mask wearing is essential. “States in the US that mandated universal mask-wearing experienced much more rapid declines (in cases) for every 5 days the mandate was in place.”

Michael Ryan, MD, executive director for the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, added, “We need to collectively recommit to winning this game. We know how to break the chains of transmission. We need recommitment to a scientific, societal, and political strategy, and an alliance – a contract – between those entities to try to move us forward.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some medical societies feature sessions at their annual meetings that feel like they’re 24 hours long, yet few have the courage to schedule a session that actually runs all day and all night. But the five societies sponsoring the IDWeek conference had that courage. The first 24 hours of the meeting was devoted to the most pressing infectious-disease crisis of the last 100 years: the COVID-19 pandemic. They called it “COVID-19: Chasing the Sun.”

Dr. Fauci predicts a vaccine answer in mid-November

In the first segment, at 10 am Eastern time, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the nation’s top infectious-disease expert, began the day by noting that five of the six companies the US invested in to develop a vaccine are conducting phase 3 trials. He said, “we feel confident that we will have an answer likely in mid-November to the beginning of December as to whether we have a safe and effective vaccine”. He added he was “cautiously optimistic” that “we will have a safe and effective vaccine by the end of the year, which we can begin to distribute as we go into 2021.” He highlighted the COVID-19 Prevention Network website for more information on the trials.

Glaring racial health disparities in U.S.

Some of the most glaring health disparities surrounding COVID-19 in the United States were described by Carlos del Rio, MD, professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. He pointed out that while white people have about 23 cases per 10,000 population, Blacks have about 62 cases per 10,000, and Latinos have 73 cases per 10,000. While whites don’t see a huge jump in cases until age 80, he said, “among Blacks and Latinos you start seeing that huge increase at a younger age. In fact, starting at age 20, you start seeing a major, major change.”

COVID-19 diagnostics

Audrey Odom John, MD, PhD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is working on a new way of diagnosing COVID-19 infection in children by testing their breath. “We’re really taking advantage of a fundamental biological fact, which is that people stink,” she said. Breath shows the health of the body as a whole, “and it’s easy to see how breath volatiles might arise from a respiratory infection.” Testing breath is easy and inexpensive, which makes it particularly attractive as a potential test globally, she said.

Long-term effects of COVID-19

Post-COVID illness threatens to overwhelm the health system in the United States, even if only 1% of the 8 million people who have been infected have some sort of long-term deficit, “which would be a very conservative estimate,” said John O’Horo, MD, MPH, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Neurologic dysfunction is going to be a “fairly significant thing to keep an eye on,” he added. Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer in infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the emotional aspects of the illness are “striking” and may be the major long-term effect for most patients.

Challenging cases in COVID-19: Through fire and water

In a case presented to panelists during an afternoon session, a Mexican-born woman, 42, presents to urgent care with fever, dyspnea, dry cough, and pleuritic pain, for over a week. Multiple family members have had recent respiratory illness as well. She is obese, on no medications, was not traveling. She’s a nonsmoker and lives in a multigenerational household in the Mission District of San Francisco. Her heart rate is 116, respiratory rate is 36, and her oxygen saturation on room air is 77%. She is admitted to a local hospital and quickly declines, is intubated and started on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). One day later she is transferred to a hospital for consideration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Panelists were asked a variety of questions about how they would treat this patient. For example, would they continue HCQ? Ravina Kullar, PharmD, MPH, an infectious disease expert from Newport Beach, Calif., answered that she would not continue the HCQ because of lack of evidence and potential harms. Asked whether she would start remdesivir, Dr. Kullar said she would steer her away from that if the patient developed renal failure. Co-moderator Peter Chin-Hong, MD, a medical educator with the University of California, San Francisco, noted that contact tracing will be important as the patient returns to her housing-dense community.
 

In-hospital infection prevention

The CDC acknowledged aerosol spread of COVID-19 this month, but David Weber, MD, MPH, professor in infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “this does not change anything we need to do in the hospital,” as long as protective pandemic protocols continue to be followed.

There is no evidence, he noted, that SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted far enough that a hospitalized patient could infect people in other rooms or corridors or floors. Opening windows in COVID-19 patients’ rooms is “not an option,” he said, and could be harmful as fungal elements in outside air may introduce new pathogens. The degree to which improved ventilation systems reduce transmission has not been identified and studies are needed to look at that, he said.
 

Preventing COVID transmission in the community

Mary-Margaret Fill, MD, deputy state epidemiologist in Tennessee, highlighted COVID-19’s spread in prisons. As of mid-October, she said, there are more than 147,000 cases among the U.S. prison population and there have been 1,246 deaths. This translates to a case rate of about 9800 cases per 100,000 people, she said, “double the highest case rate for any state in the country and over three times greater than our national case rate of about 2,500 cases per 100,000 persons.”

Testing varies widely, she noted. For instance, some states test only new prisoners, and some test only when they are symptomatic. One of the strategies to fight this spread is having staff, who go in and out of the community, be assigned to work with only certain groups at a prison. Another is widespread testing of all prisoners. And when prisoners have to leave the prison for care or court dates, a third strategy would be quarantining them upon their return.
 

COVID-19 vaccines

As the session stretched into the evening in the United States, Mary Marovich, MD, director of vaccine research, AIDS division, with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health, said while each of the government-funded vaccine studies has its own trial, there are standardized objectives for direct comparisons. The studies are being conducted within the same clinical trial networks, and collaborative laboratories apply the same immunoassays and define the infections in the same way. They are all randomized, placebo-controlled trials and all but one have a 30,000-volunteer sample size. She said that while a vaccine is the goal to end the pandemic, monoclonal antibodies, such as those in convalescent plasma, “may serve as a critical bridge.”

The good, the bad, and the ugly during COVID-19 in Latin America

Latin America and the Caribbean are currently the regions hardest hit by COVID-19. Gustavo D. Lopardo, of the Asociacion Panamericana de Infectologia, noted that even before the pandemic Latin America suffered from widespread poverty and inequality. While overcrowding and poverty are determining factors in the spread of the virus, diabetes and obesity – both highly prevalent – are worsening COVID outcomes.

The countries of the region have dealt with asynchronous waves of transmission within their borders by implementing different containment strategies, with dissimilar results. The presenters covered the spectrum of the pandemic, from the “ugly” in Peru, which has the highest mortality rate in the region, to the “good” in Uruguay, where testing is “winning against COVID-19.” Paradoxically, Chile has both the highest cumulative incidence and the lowest case fatality rate of COVID-19 in the region.

In the social and political turmoil imposed by COVID-19, Clóvis Arns da Cunha, MD, president of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and professor at the Federal University of Paraná, pointed out that “fake news [has become] a public health problem in Brazil” and elsewhere.
 

Diagnostics and therapeutics in Latin America

Eleven of the 15 countries with the highest death rate in the world are located in Latin America or the Caribbean. Dr. Arns de Cunha pointed out that tests are hard to come by and inadequate diagnostic testing is a major problem. Latin American countries have not been able to compete with the United States and Europe in purchasing polymerase chain reaction test kits from China and South Korea. The test is the best diagnostic tool in the first week of symptoms, but its scale-up has proved to be a challenge in Latin America.

Furthermore, the most sensitive serological markers, CLIA and ECLIA, which perform best after 2 weeks of symptom onset, are not widely available in Latin America where many patients do not have access to the public health system. The detection of silent hypoxemia in symptomatic patients with COVID-19 can save lives; hence, Arns da Cunha praised the program that distributed 100,000 digital oximeters to hundreds of cities in Brazil, targeting vulnerable populations.
 

The COVID-19 experience in Japan

Takuya Yamagishi, MD, PhD, chief of the Antimicrobial Resistance Research Center at the National Institute of Infectious Diseases in Japan, played an instrumental role in the epidemiological investigation that took place on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship in February 2020. That COVID-19 outbreak is the largest disease outbreak involving a cruise ship to date, with 712 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 13 deaths.

The ship-based quarantine prompted a massive public health response with unique challenges. In those early days, investigators uncovered important facts about COVID-19 epidemiology, generating hot debates regarding the public health strategy at the time. Notably, the majority of asymptomatically infected persons remained asymptomatic throughout the course of the infection, transmission from asymptomatic cases was almost as likely as transmission from symptomatic cases, and isolation of passengers in their cabins prevented inter-cabin transmission but not intra-cabin transmission.
 

Swift response in Asia Pacific region

Infectious-disease experts from Taiwan, Singapore, and Australia, who have been at the forefront of clinical care, research, and policy-making, spoke about their experiences.

Taiwan was one of the first countries to adopt a swift response to COVID-19, shortly after they recognized an outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology in China and long before the WHO declared a public health emergency, said Ping-Ing Lee, MD, PhD, from the National Taiwan University Children’s Hospital.

The country began onboard health checks on flights from Wuhan as early as Dec. 31, 2019. Dr. Lee attributed Taiwan’s success in prevention and control of COVID-19 to the rigorous use of face masks and environmental disinfection procedures. Regarding the country’s antilockdown stance, he said, “Lockdown may be effective; however, it is associated with a tremendous economic loss.”

In his presentation on remdesivir vs corticosteroids, David Lye, MBBS, said, “I think remdesivir as an antiviral seems to work well given early, but steroids will need to be studied further in terms of its conflicting evidence in multiple well-designed RCTs as well as [their] potential side effects.” He is director of the Infectious Disease Research and Training Office, National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Allen C. Cheng, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, noted that “control is possible. We seemed to have controlled this twice at the moment with fairly draconian action, but every day does matter.”
 

China past the first wave

China has already passed the first wave, explained Lei Zhou, MD, of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, but there are still some small-scale resurgences. So far a total of four waves have been identified. She also mentioned that contact tracing is intense and highlighted the case of Xinfadi Market in Beijing, the site of an outbreak in June 2020.

Gui-Qiang Wang, MD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Peking University First Hospital, emphasized the importance of a chest CT for the diagnosis of COVID-19. “In the early stage of the disease, patients may not show any symptoms; however, on CT scan you can see pneumonia. Also, early intervention of high-risk groups and monitoring of warning indicators for disease progression is extremely important,” he said.

“Early antiviral therapy is expected to stop progression, but still needs evaluation,” he said. “Convalescent plasma is safe and effective, but its source is limited; steroid therapy needs to explore appropriate population and timing; and thymosin α is safe, and its effect on outcomes needs large-sample clinical trial.”

Time to Call for an ‘Arab CDC?’

The eastern Mediterranean is geographically, politically, economically, and religiously a very distinct and sensitive region, and “COVID-19 is an added insult to this already frail region of the world,” said Zaid Haddadin, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Poor healthcare and poor public health services are a consequence of weak and fragile governments and infrastructure, the result of war and regional conflicts in many countries. Millions of war refugees live in camps with high population densities and shared facilities, which makes social distancing and community mitigation very challenging. Moreover, the culture includes frequent large social gatherings. Millions of pilgrims visit holy sites in different cities in these countries. There is also movement due to trade and tourism. Travel restrictions are challenging, and there is limited comprehension of precautionary measures.

Najwa Khuri-Bulos, professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases at the University of Jordan, was part of a task force headed by the country’s Ministry of Health. A lockdown was implemented, which helped flatten the curve, but the loosening of restrictions has led to a recent increase in cases. She said, “No country can succeed in controlling spread without the regional collaboration. Perhaps it is time to adopt the call for an Arab CDC.”
 

Africa is “not out of the woods yet”

The Africa CDC has three key pillars as the foundation for their COVID-19 strategy: preventing transmission, preventing deaths, and preventing social harm, according to Raji Tajudeen, MBBS, FWACP, MPH, head of the agency’s Public Health Institutes and Research Division. Africa, with 1.5 million cases of COVID-19, accounts for 5% of global cases. With a recovery rate of 83% and a case fatality rate of 2.4%, the African continent has fared much better than the rest of the world. “Significant improvements have been made, but we are not out of the woods yet,” he cautioned.

Richard Lessells, PhD, from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, agreed. “Unfortunately, South Africa has not been spared from the worst effects of this pandemic despite what you might read in the press and scientific coverage.” He added, “Over 50% of cases and up to two thirds of the deaths in the African region are coming from South Africa.” A bigger challenge for South Africa has been maintaining essential health services during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially since it is also at the heart of the HIV pandemic. On the brighter side, HIV itself has not emerged as a risk factor for COVID-19 infection or severe disease in South Africa.

Dimie Ogoina, MBBS, FWACP, president of the Nigerian Infectious Diseases Society, stated that COVID-19 has significantly affected access to healthcare in Nigeria, particularly immunizations and antenatal care. Immunization uptake is likely to have dropped by 50% in the country.
 

Diagnostic pitfalls in COVID-19

Technical errors associated with the SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic pipeline are a major source of variations in diagnosis, explained Jim Huggett, PhD, senior lecturer, analytical microbiology, University of Surrey, Guildford, England. He believes that PCR assays are currently too biased for a single cutoff to be broadly used, and false-positive signals are most likely because of contamination.

Dana Wolf, MD, Clinical Virology Unit, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center in Israel, presented a large-scale data analysis of more than 133,000 pooled samples. Such a pooling strategy appeared to be highly efficient for a wide range of prevalence rates (<1% to 6%). “Our empirical evidence strongly projects on the feasibility and benefits of pooling in the current pandemic setting, to enhance continued surveillance, control, and community reopening,” she said.

Corine Geurts van Kessel, MD, PhD, Department of Virology, Erasmus University Rotterdam (the Netherlands), discussing antibodies testing for SARS-CoV-2, pointed out that disease severity can affect testing accuracy. “Reinfection cases tell us that we cannot rely on immunity acquired by natural infection to confer herd immunity,” she said.
 

Misinformation in the first digital pandemic

The world is not only facing a devastating pandemic, but also an alarming “infodemic” of misinformation. Between January and March 2020, a new COVID-19–related tweet appeared on Twitter every 45 milliseconds. Müge Çevik, MD, MSc, MRCP, an infectious disease clinician, scientist, and science communicator, said that “the greatest challenge for science communication is reaching the audience.”

People have always been skeptical of science reporting by journalists and would rather have scientists communicate with them directly, she noted. Science communication plays a dual role. “On one hand is the need to promote science to a wide audience in order to inform and educate and inspire the next generation of scientists, and on the other hand there is also a need to engage effectively in public dialogue,” she added. Dr. Çevik and colleagues think that “The responsibility of academics should not end with finding the truth. It should end after communicating it.”
 

Treatment in the ICU

Matteo Bassetti, MD, with the University of Genoa (Italy), who was asked about when to use remdesivir in the intensive care unit and for how long, said, “In the majority of cases, 5 days is probably enough.” However, if there is high viremia, he said, physicians may choose to continue the regimen beyond 5 days. Data show it is important to prescribe this drug for patients with oxygen support in an early phase, within 10 days of the first symptoms, he added. “In the late phase, there is a very limited role for remdesivir, as we know that we are already out of the viremic phase.” He also emphasized that there is no role for hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir.

Breaking the chains of transmission

During the wrap-up session, former US CDC Director Tom Frieden, MD, said, “We’re not even halfway through it” about the pandemic trajectory. “And we have to be very clear that the risk of explosive spread will not end with a vaccine.” He is now president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives.

Different parts of the world will have very different experiences, Dr. Frieden said, noting that Africa, where 4% of the population is older than 65, has a very different risk level than Europe and the United States, where 10%-20% of people are in older age groups.

“We need a one-two punch,” he noted, first preventing spread, and when it does happen, boxing it in. Mask wearing is essential. “States in the US that mandated universal mask-wearing experienced much more rapid declines (in cases) for every 5 days the mandate was in place.”

Michael Ryan, MD, executive director for the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, added, “We need to collectively recommit to winning this game. We know how to break the chains of transmission. We need recommitment to a scientific, societal, and political strategy, and an alliance – a contract – between those entities to try to move us forward.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Only 30.6% of American adolescents complete three routinely recommended vaccinations, new research has found, but that number varies widely by state.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends that, by age 17 years, adolescents complete three key immunizations: human papillomavirus (HPV), quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY), and Tdap.

Sara Poston, PharmD, senior director for health outcomes research at GlaxoSmithKline, said at a press conference during IDWeek, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases held virtually this year, that her team set out to determine how many teens were completing the vaccinations and how the number varied by state and by behavioral factors.

Completion of the vaccines means getting the HPV series (two doses for people aged 9-14 years at first vaccination or three doses for those aged 15 years or older at first vaccination), completion of the MenACWY series (two doses), and getting a Tdap vaccine (one dose).
 

Rhode Island has the highest rates

Some states are clearly doing better than others. Idaho had the lowest completion rate (11.3%; 95% confidence interval, 6.9%-18.0%), and Rhode Island had the highest (56.4%; 95% CI, 49.8%-62.8%).

In the 2018 National Immunization Survey–Teen (NIS-Teen), Rhode Island had the highest vaccination coverage rate in the nation for meningococcal vaccine (98.7%) and the second-highest coverage rate for Tdap (96.3%) for adolescents aged 13-17 years. Also in 2018, the state had the highest vaccination rates in the nation for the HPV series for both male and female adolescents 13-17 years of age (78.1%), well above the national average of 51.1%.

Researchers used information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as 2015-2018 NIS-Teen data to estimate national and state-level completion rates by age 17. They then combined NIS-Teen data with public state-level data to evaluate what was driving or discouraging completion.

“The good news is, we found some variables that we consider actionable and can be used by states and local health departments to improve the rates,” Dr. Poston said.

Those include encouraging a health care visit at age 16 or 17, provider recommendations to families to get the HPV vaccine, and state-level mandates for the MenACWY vaccine.

Those who had a health care visit at 16 or 17 were more than twice as likely to complete their vaccines (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.80-3.07). Those for whom HPV vaccination had ever been recommended by a health care provider were more than three times as likely to complete their vaccinations (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 2.76-3.80).

Other factors predictive of completing the vaccines included being Black or Hispanic and having Medicaid insurance.

At the state level, “living in a state with a mandate for the meningococcal ACWY vaccine in elementary or secondary school was also associated with likelihood of vaccination,” Dr. Poston said. Teens in states with mandates were 60% more likely to complete the vaccines than those in states without mandates. (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3)

Marielle Fricchione, MD, assistant professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Rush Medical College, Chicago said in an interview, “Teen vaccines are notoriously hard to get into kids because it’s hard to get them back into the office for second doses.”

She said that Illinois is one of the states with a two-dose mandate for MenACWY before entering 6th grade and 12th grade, which has kept vaccination coverage high.

Educating providers on how to recommend HPV vaccination is the biggest vaccine focus, she added.
 

Schedule next dose at first visit

One thing her department has found successful in HPV completion is scheduling the second dose while the teen is in the office for the first dose.

“Also, you have to recommend it just as strongly for boys as you do for girls, because oropharyngeal cancer is like an epidemic right now for men, and HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer is on an exponential rise,” Dr. Fricchione said.

According to the CDC, HPV is thought to cause 70% of oropharyngeal cancers in the United States.

Equipping providers with statistics on the effectiveness of HPV vaccination in preventing cancer can take away the uneasiness in talking about sexual transmission.

“That really seems to help them give a strong recommendation. It puts them in a data-driven position to talk about the vaccine,” she said. “Once you put that data in front of the providers, they’re floored.”

Research was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Poston is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Fricchione disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Only 30.6% of American adolescents complete three routinely recommended vaccinations, new research has found, but that number varies widely by state.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends that, by age 17 years, adolescents complete three key immunizations: human papillomavirus (HPV), quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY), and Tdap.

Sara Poston, PharmD, senior director for health outcomes research at GlaxoSmithKline, said at a press conference during IDWeek, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases held virtually this year, that her team set out to determine how many teens were completing the vaccinations and how the number varied by state and by behavioral factors.

Completion of the vaccines means getting the HPV series (two doses for people aged 9-14 years at first vaccination or three doses for those aged 15 years or older at first vaccination), completion of the MenACWY series (two doses), and getting a Tdap vaccine (one dose).
 

Rhode Island has the highest rates

Some states are clearly doing better than others. Idaho had the lowest completion rate (11.3%; 95% confidence interval, 6.9%-18.0%), and Rhode Island had the highest (56.4%; 95% CI, 49.8%-62.8%).

In the 2018 National Immunization Survey–Teen (NIS-Teen), Rhode Island had the highest vaccination coverage rate in the nation for meningococcal vaccine (98.7%) and the second-highest coverage rate for Tdap (96.3%) for adolescents aged 13-17 years. Also in 2018, the state had the highest vaccination rates in the nation for the HPV series for both male and female adolescents 13-17 years of age (78.1%), well above the national average of 51.1%.

Researchers used information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as 2015-2018 NIS-Teen data to estimate national and state-level completion rates by age 17. They then combined NIS-Teen data with public state-level data to evaluate what was driving or discouraging completion.

“The good news is, we found some variables that we consider actionable and can be used by states and local health departments to improve the rates,” Dr. Poston said.

Those include encouraging a health care visit at age 16 or 17, provider recommendations to families to get the HPV vaccine, and state-level mandates for the MenACWY vaccine.

Those who had a health care visit at 16 or 17 were more than twice as likely to complete their vaccines (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.80-3.07). Those for whom HPV vaccination had ever been recommended by a health care provider were more than three times as likely to complete their vaccinations (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 2.76-3.80).

Other factors predictive of completing the vaccines included being Black or Hispanic and having Medicaid insurance.

At the state level, “living in a state with a mandate for the meningococcal ACWY vaccine in elementary or secondary school was also associated with likelihood of vaccination,” Dr. Poston said. Teens in states with mandates were 60% more likely to complete the vaccines than those in states without mandates. (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3)

Marielle Fricchione, MD, assistant professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Rush Medical College, Chicago said in an interview, “Teen vaccines are notoriously hard to get into kids because it’s hard to get them back into the office for second doses.”

She said that Illinois is one of the states with a two-dose mandate for MenACWY before entering 6th grade and 12th grade, which has kept vaccination coverage high.

Educating providers on how to recommend HPV vaccination is the biggest vaccine focus, she added.
 

Schedule next dose at first visit

One thing her department has found successful in HPV completion is scheduling the second dose while the teen is in the office for the first dose.

“Also, you have to recommend it just as strongly for boys as you do for girls, because oropharyngeal cancer is like an epidemic right now for men, and HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer is on an exponential rise,” Dr. Fricchione said.

According to the CDC, HPV is thought to cause 70% of oropharyngeal cancers in the United States.

Equipping providers with statistics on the effectiveness of HPV vaccination in preventing cancer can take away the uneasiness in talking about sexual transmission.

“That really seems to help them give a strong recommendation. It puts them in a data-driven position to talk about the vaccine,” she said. “Once you put that data in front of the providers, they’re floored.”

Research was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Poston is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Fricchione disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Only 30.6% of American adolescents complete three routinely recommended vaccinations, new research has found, but that number varies widely by state.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends that, by age 17 years, adolescents complete three key immunizations: human papillomavirus (HPV), quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY), and Tdap.

Sara Poston, PharmD, senior director for health outcomes research at GlaxoSmithKline, said at a press conference during IDWeek, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases held virtually this year, that her team set out to determine how many teens were completing the vaccinations and how the number varied by state and by behavioral factors.

Completion of the vaccines means getting the HPV series (two doses for people aged 9-14 years at first vaccination or three doses for those aged 15 years or older at first vaccination), completion of the MenACWY series (two doses), and getting a Tdap vaccine (one dose).
 

Rhode Island has the highest rates

Some states are clearly doing better than others. Idaho had the lowest completion rate (11.3%; 95% confidence interval, 6.9%-18.0%), and Rhode Island had the highest (56.4%; 95% CI, 49.8%-62.8%).

In the 2018 National Immunization Survey–Teen (NIS-Teen), Rhode Island had the highest vaccination coverage rate in the nation for meningococcal vaccine (98.7%) and the second-highest coverage rate for Tdap (96.3%) for adolescents aged 13-17 years. Also in 2018, the state had the highest vaccination rates in the nation for the HPV series for both male and female adolescents 13-17 years of age (78.1%), well above the national average of 51.1%.

Researchers used information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as 2015-2018 NIS-Teen data to estimate national and state-level completion rates by age 17. They then combined NIS-Teen data with public state-level data to evaluate what was driving or discouraging completion.

“The good news is, we found some variables that we consider actionable and can be used by states and local health departments to improve the rates,” Dr. Poston said.

Those include encouraging a health care visit at age 16 or 17, provider recommendations to families to get the HPV vaccine, and state-level mandates for the MenACWY vaccine.

Those who had a health care visit at 16 or 17 were more than twice as likely to complete their vaccines (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.80-3.07). Those for whom HPV vaccination had ever been recommended by a health care provider were more than three times as likely to complete their vaccinations (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 2.76-3.80).

Other factors predictive of completing the vaccines included being Black or Hispanic and having Medicaid insurance.

At the state level, “living in a state with a mandate for the meningococcal ACWY vaccine in elementary or secondary school was also associated with likelihood of vaccination,” Dr. Poston said. Teens in states with mandates were 60% more likely to complete the vaccines than those in states without mandates. (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3)

Marielle Fricchione, MD, assistant professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Rush Medical College, Chicago said in an interview, “Teen vaccines are notoriously hard to get into kids because it’s hard to get them back into the office for second doses.”

She said that Illinois is one of the states with a two-dose mandate for MenACWY before entering 6th grade and 12th grade, which has kept vaccination coverage high.

Educating providers on how to recommend HPV vaccination is the biggest vaccine focus, she added.
 

Schedule next dose at first visit

One thing her department has found successful in HPV completion is scheduling the second dose while the teen is in the office for the first dose.

“Also, you have to recommend it just as strongly for boys as you do for girls, because oropharyngeal cancer is like an epidemic right now for men, and HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer is on an exponential rise,” Dr. Fricchione said.

According to the CDC, HPV is thought to cause 70% of oropharyngeal cancers in the United States.

Equipping providers with statistics on the effectiveness of HPV vaccination in preventing cancer can take away the uneasiness in talking about sexual transmission.

“That really seems to help them give a strong recommendation. It puts them in a data-driven position to talk about the vaccine,” she said. “Once you put that data in front of the providers, they’re floored.”

Research was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Poston is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Fricchione disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although the efficacy of two pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens containing differing prodrug formulations of tenofovir are virtually identical, the balance between benefit and risk tips in favor of the combination using the older formulation, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a pharmacology researcher said.

An analysis of the pharmacologic profiles of TDF plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) shows that the risk of decreased bone mineral density and renal toxicity with TDF are significantly lower than those of weight gain and related metabolic and cardiovascular problems associated with the newer tenofovir formulation TAF, according to pharmacology research fellow Andrew Hill, MD, PhD, from the University of Liverpool (England).

“I think when we’re comparing these two drugs overall, we have a clear benefit/risk, and we need to take both of these potential toxicities seriously, “ he said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases held virtually this year.

“But in my view, treating women – Black women – with TAF/FTC is a bad thing,” he continued. “I think it’s going lead to more harm, more myocardial infarctions, more cases of diabetes, and potentially more adverse birth outcomes, and I think that is a risk that is not worth taking, given that the apparent benefit in terms of bone mineral density and renal markers is a hypothesis at best, and is not translated into hard clinical endpoints.”
 

Adverse event profiles

Dr. Hill compared the side effect profiles of the two agents when used both in antiretroviral therapy (ART) in combination the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (DTG; Tivicay), and in PrEP.

World Health Organization guidelines for first-line ART recommend the use of TDF/FTC/DTG, reserving TAF plus lamivudine (3TC) and DTG for use in special circumstances only, Dr. Hill noted.

He pointed to a pooled analysis of data from eight randomized, controlled trials of treatment-naive people living with HIV who started on ART from 2003 to 2015. The authors found that demographic factors associated with weight gain included lower CD4 cell counter, higher levels of HIV type 1 RNA, no injection drug use, female sex, and Black race.

They also found that, among nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, TAF was associated with more weight gain than TDF, abacavir, or zidovudine.

“This pattern is seen consistently across studies both of pre-exposure prophylaxis or treatment comparing tenofovir with either TAF or other nucleoside analogs,” he said.

The greater weight gain with TAF versus TDF was seen in both treatment trials and in the DISCOVER PrEP trial.

In addition, in a crossover trial conducted in Germany, patients who switched from TDF to TAF had an approximately 2 kg increase in body weight.

TAF has also been associated with higher grade 3 or 4 glucose and LDL cholesterol than TDF in clinical trials for the treatment of hepatitis B infections, and with higher LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol levels as well as diabetes in patients treated with the drugs in combination in the EMERALD HIV trial.

Clinical trials also tend to underestimate the real-world population of persons at highest risk for adverse events from TAF, Dr. Hill said, noting that the percentage of Black women in phase 3 trials for dolutegravir was 9%, compared with 42% among persons infected with HIV worldwide. The respective percentages for Black men are 16% versus 30%. These differences are similar across clinical trial programs for other ART agents.

“Generally, it’s women and Black people who seem to be at greatest risk for safety issues,” he said.

In the ADVANCE trial comparing TAF/FTC/DTG with TDF/FTC/DTG and a control arm of TDF, FTC and efavirenz, the mean change in weight among men after 3 years on the TAF-based regimen was a gain of 7.2 kg (15.9 lbs), compared with 5.5 kg (12 lbs) with TDF, and 2.6 kg (5.7 lbs) with the efavirenz-containing regimen.

In women enrolled in the same trial, the respective mean weight gains were 12.3 kg (27 lbs), 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), and 5.5 kg (12 lbs).

“All of our analyses so far have shown that the weight continues to go up. We’re actually seeing people doubling in their body weight. We’ve seen some women come into clinic and their doctors don’t even recognize them because they’ve put on so much weight,” he said.

In women, most of the gain in weight occurs as limb or trunk fat, with a predominance of visceral fat.

People taking TAF in the trial were also at significantly greater risk for developing the metabolic syndrome, and at week 96, 27% of women on TAF/FTC/DTG had treatment-emergent obesity, compared with 17% for those on TDF/FTC/DTG and 11% for those on TDF/FTC/EFV. In men, the respective 96-week rates of treatment-emergent obesity were 7%, 3%, and 2%.

Clinical obesity itself is a risk factor for obstetric complications and birth outcomes, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and cancer, and an average 4-year reduction in life expectancy, Dr. Hill said. “I think it’s actually very unlikely that the [World Health Organization] guidelines will now change and allow the widespread use of TAF/FTC in combination with integrase inhibitors worldwide given these potential implications.”
 

Modern times

The bad rap that TDF gets for its alleged effects on bone mineral density and kidneys comes from studies where the drug was given in a boosted regimen that can amplify tenofovir toxicities, Dr. Hill said.

He noted that data from Gilead Sciences shows through 7 years of therapy in previously ART-naive patients, the combination of TDF/3TC/EFV showed sustained durable efficacy, no discontinuations to renal adverse effects, and no evidence of clinically relevant bone effects.

“I think we need to be very careful when we look at tenofovir and TAF. We need to look at the more modern way that these drugs are used, which is not with pharmacokinetic boosters anymore, and in that situation the toxicity profile of tenofovir/3TC – the original TDF – is very favorable,” he said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Hill presented his data, said that his clinical experience mirrors the pharmacokinetic findings.

“I certainly have strong feelings about the use of TDF in pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he said in an interview. “TDF is an effective and safe formulation of tenofovir to be used in pre-exposure prophylaxis, and one that we have more experience with. It’s the formulation of tenofovir that I use for all of my patients who are on pre-exposure prophylaxis, and I think it is the most cost-effective.’

No funding source was reported. Andrew Hill consults for Tibotec on clinical trial programs for darunavir, etravirine, and rilpivirine. Dr. Goldstein reported having no relevant disclosures.

Although the efficacy of two pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens containing differing prodrug formulations of tenofovir are virtually identical, the balance between benefit and risk tips in favor of the combination using the older formulation, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a pharmacology researcher said.

An analysis of the pharmacologic profiles of TDF plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) shows that the risk of decreased bone mineral density and renal toxicity with TDF are significantly lower than those of weight gain and related metabolic and cardiovascular problems associated with the newer tenofovir formulation TAF, according to pharmacology research fellow Andrew Hill, MD, PhD, from the University of Liverpool (England).

“I think when we’re comparing these two drugs overall, we have a clear benefit/risk, and we need to take both of these potential toxicities seriously, “ he said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases held virtually this year.

“But in my view, treating women – Black women – with TAF/FTC is a bad thing,” he continued. “I think it’s going lead to more harm, more myocardial infarctions, more cases of diabetes, and potentially more adverse birth outcomes, and I think that is a risk that is not worth taking, given that the apparent benefit in terms of bone mineral density and renal markers is a hypothesis at best, and is not translated into hard clinical endpoints.”
 

Adverse event profiles

Dr. Hill compared the side effect profiles of the two agents when used both in antiretroviral therapy (ART) in combination the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (DTG; Tivicay), and in PrEP.

World Health Organization guidelines for first-line ART recommend the use of TDF/FTC/DTG, reserving TAF plus lamivudine (3TC) and DTG for use in special circumstances only, Dr. Hill noted.

He pointed to a pooled analysis of data from eight randomized, controlled trials of treatment-naive people living with HIV who started on ART from 2003 to 2015. The authors found that demographic factors associated with weight gain included lower CD4 cell counter, higher levels of HIV type 1 RNA, no injection drug use, female sex, and Black race.

They also found that, among nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, TAF was associated with more weight gain than TDF, abacavir, or zidovudine.

“This pattern is seen consistently across studies both of pre-exposure prophylaxis or treatment comparing tenofovir with either TAF or other nucleoside analogs,” he said.

The greater weight gain with TAF versus TDF was seen in both treatment trials and in the DISCOVER PrEP trial.

In addition, in a crossover trial conducted in Germany, patients who switched from TDF to TAF had an approximately 2 kg increase in body weight.

TAF has also been associated with higher grade 3 or 4 glucose and LDL cholesterol than TDF in clinical trials for the treatment of hepatitis B infections, and with higher LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol levels as well as diabetes in patients treated with the drugs in combination in the EMERALD HIV trial.

Clinical trials also tend to underestimate the real-world population of persons at highest risk for adverse events from TAF, Dr. Hill said, noting that the percentage of Black women in phase 3 trials for dolutegravir was 9%, compared with 42% among persons infected with HIV worldwide. The respective percentages for Black men are 16% versus 30%. These differences are similar across clinical trial programs for other ART agents.

“Generally, it’s women and Black people who seem to be at greatest risk for safety issues,” he said.

In the ADVANCE trial comparing TAF/FTC/DTG with TDF/FTC/DTG and a control arm of TDF, FTC and efavirenz, the mean change in weight among men after 3 years on the TAF-based regimen was a gain of 7.2 kg (15.9 lbs), compared with 5.5 kg (12 lbs) with TDF, and 2.6 kg (5.7 lbs) with the efavirenz-containing regimen.

In women enrolled in the same trial, the respective mean weight gains were 12.3 kg (27 lbs), 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), and 5.5 kg (12 lbs).

“All of our analyses so far have shown that the weight continues to go up. We’re actually seeing people doubling in their body weight. We’ve seen some women come into clinic and their doctors don’t even recognize them because they’ve put on so much weight,” he said.

In women, most of the gain in weight occurs as limb or trunk fat, with a predominance of visceral fat.

People taking TAF in the trial were also at significantly greater risk for developing the metabolic syndrome, and at week 96, 27% of women on TAF/FTC/DTG had treatment-emergent obesity, compared with 17% for those on TDF/FTC/DTG and 11% for those on TDF/FTC/EFV. In men, the respective 96-week rates of treatment-emergent obesity were 7%, 3%, and 2%.

Clinical obesity itself is a risk factor for obstetric complications and birth outcomes, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and cancer, and an average 4-year reduction in life expectancy, Dr. Hill said. “I think it’s actually very unlikely that the [World Health Organization] guidelines will now change and allow the widespread use of TAF/FTC in combination with integrase inhibitors worldwide given these potential implications.”
 

Modern times

The bad rap that TDF gets for its alleged effects on bone mineral density and kidneys comes from studies where the drug was given in a boosted regimen that can amplify tenofovir toxicities, Dr. Hill said.

He noted that data from Gilead Sciences shows through 7 years of therapy in previously ART-naive patients, the combination of TDF/3TC/EFV showed sustained durable efficacy, no discontinuations to renal adverse effects, and no evidence of clinically relevant bone effects.

“I think we need to be very careful when we look at tenofovir and TAF. We need to look at the more modern way that these drugs are used, which is not with pharmacokinetic boosters anymore, and in that situation the toxicity profile of tenofovir/3TC – the original TDF – is very favorable,” he said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Hill presented his data, said that his clinical experience mirrors the pharmacokinetic findings.

“I certainly have strong feelings about the use of TDF in pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he said in an interview. “TDF is an effective and safe formulation of tenofovir to be used in pre-exposure prophylaxis, and one that we have more experience with. It’s the formulation of tenofovir that I use for all of my patients who are on pre-exposure prophylaxis, and I think it is the most cost-effective.’

No funding source was reported. Andrew Hill consults for Tibotec on clinical trial programs for darunavir, etravirine, and rilpivirine. Dr. Goldstein reported having no relevant disclosures.

Although the efficacy of two pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens containing differing prodrug formulations of tenofovir are virtually identical, the balance between benefit and risk tips in favor of the combination using the older formulation, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a pharmacology researcher said.

An analysis of the pharmacologic profiles of TDF plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) shows that the risk of decreased bone mineral density and renal toxicity with TDF are significantly lower than those of weight gain and related metabolic and cardiovascular problems associated with the newer tenofovir formulation TAF, according to pharmacology research fellow Andrew Hill, MD, PhD, from the University of Liverpool (England).

“I think when we’re comparing these two drugs overall, we have a clear benefit/risk, and we need to take both of these potential toxicities seriously, “ he said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases held virtually this year.

“But in my view, treating women – Black women – with TAF/FTC is a bad thing,” he continued. “I think it’s going lead to more harm, more myocardial infarctions, more cases of diabetes, and potentially more adverse birth outcomes, and I think that is a risk that is not worth taking, given that the apparent benefit in terms of bone mineral density and renal markers is a hypothesis at best, and is not translated into hard clinical endpoints.”
 

Adverse event profiles

Dr. Hill compared the side effect profiles of the two agents when used both in antiretroviral therapy (ART) in combination the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (DTG; Tivicay), and in PrEP.

World Health Organization guidelines for first-line ART recommend the use of TDF/FTC/DTG, reserving TAF plus lamivudine (3TC) and DTG for use in special circumstances only, Dr. Hill noted.

He pointed to a pooled analysis of data from eight randomized, controlled trials of treatment-naive people living with HIV who started on ART from 2003 to 2015. The authors found that demographic factors associated with weight gain included lower CD4 cell counter, higher levels of HIV type 1 RNA, no injection drug use, female sex, and Black race.

They also found that, among nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, TAF was associated with more weight gain than TDF, abacavir, or zidovudine.

“This pattern is seen consistently across studies both of pre-exposure prophylaxis or treatment comparing tenofovir with either TAF or other nucleoside analogs,” he said.

The greater weight gain with TAF versus TDF was seen in both treatment trials and in the DISCOVER PrEP trial.

In addition, in a crossover trial conducted in Germany, patients who switched from TDF to TAF had an approximately 2 kg increase in body weight.

TAF has also been associated with higher grade 3 or 4 glucose and LDL cholesterol than TDF in clinical trials for the treatment of hepatitis B infections, and with higher LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol levels as well as diabetes in patients treated with the drugs in combination in the EMERALD HIV trial.

Clinical trials also tend to underestimate the real-world population of persons at highest risk for adverse events from TAF, Dr. Hill said, noting that the percentage of Black women in phase 3 trials for dolutegravir was 9%, compared with 42% among persons infected with HIV worldwide. The respective percentages for Black men are 16% versus 30%. These differences are similar across clinical trial programs for other ART agents.

“Generally, it’s women and Black people who seem to be at greatest risk for safety issues,” he said.

In the ADVANCE trial comparing TAF/FTC/DTG with TDF/FTC/DTG and a control arm of TDF, FTC and efavirenz, the mean change in weight among men after 3 years on the TAF-based regimen was a gain of 7.2 kg (15.9 lbs), compared with 5.5 kg (12 lbs) with TDF, and 2.6 kg (5.7 lbs) with the efavirenz-containing regimen.

In women enrolled in the same trial, the respective mean weight gains were 12.3 kg (27 lbs), 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), and 5.5 kg (12 lbs).

“All of our analyses so far have shown that the weight continues to go up. We’re actually seeing people doubling in their body weight. We’ve seen some women come into clinic and their doctors don’t even recognize them because they’ve put on so much weight,” he said.

In women, most of the gain in weight occurs as limb or trunk fat, with a predominance of visceral fat.

People taking TAF in the trial were also at significantly greater risk for developing the metabolic syndrome, and at week 96, 27% of women on TAF/FTC/DTG had treatment-emergent obesity, compared with 17% for those on TDF/FTC/DTG and 11% for those on TDF/FTC/EFV. In men, the respective 96-week rates of treatment-emergent obesity were 7%, 3%, and 2%.

Clinical obesity itself is a risk factor for obstetric complications and birth outcomes, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and cancer, and an average 4-year reduction in life expectancy, Dr. Hill said. “I think it’s actually very unlikely that the [World Health Organization] guidelines will now change and allow the widespread use of TAF/FTC in combination with integrase inhibitors worldwide given these potential implications.”
 

Modern times

The bad rap that TDF gets for its alleged effects on bone mineral density and kidneys comes from studies where the drug was given in a boosted regimen that can amplify tenofovir toxicities, Dr. Hill said.

He noted that data from Gilead Sciences shows through 7 years of therapy in previously ART-naive patients, the combination of TDF/3TC/EFV showed sustained durable efficacy, no discontinuations to renal adverse effects, and no evidence of clinically relevant bone effects.

“I think we need to be very careful when we look at tenofovir and TAF. We need to look at the more modern way that these drugs are used, which is not with pharmacokinetic boosters anymore, and in that situation the toxicity profile of tenofovir/3TC – the original TDF – is very favorable,” he said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Hill presented his data, said that his clinical experience mirrors the pharmacokinetic findings.

“I certainly have strong feelings about the use of TDF in pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he said in an interview. “TDF is an effective and safe formulation of tenofovir to be used in pre-exposure prophylaxis, and one that we have more experience with. It’s the formulation of tenofovir that I use for all of my patients who are on pre-exposure prophylaxis, and I think it is the most cost-effective.’

No funding source was reported. Andrew Hill consults for Tibotec on clinical trial programs for darunavir, etravirine, and rilpivirine. Dr. Goldstein reported having no relevant disclosures.

A patient-centered approach can help guide persons at risk for HIV exposure to decide on the best choice of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens for them, stifling the noise generated by direct-to-consumer advertising, an infectious disease specialist recommends.

The decision for patients whether to start or remain on the PrEP combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) or on tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) is made more fraught by confusion regarding the use of the newer and allegedly safer TAF prodrug of tenofovir in HIV treatment regimens, said Oni Blackstock, MD, founder and executive director of Health Justice and an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Harlem Hospital, New York.

“There have been commercials on TV as well as on social media around class-action lawsuits against [Truvada maker] Gilead,” she said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, held virtually this year.

“These lawsuits focus on TDF for HIV treatment, but they have sown a great deal of confusion about TDF versus TAF for PrEP among potential and actual PrEP users,” she added.

Dr. Blackstock described her approach to shared decision-making regarding TDF/FTC versus TAF/FTC, and to helping patients understand the relative benefits and risks of each formulation.

In January of 2020, Dr. Blackstock, who was then assistant commissioner of the HIV bureau of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, issued with other Bureau members a “Dear colleague” letter stating why they believed that TDF/FTC should remain the first-line regimen for PrEP.

That opinion, she said, was bolstered by an editorial published in February 2020 by Douglas E. Krakower, MD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and colleagues, which questioned the rush to shift from TDF to TAF in HIV treatment, and cautioned against the same approach to PrEP.

“Despite evidence that TAF/FTC would not be cost-effective, compared with generic TDF/FTC , the newer regimen quickly and irrevocably displaced TDF/FTC for HIV treatment in the U.S. A similar shift for PrEP – especially for populations in which TAF/FTC is untested – would be premature, costly, and counterproductive for population impact,” Krakower et al. wrote.
 

Shared decision-making

Clinicians can help patients who may be a candidate for either PrEP regimen by engaging them in shared decision-making.

“The clinician provides information in this case about a prevention strategy, options, benefits and risks, alternatives, and the patient provides their preferences and values, and together the clinician and patient make a decision,” Dr. Blackstock said.

The process differs from the model of informed decision-making, where the clinician gives the patient the information and the patient comes to a decision, or the old, “paternalistic” model in which the clinician gives information and makes recommendations to the patient.

“Shared decision-making has been studied extensively and has been shown to improve patient satisfaction, patient communication, and also potentially reducing health inequities that we see,” she said.

The model for shared decision-making for clinical practice includes three distinct portions: a choice talk, option talk, and decision talk.
 

Choice

To begin the discussion, the physician informs the patients of the availability of choices and justifies them, saying, for example, “there is good information about how these two PrEP options differ that I’d like to discuss with you,” and “the two PrEP options have different side effects … some will matter more to you than other people.”

At this stage the clinician should defer closure by offering a more detailed discussion of the choices.
 

Option

Here the clinician solicits information about what the patient has heard or read about PrEP, describes each option in practical terms, and points out where the two regimens differ, being specific about the pros and cons of each (for example, potential bone mineral density loss or renal complications with TDF, and potential weight gain with subsequent metabolic and cardiovascular consequences with TAF).

The TDF versus TAF-based PrEP discussion could also focus on what’s known about the comparative effectiveness of each regimen.

For example, TDF/FTC has been shown to be about 99% effective at preventing infection in men who have sex with men and in transgender women, also about 99% effective in heterosexual women and men, and 74%-84% effective in persons who inject drugs.

In contrast, TAF/FTC has been shown to be about 99% effective in men who have sex with men and transgender women, but it’s efficacy in the other two categories is unknown, Dr. Blackstock said.

The option discussion should include a comparison of the evidence base for each regimen, including the real-world experience with TDF/FTC since 2012, and much more limited experience with TAF/FTC.

Discussing relative costs, although the wholesale costs of the regimens are similar, there is now a generic version of TDF/FTC made by Teva Pharmaceuticals that sells for about $400 less per month than the brand name, which might make the option more acceptable to health insurers.
 

Decision

The decision talk is about considering the patients preferences and deciding with them what is best.

The clinician could say, for example: “What, from your point of view, matters most to you?”

The clinician should also be willing to allow the patient to defer a decision or to guide them depending on their stated wish, asking something like: “Are you ready to decide, or do you want more time? Do you have more questions? Are there more things we should discuss?

Offering the patient a chance to review the decision can also be a good way to arrive at closure, Dr. Blackstock said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Blackstock presented her talk, said that he also uses a similar approach to the PrEP discussion.

“I use a very patient-centered approach of providing information and talking through the data that are available,” he said.

“I will say that, as patients come to me talking about the transition from TDF to TAF for pre-exposure prophylaxis, I am very clear with them about the limited benefit or no benefit that I see with TAF for pre-exposure prophylaxis, and all of my patients have remained on TDF for pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he added.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Blackstock and Dr. Goldstein reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A patient-centered approach can help guide persons at risk for HIV exposure to decide on the best choice of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens for them, stifling the noise generated by direct-to-consumer advertising, an infectious disease specialist recommends.

The decision for patients whether to start or remain on the PrEP combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) or on tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) is made more fraught by confusion regarding the use of the newer and allegedly safer TAF prodrug of tenofovir in HIV treatment regimens, said Oni Blackstock, MD, founder and executive director of Health Justice and an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Harlem Hospital, New York.

“There have been commercials on TV as well as on social media around class-action lawsuits against [Truvada maker] Gilead,” she said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, held virtually this year.

“These lawsuits focus on TDF for HIV treatment, but they have sown a great deal of confusion about TDF versus TAF for PrEP among potential and actual PrEP users,” she added.

Dr. Blackstock described her approach to shared decision-making regarding TDF/FTC versus TAF/FTC, and to helping patients understand the relative benefits and risks of each formulation.

In January of 2020, Dr. Blackstock, who was then assistant commissioner of the HIV bureau of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, issued with other Bureau members a “Dear colleague” letter stating why they believed that TDF/FTC should remain the first-line regimen for PrEP.

That opinion, she said, was bolstered by an editorial published in February 2020 by Douglas E. Krakower, MD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and colleagues, which questioned the rush to shift from TDF to TAF in HIV treatment, and cautioned against the same approach to PrEP.

“Despite evidence that TAF/FTC would not be cost-effective, compared with generic TDF/FTC , the newer regimen quickly and irrevocably displaced TDF/FTC for HIV treatment in the U.S. A similar shift for PrEP – especially for populations in which TAF/FTC is untested – would be premature, costly, and counterproductive for population impact,” Krakower et al. wrote.
 

Shared decision-making

Clinicians can help patients who may be a candidate for either PrEP regimen by engaging them in shared decision-making.

“The clinician provides information in this case about a prevention strategy, options, benefits and risks, alternatives, and the patient provides their preferences and values, and together the clinician and patient make a decision,” Dr. Blackstock said.

The process differs from the model of informed decision-making, where the clinician gives the patient the information and the patient comes to a decision, or the old, “paternalistic” model in which the clinician gives information and makes recommendations to the patient.

“Shared decision-making has been studied extensively and has been shown to improve patient satisfaction, patient communication, and also potentially reducing health inequities that we see,” she said.

The model for shared decision-making for clinical practice includes three distinct portions: a choice talk, option talk, and decision talk.
 

Choice

To begin the discussion, the physician informs the patients of the availability of choices and justifies them, saying, for example, “there is good information about how these two PrEP options differ that I’d like to discuss with you,” and “the two PrEP options have different side effects … some will matter more to you than other people.”

At this stage the clinician should defer closure by offering a more detailed discussion of the choices.
 

Option

Here the clinician solicits information about what the patient has heard or read about PrEP, describes each option in practical terms, and points out where the two regimens differ, being specific about the pros and cons of each (for example, potential bone mineral density loss or renal complications with TDF, and potential weight gain with subsequent metabolic and cardiovascular consequences with TAF).

The TDF versus TAF-based PrEP discussion could also focus on what’s known about the comparative effectiveness of each regimen.

For example, TDF/FTC has been shown to be about 99% effective at preventing infection in men who have sex with men and in transgender women, also about 99% effective in heterosexual women and men, and 74%-84% effective in persons who inject drugs.

In contrast, TAF/FTC has been shown to be about 99% effective in men who have sex with men and transgender women, but it’s efficacy in the other two categories is unknown, Dr. Blackstock said.

The option discussion should include a comparison of the evidence base for each regimen, including the real-world experience with TDF/FTC since 2012, and much more limited experience with TAF/FTC.

Discussing relative costs, although the wholesale costs of the regimens are similar, there is now a generic version of TDF/FTC made by Teva Pharmaceuticals that sells for about $400 less per month than the brand name, which might make the option more acceptable to health insurers.
 

Decision

The decision talk is about considering the patients preferences and deciding with them what is best.

The clinician could say, for example: “What, from your point of view, matters most to you?”

The clinician should also be willing to allow the patient to defer a decision or to guide them depending on their stated wish, asking something like: “Are you ready to decide, or do you want more time? Do you have more questions? Are there more things we should discuss?

Offering the patient a chance to review the decision can also be a good way to arrive at closure, Dr. Blackstock said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Blackstock presented her talk, said that he also uses a similar approach to the PrEP discussion.

“I use a very patient-centered approach of providing information and talking through the data that are available,” he said.

“I will say that, as patients come to me talking about the transition from TDF to TAF for pre-exposure prophylaxis, I am very clear with them about the limited benefit or no benefit that I see with TAF for pre-exposure prophylaxis, and all of my patients have remained on TDF for pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he added.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Blackstock and Dr. Goldstein reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A patient-centered approach can help guide persons at risk for HIV exposure to decide on the best choice of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens for them, stifling the noise generated by direct-to-consumer advertising, an infectious disease specialist recommends.

The decision for patients whether to start or remain on the PrEP combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) or on tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) is made more fraught by confusion regarding the use of the newer and allegedly safer TAF prodrug of tenofovir in HIV treatment regimens, said Oni Blackstock, MD, founder and executive director of Health Justice and an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Harlem Hospital, New York.

“There have been commercials on TV as well as on social media around class-action lawsuits against [Truvada maker] Gilead,” she said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, held virtually this year.

“These lawsuits focus on TDF for HIV treatment, but they have sown a great deal of confusion about TDF versus TAF for PrEP among potential and actual PrEP users,” she added.

Dr. Blackstock described her approach to shared decision-making regarding TDF/FTC versus TAF/FTC, and to helping patients understand the relative benefits and risks of each formulation.

In January of 2020, Dr. Blackstock, who was then assistant commissioner of the HIV bureau of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, issued with other Bureau members a “Dear colleague” letter stating why they believed that TDF/FTC should remain the first-line regimen for PrEP.

That opinion, she said, was bolstered by an editorial published in February 2020 by Douglas E. Krakower, MD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and colleagues, which questioned the rush to shift from TDF to TAF in HIV treatment, and cautioned against the same approach to PrEP.

“Despite evidence that TAF/FTC would not be cost-effective, compared with generic TDF/FTC , the newer regimen quickly and irrevocably displaced TDF/FTC for HIV treatment in the U.S. A similar shift for PrEP – especially for populations in which TAF/FTC is untested – would be premature, costly, and counterproductive for population impact,” Krakower et al. wrote.
 

Shared decision-making

Clinicians can help patients who may be a candidate for either PrEP regimen by engaging them in shared decision-making.

“The clinician provides information in this case about a prevention strategy, options, benefits and risks, alternatives, and the patient provides their preferences and values, and together the clinician and patient make a decision,” Dr. Blackstock said.

The process differs from the model of informed decision-making, where the clinician gives the patient the information and the patient comes to a decision, or the old, “paternalistic” model in which the clinician gives information and makes recommendations to the patient.

“Shared decision-making has been studied extensively and has been shown to improve patient satisfaction, patient communication, and also potentially reducing health inequities that we see,” she said.

The model for shared decision-making for clinical practice includes three distinct portions: a choice talk, option talk, and decision talk.
 

Choice

To begin the discussion, the physician informs the patients of the availability of choices and justifies them, saying, for example, “there is good information about how these two PrEP options differ that I’d like to discuss with you,” and “the two PrEP options have different side effects … some will matter more to you than other people.”

At this stage the clinician should defer closure by offering a more detailed discussion of the choices.
 

Option

Here the clinician solicits information about what the patient has heard or read about PrEP, describes each option in practical terms, and points out where the two regimens differ, being specific about the pros and cons of each (for example, potential bone mineral density loss or renal complications with TDF, and potential weight gain with subsequent metabolic and cardiovascular consequences with TAF).

The TDF versus TAF-based PrEP discussion could also focus on what’s known about the comparative effectiveness of each regimen.

For example, TDF/FTC has been shown to be about 99% effective at preventing infection in men who have sex with men and in transgender women, also about 99% effective in heterosexual women and men, and 74%-84% effective in persons who inject drugs.

In contrast, TAF/FTC has been shown to be about 99% effective in men who have sex with men and transgender women, but it’s efficacy in the other two categories is unknown, Dr. Blackstock said.

The option discussion should include a comparison of the evidence base for each regimen, including the real-world experience with TDF/FTC since 2012, and much more limited experience with TAF/FTC.

Discussing relative costs, although the wholesale costs of the regimens are similar, there is now a generic version of TDF/FTC made by Teva Pharmaceuticals that sells for about $400 less per month than the brand name, which might make the option more acceptable to health insurers.
 

Decision

The decision talk is about considering the patients preferences and deciding with them what is best.

The clinician could say, for example: “What, from your point of view, matters most to you?”

The clinician should also be willing to allow the patient to defer a decision or to guide them depending on their stated wish, asking something like: “Are you ready to decide, or do you want more time? Do you have more questions? Are there more things we should discuss?

Offering the patient a chance to review the decision can also be a good way to arrive at closure, Dr. Blackstock said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Blackstock presented her talk, said that he also uses a similar approach to the PrEP discussion.

“I use a very patient-centered approach of providing information and talking through the data that are available,” he said.

“I will say that, as patients come to me talking about the transition from TDF to TAF for pre-exposure prophylaxis, I am very clear with them about the limited benefit or no benefit that I see with TAF for pre-exposure prophylaxis, and all of my patients have remained on TDF for pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he added.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Blackstock and Dr. Goldstein reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

COVID-19 has had a huge impact on every aspect of physicians’ medical practice, incomes, and business. Although this will probably not end soon, there are some key tax strategies that can help your financial position if you take some important actions by the end of the year.

Some of the ways in which physicians were hard hit include:

• Physicians who are self-employed are facing increased costs for personal protective equipment, cleaning protocols, and new telehealth infrastructure. Many are also facing staffing shortages as employees fall to part-time work or take time off work to care for family members.
• Even physicians working for large hospitals are not isolated from the financial impact of the virus. A recent survey conducted by Medscape concluded that over 60% of physicians in the United States have experienced a decrease in income since the start of the pandemic.
• Saving and investing have been affected: Physicians may expect to see that companies in which they are invested are cutting dividends. Interest rates (CDs, bonds) are lower, and capital gains distributions are reduced this year. Overall, that makes for a fairly grim financial picture.

While taxable income this year has mostly declined, the applicable tax rates overall are low. However, federal, state, and local budget deficits have been skyrocketing owing to the demands of the pandemic. That means, in all likelihood, there will be tax increases in the coming years to cover spending. However, this year’s financial challenges could lend themselves to a unique tax planning scenario that could potentially benefit physicians as they make long-term plans for their investments.

Given these circumstances, these 12 tips can help you to lessen your tax bite this tax season. Many of these tips entail actions that you need to take before Dec. 31, 2020.
 

1. Coronavirus stimulus rebates

If you have significantly depressed income this year or have lost your job, you may find that you qualify for an Economic Impact Payment, a refundable tax credit on the 2020 tax return. The credit is $1,200 for individuals or $2,400 for joint filers, plus an additional $500 for each qualifying child aged 16 years or younger. You begin to phase out of the credit at an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. People who had AGI below these thresholds in 2019 already would have received the credit in advance, but those who now find themselves qualifying will receive the credit when they file their 2020 tax return. No action is needed on your part; your tax preparer will calculate whether you are eligible for the credit when filing your return.

2. Look to accelerate income at lower brackets

With reduced earned income, many physicians will find themselves in significantly lower tax brackets this year. Once you fall below $200,000 for individuals or $250,000 for joint filers, you no longer trigger two additional surcharge taxes. The first is the additional Medicare tax, which is a further 0.9% applied to earned income above those thresholds, on top of ordinary income tax brackets. The second is the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT), which is an additional 3.8% applied to your investment income on top of capital gains tax brackets.

If you are someone to whom the additional Medicare tax or NIIT no longer applies for 2020, you might consider generating income this year in order to realize the lower tax rates. You could consider selling highly appreciated investments in your taxable portfolio and reinvest the proceeds by repurchasing the same securities, thereby receiving a step-up in cost basis. Remember, when you go to sell securities in retirement, you are only taxed on the gain on the security over your cost basis. By bringing the cost basis up to today’s fair market value, you could be greatly reducing the future tax applied on a sale.

For those with IRA or inherited IRA accounts who also have required minimum distributions (RMDs), you might consider making voluntary withdrawals this year and then reinvesting the proceeds into a savings or taxable account for when you need it. Keep in mind that under the CARES Act, you are no longer required to take RMDs for 2020. However, this action would help avoid being forced to withdraw the amount when you may be at a higher tax bracket. You would need to do this before Dec. 31.
 

3. Build Roth assets strategies

With reduced incomes and lower marginal tax rates applying to the last dollar of income this year, physicians should carefully consider how to take advantage of current tax rates by building Roth assets. There are a few strategies, including switching 401(k) or 457 contributions from pretax to Roth or performing a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. However, neither is as powerful as converting IRA assets to Roth assets because there is no restriction on conversion amount or income cutoffs.

The goal is to convert enough assets to fill up lower applicable marginal tax brackets while avoiding tax surcharges, where possible. Roth IRA conversions can get you in trouble if you don’t know what to expect, so it’s best to work with a financial advisor or tax professional to give you guidance. For example, Roth conversions can trigger some tax surprises, such as the phaseout for the 199A qualified business income deduction, increased taxation on your Social Security benefits, or higher Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount surcharges on Medicare Part B and Part D premiums.

Bear in mind that Roth conversions generate taxable income and cannot be undone once completed. However, paying the lower marginal tax rate today may be a big win when RMDs could push physicians into tax brackets as high as or higher than during their working years.
 

4. Coronavirus-related distributions

New this year is a penalty-free way to withdraw qualified retirement plan funds for those who are not yet eligible to make penalty-free withdrawals.

Congress introduced the Coronavirus-Related Distribution under the CARES Act. It allows individuals who have been affected by the pandemic to withdraw up to $100,000 before Dec. 31, 2020, without paying the 10% early withdrawal penalty. If you are considering an early retirement because of the pandemic, it may make sense to take this withdrawal while the option lasts and keep the cash available to help fund the gap before the remainder of your retirement plan assets are available penalty free. Keep in mind that this withdrawal generates taxable ordinary income, even though the early withdrawal penalty does not apply. Taking this withdrawal can boost your taxable income bracket, so calculate carefully before you do this.
 

5. Charitable donations for 2020

There is no shortage of people in need owing to the pandemic. For those who continue to be charitable-minded, a decrease in income may mean you have more opportunity for your regularly recurring charitable donations to decrease your taxes this year. Normally, charitable donations for itemizers are limited to 60% of AGI. However, the CARES Act increased the charitable deduction limit to 100% of AGI for 2020. Even those who claim the standard deduction can take advantage of a new “above-the-line” deduction worth $300 for individuals and $600 for joint filers by making qualified cash donations in 2020. Take special note that the contributions do not apply to donor-advised funds or nonoperating private foundations.

6. Noncash charitable donations

Many physicians are working longer and harder than ever, and for many, that means vacation plans have been placed on hold for the remainder of the year. Don’t let your paid-time-off days go to waste! The IRS now permits leave-based donation programs, which allow employers to make deductible charitable donations for the relief of victims of the COVID-19 pandemic on the basis of the value of the sick, vacation, or personal leave that employees voluntarily forgo. The value of the donation will not be treated as compensation for the employee and will be free of any otherwise applicable Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes, and the employer can deduct the donation as ordinary and necessary business expenses if they meet certain requirements.

7. Claiming 2020 losses on prior tax returns

For self-employed physicians, a wealth of tax planning strategies are available. One of the most significant may be the new provisions under the CARES Act that allow 100% of net operating losses (NOLs) for 3 calendar years of losses – namely 2018, 2019, and 2020 – to be carried back to the prior 5 tax years. Using these NOLs, you may be able to claim a refund for tax returns from prior tax years when there was otherwise a limit on NOLs at 80% of taxable income. If you think this applies to you, it’s wise to meet with your accountant or financial professional to discuss this.

8. Delay payroll taxes where possible

For physicians with employees looking for some cash flow relief, a new payroll tax deferral is available to you this year. Under the CARES Act, employers can delay payment of their 2020 employer payroll tax, namely the 6.2% Social Security tax, with 50% not due until Dec. 31, 2021, and the remainder due Dec. 31, 2022. The deferral will not incur any interest or penalties and is also available to those who are self-employed.

On top of that, a new payroll tax credit was created under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Eligible employers can receive this tax credit for the amount of wages they pay to eligible employees who are taking pandemic-related paid family leave or paid sick leave this year. The credit is also available to those who are self-employed. If you think this credit may be applicable to you, it’s worth speaking with your tax preparer about it.
 

9. Increased business property deductions

The nature of many physician business operations has drastically changed this year. For physicians who already have invested in and implemented new telehealth infrastructure, this can create valuable tax deductions to offset their ordinary income. Businesses may take 100% bonus depreciation on the cost of qualified property both acquired and placed in service after Sept. 27, 2017, and before Jan. 1, 2023. In general, during the last quarter of the year, you should look to decelerate business purchases until after Jan. 1, 2021, to get a deduction in 2021 at a higher marginal tax bracket.

10. Switch to cash accounting instead of accrual accounting

With higher expenses and lower profits, some large practice groups may take a second look to see whether they qualify to switch to cash accounting from accrual accounting to defer taxes. This rule change was adopted back in 2017 to allow small-business taxpayers with average annual gross receipts of $25 million or less in the prior 3 years to use the cash method of accounting. Ultimately, this switch should allow practices to owe the IRS money only after invoices were paid.

11. Physicians looking to sell their unprofitable practices

For physicians looking to make a quick exit from their practice in response to the pandemic, there is some tax relief in the event of a sale at a loss. Certain business owners who sell failed businesses will be able to use up to $50,000 of net losses as individuals or $100,000 as joint filers from the sale to offset ordinary income, current or future, under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 1244. Remember that ordinary income tax rates are much higher than capital gains rates, so you could see some tax relief through a sale. The provision covers shareholders of domestic small-business corporations, both C or S corporations, but not partnerships. You would have to sell the business before Dec. 31 to get this deduction in 2020.

12. Physicians looking to sell their profitable practices

Even self-employed physicians who have managed to maintain profitable practices may be looking for early retirement after the exhaustion of the pandemic. If you own stock in a C corporation engaged in an active trade or business that has not had assets of more than $50 million at any time, you can take advantage of the IRC Section 1202 exemption. Section 1202 provides an exclusion from gain from the sale of stock of either $10 million or 10 times the adjusted basis of the stock, owned at least 5 years, in corporations regarded as “qualified small businesses.” This means you may be able to sell your practice at a gain with a handsome tax shield. Again, to get this tax benefit for April’s tax return, you’d have to engage in this activity before year end.

Regardless of whether the pandemic has placed financial constraints on you this year, tax-savvy opportunities are available to capitalize on your reduced income and lower tax rates. It’s always important to keep in mind not just your taxes in any one given year, but your lifetime tax obligations. Financial advisors and tax planners can perform multiyear tax calculations and recommend ways to manage your tax bracket and help lower your overall lifetime tax obligations.
 

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

COVID-19 has had a huge impact on every aspect of physicians’ medical practice, incomes, and business. Although this will probably not end soon, there are some key tax strategies that can help your financial position if you take some important actions by the end of the year.

Some of the ways in which physicians were hard hit include:

• Physicians who are self-employed are facing increased costs for personal protective equipment, cleaning protocols, and new telehealth infrastructure. Many are also facing staffing shortages as employees fall to part-time work or take time off work to care for family members.
• Even physicians working for large hospitals are not isolated from the financial impact of the virus. A recent survey conducted by Medscape concluded that over 60% of physicians in the United States have experienced a decrease in income since the start of the pandemic.
• Saving and investing have been affected: Physicians may expect to see that companies in which they are invested are cutting dividends. Interest rates (CDs, bonds) are lower, and capital gains distributions are reduced this year. Overall, that makes for a fairly grim financial picture.

While taxable income this year has mostly declined, the applicable tax rates overall are low. However, federal, state, and local budget deficits have been skyrocketing owing to the demands of the pandemic. That means, in all likelihood, there will be tax increases in the coming years to cover spending. However, this year’s financial challenges could lend themselves to a unique tax planning scenario that could potentially benefit physicians as they make long-term plans for their investments.

Given these circumstances, these 12 tips can help you to lessen your tax bite this tax season. Many of these tips entail actions that you need to take before Dec. 31, 2020.
 

1. Coronavirus stimulus rebates

If you have significantly depressed income this year or have lost your job, you may find that you qualify for an Economic Impact Payment, a refundable tax credit on the 2020 tax return. The credit is $1,200 for individuals or $2,400 for joint filers, plus an additional $500 for each qualifying child aged 16 years or younger. You begin to phase out of the credit at an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. People who had AGI below these thresholds in 2019 already would have received the credit in advance, but those who now find themselves qualifying will receive the credit when they file their 2020 tax return. No action is needed on your part; your tax preparer will calculate whether you are eligible for the credit when filing your return.

2. Look to accelerate income at lower brackets

With reduced earned income, many physicians will find themselves in significantly lower tax brackets this year. Once you fall below $200,000 for individuals or $250,000 for joint filers, you no longer trigger two additional surcharge taxes. The first is the additional Medicare tax, which is a further 0.9% applied to earned income above those thresholds, on top of ordinary income tax brackets. The second is the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT), which is an additional 3.8% applied to your investment income on top of capital gains tax brackets.

If you are someone to whom the additional Medicare tax or NIIT no longer applies for 2020, you might consider generating income this year in order to realize the lower tax rates. You could consider selling highly appreciated investments in your taxable portfolio and reinvest the proceeds by repurchasing the same securities, thereby receiving a step-up in cost basis. Remember, when you go to sell securities in retirement, you are only taxed on the gain on the security over your cost basis. By bringing the cost basis up to today’s fair market value, you could be greatly reducing the future tax applied on a sale.

For those with IRA or inherited IRA accounts who also have required minimum distributions (RMDs), you might consider making voluntary withdrawals this year and then reinvesting the proceeds into a savings or taxable account for when you need it. Keep in mind that under the CARES Act, you are no longer required to take RMDs for 2020. However, this action would help avoid being forced to withdraw the amount when you may be at a higher tax bracket. You would need to do this before Dec. 31.
 

3. Build Roth assets strategies

With reduced incomes and lower marginal tax rates applying to the last dollar of income this year, physicians should carefully consider how to take advantage of current tax rates by building Roth assets. There are a few strategies, including switching 401(k) or 457 contributions from pretax to Roth or performing a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. However, neither is as powerful as converting IRA assets to Roth assets because there is no restriction on conversion amount or income cutoffs.

The goal is to convert enough assets to fill up lower applicable marginal tax brackets while avoiding tax surcharges, where possible. Roth IRA conversions can get you in trouble if you don’t know what to expect, so it’s best to work with a financial advisor or tax professional to give you guidance. For example, Roth conversions can trigger some tax surprises, such as the phaseout for the 199A qualified business income deduction, increased taxation on your Social Security benefits, or higher Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount surcharges on Medicare Part B and Part D premiums.

Bear in mind that Roth conversions generate taxable income and cannot be undone once completed. However, paying the lower marginal tax rate today may be a big win when RMDs could push physicians into tax brackets as high as or higher than during their working years.
 

4. Coronavirus-related distributions

New this year is a penalty-free way to withdraw qualified retirement plan funds for those who are not yet eligible to make penalty-free withdrawals.

Congress introduced the Coronavirus-Related Distribution under the CARES Act. It allows individuals who have been affected by the pandemic to withdraw up to $100,000 before Dec. 31, 2020, without paying the 10% early withdrawal penalty. If you are considering an early retirement because of the pandemic, it may make sense to take this withdrawal while the option lasts and keep the cash available to help fund the gap before the remainder of your retirement plan assets are available penalty free. Keep in mind that this withdrawal generates taxable ordinary income, even though the early withdrawal penalty does not apply. Taking this withdrawal can boost your taxable income bracket, so calculate carefully before you do this.
 

5. Charitable donations for 2020

There is no shortage of people in need owing to the pandemic. For those who continue to be charitable-minded, a decrease in income may mean you have more opportunity for your regularly recurring charitable donations to decrease your taxes this year. Normally, charitable donations for itemizers are limited to 60% of AGI. However, the CARES Act increased the charitable deduction limit to 100% of AGI for 2020. Even those who claim the standard deduction can take advantage of a new “above-the-line” deduction worth $300 for individuals and $600 for joint filers by making qualified cash donations in 2020. Take special note that the contributions do not apply to donor-advised funds or nonoperating private foundations.

6. Noncash charitable donations

Many physicians are working longer and harder than ever, and for many, that means vacation plans have been placed on hold for the remainder of the year. Don’t let your paid-time-off days go to waste! The IRS now permits leave-based donation programs, which allow employers to make deductible charitable donations for the relief of victims of the COVID-19 pandemic on the basis of the value of the sick, vacation, or personal leave that employees voluntarily forgo. The value of the donation will not be treated as compensation for the employee and will be free of any otherwise applicable Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes, and the employer can deduct the donation as ordinary and necessary business expenses if they meet certain requirements.

7. Claiming 2020 losses on prior tax returns

For self-employed physicians, a wealth of tax planning strategies are available. One of the most significant may be the new provisions under the CARES Act that allow 100% of net operating losses (NOLs) for 3 calendar years of losses – namely 2018, 2019, and 2020 – to be carried back to the prior 5 tax years. Using these NOLs, you may be able to claim a refund for tax returns from prior tax years when there was otherwise a limit on NOLs at 80% of taxable income. If you think this applies to you, it’s wise to meet with your accountant or financial professional to discuss this.

8. Delay payroll taxes where possible

For physicians with employees looking for some cash flow relief, a new payroll tax deferral is available to you this year. Under the CARES Act, employers can delay payment of their 2020 employer payroll tax, namely the 6.2% Social Security tax, with 50% not due until Dec. 31, 2021, and the remainder due Dec. 31, 2022. The deferral will not incur any interest or penalties and is also available to those who are self-employed.

On top of that, a new payroll tax credit was created under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Eligible employers can receive this tax credit for the amount of wages they pay to eligible employees who are taking pandemic-related paid family leave or paid sick leave this year. The credit is also available to those who are self-employed. If you think this credit may be applicable to you, it’s worth speaking with your tax preparer about it.
 

9. Increased business property deductions

The nature of many physician business operations has drastically changed this year. For physicians who already have invested in and implemented new telehealth infrastructure, this can create valuable tax deductions to offset their ordinary income. Businesses may take 100% bonus depreciation on the cost of qualified property both acquired and placed in service after Sept. 27, 2017, and before Jan. 1, 2023. In general, during the last quarter of the year, you should look to decelerate business purchases until after Jan. 1, 2021, to get a deduction in 2021 at a higher marginal tax bracket.

10. Switch to cash accounting instead of accrual accounting

With higher expenses and lower profits, some large practice groups may take a second look to see whether they qualify to switch to cash accounting from accrual accounting to defer taxes. This rule change was adopted back in 2017 to allow small-business taxpayers with average annual gross receipts of $25 million or less in the prior 3 years to use the cash method of accounting. Ultimately, this switch should allow practices to owe the IRS money only after invoices were paid.

11. Physicians looking to sell their unprofitable practices

For physicians looking to make a quick exit from their practice in response to the pandemic, there is some tax relief in the event of a sale at a loss. Certain business owners who sell failed businesses will be able to use up to $50,000 of net losses as individuals or $100,000 as joint filers from the sale to offset ordinary income, current or future, under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 1244. Remember that ordinary income tax rates are much higher than capital gains rates, so you could see some tax relief through a sale. The provision covers shareholders of domestic small-business corporations, both C or S corporations, but not partnerships. You would have to sell the business before Dec. 31 to get this deduction in 2020.

12. Physicians looking to sell their profitable practices

Even self-employed physicians who have managed to maintain profitable practices may be looking for early retirement after the exhaustion of the pandemic. If you own stock in a C corporation engaged in an active trade or business that has not had assets of more than $50 million at any time, you can take advantage of the IRC Section 1202 exemption. Section 1202 provides an exclusion from gain from the sale of stock of either $10 million or 10 times the adjusted basis of the stock, owned at least 5 years, in corporations regarded as “qualified small businesses.” This means you may be able to sell your practice at a gain with a handsome tax shield. Again, to get this tax benefit for April’s tax return, you’d have to engage in this activity before year end.

Regardless of whether the pandemic has placed financial constraints on you this year, tax-savvy opportunities are available to capitalize on your reduced income and lower tax rates. It’s always important to keep in mind not just your taxes in any one given year, but your lifetime tax obligations. Financial advisors and tax planners can perform multiyear tax calculations and recommend ways to manage your tax bracket and help lower your overall lifetime tax obligations.
 

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

COVID-19 has had a huge impact on every aspect of physicians’ medical practice, incomes, and business. Although this will probably not end soon, there are some key tax strategies that can help your financial position if you take some important actions by the end of the year.

Some of the ways in which physicians were hard hit include:

• Physicians who are self-employed are facing increased costs for personal protective equipment, cleaning protocols, and new telehealth infrastructure. Many are also facing staffing shortages as employees fall to part-time work or take time off work to care for family members.
• Even physicians working for large hospitals are not isolated from the financial impact of the virus. A recent survey conducted by Medscape concluded that over 60% of physicians in the United States have experienced a decrease in income since the start of the pandemic.
• Saving and investing have been affected: Physicians may expect to see that companies in which they are invested are cutting dividends. Interest rates (CDs, bonds) are lower, and capital gains distributions are reduced this year. Overall, that makes for a fairly grim financial picture.

While taxable income this year has mostly declined, the applicable tax rates overall are low. However, federal, state, and local budget deficits have been skyrocketing owing to the demands of the pandemic. That means, in all likelihood, there will be tax increases in the coming years to cover spending. However, this year’s financial challenges could lend themselves to a unique tax planning scenario that could potentially benefit physicians as they make long-term plans for their investments.

Given these circumstances, these 12 tips can help you to lessen your tax bite this tax season. Many of these tips entail actions that you need to take before Dec. 31, 2020.
 

1. Coronavirus stimulus rebates

If you have significantly depressed income this year or have lost your job, you may find that you qualify for an Economic Impact Payment, a refundable tax credit on the 2020 tax return. The credit is $1,200 for individuals or $2,400 for joint filers, plus an additional $500 for each qualifying child aged 16 years or younger. You begin to phase out of the credit at an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. People who had AGI below these thresholds in 2019 already would have received the credit in advance, but those who now find themselves qualifying will receive the credit when they file their 2020 tax return. No action is needed on your part; your tax preparer will calculate whether you are eligible for the credit when filing your return.

2. Look to accelerate income at lower brackets

With reduced earned income, many physicians will find themselves in significantly lower tax brackets this year. Once you fall below $200,000 for individuals or $250,000 for joint filers, you no longer trigger two additional surcharge taxes. The first is the additional Medicare tax, which is a further 0.9% applied to earned income above those thresholds, on top of ordinary income tax brackets. The second is the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT), which is an additional 3.8% applied to your investment income on top of capital gains tax brackets.

If you are someone to whom the additional Medicare tax or NIIT no longer applies for 2020, you might consider generating income this year in order to realize the lower tax rates. You could consider selling highly appreciated investments in your taxable portfolio and reinvest the proceeds by repurchasing the same securities, thereby receiving a step-up in cost basis. Remember, when you go to sell securities in retirement, you are only taxed on the gain on the security over your cost basis. By bringing the cost basis up to today’s fair market value, you could be greatly reducing the future tax applied on a sale.

For those with IRA or inherited IRA accounts who also have required minimum distributions (RMDs), you might consider making voluntary withdrawals this year and then reinvesting the proceeds into a savings or taxable account for when you need it. Keep in mind that under the CARES Act, you are no longer required to take RMDs for 2020. However, this action would help avoid being forced to withdraw the amount when you may be at a higher tax bracket. You would need to do this before Dec. 31.
 

3. Build Roth assets strategies

With reduced incomes and lower marginal tax rates applying to the last dollar of income this year, physicians should carefully consider how to take advantage of current tax rates by building Roth assets. There are a few strategies, including switching 401(k) or 457 contributions from pretax to Roth or performing a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. However, neither is as powerful as converting IRA assets to Roth assets because there is no restriction on conversion amount or income cutoffs.

The goal is to convert enough assets to fill up lower applicable marginal tax brackets while avoiding tax surcharges, where possible. Roth IRA conversions can get you in trouble if you don’t know what to expect, so it’s best to work with a financial advisor or tax professional to give you guidance. For example, Roth conversions can trigger some tax surprises, such as the phaseout for the 199A qualified business income deduction, increased taxation on your Social Security benefits, or higher Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount surcharges on Medicare Part B and Part D premiums.

Bear in mind that Roth conversions generate taxable income and cannot be undone once completed. However, paying the lower marginal tax rate today may be a big win when RMDs could push physicians into tax brackets as high as or higher than during their working years.
 

4. Coronavirus-related distributions

New this year is a penalty-free way to withdraw qualified retirement plan funds for those who are not yet eligible to make penalty-free withdrawals.

Congress introduced the Coronavirus-Related Distribution under the CARES Act. It allows individuals who have been affected by the pandemic to withdraw up to $100,000 before Dec. 31, 2020, without paying the 10% early withdrawal penalty. If you are considering an early retirement because of the pandemic, it may make sense to take this withdrawal while the option lasts and keep the cash available to help fund the gap before the remainder of your retirement plan assets are available penalty free. Keep in mind that this withdrawal generates taxable ordinary income, even though the early withdrawal penalty does not apply. Taking this withdrawal can boost your taxable income bracket, so calculate carefully before you do this.
 

5. Charitable donations for 2020

There is no shortage of people in need owing to the pandemic. For those who continue to be charitable-minded, a decrease in income may mean you have more opportunity for your regularly recurring charitable donations to decrease your taxes this year. Normally, charitable donations for itemizers are limited to 60% of AGI. However, the CARES Act increased the charitable deduction limit to 100% of AGI for 2020. Even those who claim the standard deduction can take advantage of a new “above-the-line” deduction worth $300 for individuals and $600 for joint filers by making qualified cash donations in 2020. Take special note that the contributions do not apply to donor-advised funds or nonoperating private foundations.

6. Noncash charitable donations

Many physicians are working longer and harder than ever, and for many, that means vacation plans have been placed on hold for the remainder of the year. Don’t let your paid-time-off days go to waste! The IRS now permits leave-based donation programs, which allow employers to make deductible charitable donations for the relief of victims of the COVID-19 pandemic on the basis of the value of the sick, vacation, or personal leave that employees voluntarily forgo. The value of the donation will not be treated as compensation for the employee and will be free of any otherwise applicable Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes, and the employer can deduct the donation as ordinary and necessary business expenses if they meet certain requirements.

7. Claiming 2020 losses on prior tax returns

For self-employed physicians, a wealth of tax planning strategies are available. One of the most significant may be the new provisions under the CARES Act that allow 100% of net operating losses (NOLs) for 3 calendar years of losses – namely 2018, 2019, and 2020 – to be carried back to the prior 5 tax years. Using these NOLs, you may be able to claim a refund for tax returns from prior tax years when there was otherwise a limit on NOLs at 80% of taxable income. If you think this applies to you, it’s wise to meet with your accountant or financial professional to discuss this.

8. Delay payroll taxes where possible

For physicians with employees looking for some cash flow relief, a new payroll tax deferral is available to you this year. Under the CARES Act, employers can delay payment of their 2020 employer payroll tax, namely the 6.2% Social Security tax, with 50% not due until Dec. 31, 2021, and the remainder due Dec. 31, 2022. The deferral will not incur any interest or penalties and is also available to those who are self-employed.

On top of that, a new payroll tax credit was created under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Eligible employers can receive this tax credit for the amount of wages they pay to eligible employees who are taking pandemic-related paid family leave or paid sick leave this year. The credit is also available to those who are self-employed. If you think this credit may be applicable to you, it’s worth speaking with your tax preparer about it.
 

9. Increased business property deductions

The nature of many physician business operations has drastically changed this year. For physicians who already have invested in and implemented new telehealth infrastructure, this can create valuable tax deductions to offset their ordinary income. Businesses may take 100% bonus depreciation on the cost of qualified property both acquired and placed in service after Sept. 27, 2017, and before Jan. 1, 2023. In general, during the last quarter of the year, you should look to decelerate business purchases until after Jan. 1, 2021, to get a deduction in 2021 at a higher marginal tax bracket.

10. Switch to cash accounting instead of accrual accounting

With higher expenses and lower profits, some large practice groups may take a second look to see whether they qualify to switch to cash accounting from accrual accounting to defer taxes. This rule change was adopted back in 2017 to allow small-business taxpayers with average annual gross receipts of $25 million or less in the prior 3 years to use the cash method of accounting. Ultimately, this switch should allow practices to owe the IRS money only after invoices were paid.

11. Physicians looking to sell their unprofitable practices

For physicians looking to make a quick exit from their practice in response to the pandemic, there is some tax relief in the event of a sale at a loss. Certain business owners who sell failed businesses will be able to use up to $50,000 of net losses as individuals or $100,000 as joint filers from the sale to offset ordinary income, current or future, under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 1244. Remember that ordinary income tax rates are much higher than capital gains rates, so you could see some tax relief through a sale. The provision covers shareholders of domestic small-business corporations, both C or S corporations, but not partnerships. You would have to sell the business before Dec. 31 to get this deduction in 2020.

12. Physicians looking to sell their profitable practices

Even self-employed physicians who have managed to maintain profitable practices may be looking for early retirement after the exhaustion of the pandemic. If you own stock in a C corporation engaged in an active trade or business that has not had assets of more than $50 million at any time, you can take advantage of the IRC Section 1202 exemption. Section 1202 provides an exclusion from gain from the sale of stock of either $10 million or 10 times the adjusted basis of the stock, owned at least 5 years, in corporations regarded as “qualified small businesses.” This means you may be able to sell your practice at a gain with a handsome tax shield. Again, to get this tax benefit for April’s tax return, you’d have to engage in this activity before year end.

Regardless of whether the pandemic has placed financial constraints on you this year, tax-savvy opportunities are available to capitalize on your reduced income and lower tax rates. It’s always important to keep in mind not just your taxes in any one given year, but your lifetime tax obligations. Financial advisors and tax planners can perform multiyear tax calculations and recommend ways to manage your tax bracket and help lower your overall lifetime tax obligations.
 

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

A new scoring system can predict whether COVID-19 patients will require invasive mechanical ventilation, researchers report.

The score uses three variables to predict future risk: heart rate; the ratio of oxygen saturation (SpO₂) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂); and a positive troponin I level.

“What excites us is it’s a really benign tool,” said Muhtadi Alnababteh, MD, from the Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. “For the first two variables you only need to look at vital signs, no labs or invasive diagnostics.”

“The third part is a simple lab, which is performed universally and can be done in any hospital,” he told this news organization. “We know that even rural hospitals can do this.”

For their retrospective analysis, Dr. Alnababteh and his colleagues assessed 265 adults with confirmed COVID-19 infection who were admitted to a single tertiary care center in March and April. They looked at demographic characteristics, lab results, and clinical and outcome information.

Ultimately, 54 of these patients required invasive mechanical ventilation.

On multiple-regression analysis, the researchers determined that three variables independently predicted the need for invasive mechanical ventilation.

Existing scores evaluated for COVID-19 outcome prediction

The MuLBSTA score can also be used to predict outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

A retrospective evaluation of 163 patients was presented at CHEST 2020 by Jurgena Tusha, MD, from Wayne State University in Detroit.

Patients who survived their illness had a mean MuLBSTA score of 8.67, whereas patients who died had a mean score of 13.60.

The score “correlated significantly with mortality, ventilator support, and length of stay, which may be used to provide guidance to screen patients and make further clinical decisions,” Dr. Tusha said in a press release.

“Further studies are required to validate this study in larger patient cohorts,” she added.

The three-variable scoring system is easier to use than the MuLBSTA, and more specific, said Dr. Alnababteh.

“The main difference between our study and the MuLBSTA study is that we came up with a novel score for COVID-19 patients,” he said. “Our study score doesn’t require chest x-rays or blood cultures, and the outcome is need for invasive mechanical ventilation, not mortality.”

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

A new scoring system can predict whether COVID-19 patients will require invasive mechanical ventilation, researchers report.

The score uses three variables to predict future risk: heart rate; the ratio of oxygen saturation (SpO₂) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂); and a positive troponin I level.

“What excites us is it’s a really benign tool,” said Muhtadi Alnababteh, MD, from the Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. “For the first two variables you only need to look at vital signs, no labs or invasive diagnostics.”

“The third part is a simple lab, which is performed universally and can be done in any hospital,” he told this news organization. “We know that even rural hospitals can do this.”

For their retrospective analysis, Dr. Alnababteh and his colleagues assessed 265 adults with confirmed COVID-19 infection who were admitted to a single tertiary care center in March and April. They looked at demographic characteristics, lab results, and clinical and outcome information.

Ultimately, 54 of these patients required invasive mechanical ventilation.

On multiple-regression analysis, the researchers determined that three variables independently predicted the need for invasive mechanical ventilation.

Existing scores evaluated for COVID-19 outcome prediction

The MuLBSTA score can also be used to predict outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

A retrospective evaluation of 163 patients was presented at CHEST 2020 by Jurgena Tusha, MD, from Wayne State University in Detroit.

Patients who survived their illness had a mean MuLBSTA score of 8.67, whereas patients who died had a mean score of 13.60.

The score “correlated significantly with mortality, ventilator support, and length of stay, which may be used to provide guidance to screen patients and make further clinical decisions,” Dr. Tusha said in a press release.

“Further studies are required to validate this study in larger patient cohorts,” she added.

The three-variable scoring system is easier to use than the MuLBSTA, and more specific, said Dr. Alnababteh.

“The main difference between our study and the MuLBSTA study is that we came up with a novel score for COVID-19 patients,” he said. “Our study score doesn’t require chest x-rays or blood cultures, and the outcome is need for invasive mechanical ventilation, not mortality.”

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

A new scoring system can predict whether COVID-19 patients will require invasive mechanical ventilation, researchers report.

The score uses three variables to predict future risk: heart rate; the ratio of oxygen saturation (SpO₂) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂); and a positive troponin I level.

“What excites us is it’s a really benign tool,” said Muhtadi Alnababteh, MD, from the Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. “For the first two variables you only need to look at vital signs, no labs or invasive diagnostics.”

“The third part is a simple lab, which is performed universally and can be done in any hospital,” he told this news organization. “We know that even rural hospitals can do this.”

For their retrospective analysis, Dr. Alnababteh and his colleagues assessed 265 adults with confirmed COVID-19 infection who were admitted to a single tertiary care center in March and April. They looked at demographic characteristics, lab results, and clinical and outcome information.

Ultimately, 54 of these patients required invasive mechanical ventilation.

On multiple-regression analysis, the researchers determined that three variables independently predicted the need for invasive mechanical ventilation.

Existing scores evaluated for COVID-19 outcome prediction

The MuLBSTA score can also be used to predict outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

A retrospective evaluation of 163 patients was presented at CHEST 2020 by Jurgena Tusha, MD, from Wayne State University in Detroit.

Patients who survived their illness had a mean MuLBSTA score of 8.67, whereas patients who died had a mean score of 13.60.

The score “correlated significantly with mortality, ventilator support, and length of stay, which may be used to provide guidance to screen patients and make further clinical decisions,” Dr. Tusha said in a press release.

“Further studies are required to validate this study in larger patient cohorts,” she added.

The three-variable scoring system is easier to use than the MuLBSTA, and more specific, said Dr. Alnababteh.

“The main difference between our study and the MuLBSTA study is that we came up with a novel score for COVID-19 patients,” he said. “Our study score doesn’t require chest x-rays or blood cultures, and the outcome is need for invasive mechanical ventilation, not mortality.”

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