Pulmonology

The pragmatic Hestia criteria proved as safe as the more structured, points-based simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score for selection of patients with acute pulmonary embolism for outpatient care in the large, randomized HOME-PE trial presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Walter Serra, Giuseppe De Iaco, Claudio Reverberi, and Tiziano Gherli/Creative Commons License

“These results support outpatient management of acute pulmonary embolism patients using either the Hestia method or the sPESI score with the option for the physician-in-charge to override the decision. In hospitals organized for outpatient management, both triaging strategies enable more than a third of pulmonary embolism patients to be managed at home with a low rate of complications,” Pierre-Marie Roy, MD, said in presenting the HOME-PE findings.

The study clarifies a transatlantic controversy regarding how best to triage patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for outpatient care. The answer? It’s basically a tie between the points-based sPESI score recommended in the current ESC guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9;54[3]:1901647) and the Hestia method endorsed in the American College of Chest Physician guidelines (Chest. 2016 Feb;149[2]:315-52).

The sPESI is a validated tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80 years, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%. A patient needs a score of zero to be eligible for outpatient management. In contrast, the Hestia method relies upon 11 simple bedside criteria rather than a points system, explained Dr. Roy of University Hospital of Angers, France (J Thromb Haemost. 2011 Aug;9[8]:1500-7).

HOME-PE was a randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial conducted at 26 hospitals in France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The study included 1,974 patients presenting to the emergency department with non–high-risk acute PE as defined by hemodynamic stability. About 39% of patients in the Hestia group were eligible for outpatient care on the basis of ‘no’ answers regarding all 11 criteria, while 48% of patients had an sPESI score of 0 and were thus initially considered appropriate for outpatient management.

However, the investigators recognized that no scoring system for acute PE is perfect, and that the judgment of a physician with extensive experience in managing this life-threatening condition counts for a lot. So they stipulated that a patient’s physician-in-charge could overrule a decision for early discharge. This happened 29% of the time in patients with a sPESI score of 0, as compared with a 3% overrule rate with the Hestia rule. The physician-in-charge also moved small numbers of patients who were Hestia or sPESI positive into the outpatient care group. As a result, a similar proportion of patients in both groups were discharged home within 24 hours for outpatient treatment: 38% of the total Hestia group and 37% in the sPESI arm.

Major adverse event rates were reassuringly low in both groups managed on an outpatient basis. The composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, or death within 30 days occurred in 1.3% of Hestia outpatients and 1.1% of sPESI outpatients. Among patients managed in the hospital, these rates were 5.6% in the Hestia group and 4.7% in the sPESI group.

Discussant Stavros V. Konstantinides, MD, who chaired the ESC guideline committee, asked rhetorically, “who’s happy with the HOME-PE trial? I think everybody.”

“The Hestia criteria integrate the feasibility of family support of the individual patient. This is a good thing. And eligibility based on the Hestia criteria, unlike sPESI, does not require age younger than 80 years or no cancer, and it appears from the HOME-PE study that this is okay,” observed Dr. Konstantinides of the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis at the University of Mainz (Germany).

In an interview, Hadley Wilson, MD, called the HOME-PE trial “transformative” and predicted it will change clinical practice. He was particularly impressed with the high quality of the trial, noting that 87% of participants managed as outpatients received a direct oral anticoagulant.

The Hestia rule is simpler and more user-friendly. And greater use of this triaging strategy might have advantages in terms of economics and health care utilization by potentially encouraging movement of decision-making regarding outpatient management of acute PE out of the hospital wards and into emergency departments, said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute and a cardiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Roy reported receiving research grants to conduct HOME-PE from the French Ministry of Health, the study sponsor. In addition, he is on scientific advisory boards and/or speakers’ panels for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Aspen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi Aventis.
 

[email protected]

The pragmatic Hestia criteria proved as safe as the more structured, points-based simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score for selection of patients with acute pulmonary embolism for outpatient care in the large, randomized HOME-PE trial presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Walter Serra, Giuseppe De Iaco, Claudio Reverberi, and Tiziano Gherli/Creative Commons License

“These results support outpatient management of acute pulmonary embolism patients using either the Hestia method or the sPESI score with the option for the physician-in-charge to override the decision. In hospitals organized for outpatient management, both triaging strategies enable more than a third of pulmonary embolism patients to be managed at home with a low rate of complications,” Pierre-Marie Roy, MD, said in presenting the HOME-PE findings.

The study clarifies a transatlantic controversy regarding how best to triage patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for outpatient care. The answer? It’s basically a tie between the points-based sPESI score recommended in the current ESC guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9;54[3]:1901647) and the Hestia method endorsed in the American College of Chest Physician guidelines (Chest. 2016 Feb;149[2]:315-52).

The sPESI is a validated tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80 years, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%. A patient needs a score of zero to be eligible for outpatient management. In contrast, the Hestia method relies upon 11 simple bedside criteria rather than a points system, explained Dr. Roy of University Hospital of Angers, France (J Thromb Haemost. 2011 Aug;9[8]:1500-7).

HOME-PE was a randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial conducted at 26 hospitals in France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The study included 1,974 patients presenting to the emergency department with non–high-risk acute PE as defined by hemodynamic stability. About 39% of patients in the Hestia group were eligible for outpatient care on the basis of ‘no’ answers regarding all 11 criteria, while 48% of patients had an sPESI score of 0 and were thus initially considered appropriate for outpatient management.

However, the investigators recognized that no scoring system for acute PE is perfect, and that the judgment of a physician with extensive experience in managing this life-threatening condition counts for a lot. So they stipulated that a patient’s physician-in-charge could overrule a decision for early discharge. This happened 29% of the time in patients with a sPESI score of 0, as compared with a 3% overrule rate with the Hestia rule. The physician-in-charge also moved small numbers of patients who were Hestia or sPESI positive into the outpatient care group. As a result, a similar proportion of patients in both groups were discharged home within 24 hours for outpatient treatment: 38% of the total Hestia group and 37% in the sPESI arm.

Major adverse event rates were reassuringly low in both groups managed on an outpatient basis. The composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, or death within 30 days occurred in 1.3% of Hestia outpatients and 1.1% of sPESI outpatients. Among patients managed in the hospital, these rates were 5.6% in the Hestia group and 4.7% in the sPESI group.

Discussant Stavros V. Konstantinides, MD, who chaired the ESC guideline committee, asked rhetorically, “who’s happy with the HOME-PE trial? I think everybody.”

“The Hestia criteria integrate the feasibility of family support of the individual patient. This is a good thing. And eligibility based on the Hestia criteria, unlike sPESI, does not require age younger than 80 years or no cancer, and it appears from the HOME-PE study that this is okay,” observed Dr. Konstantinides of the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis at the University of Mainz (Germany).

In an interview, Hadley Wilson, MD, called the HOME-PE trial “transformative” and predicted it will change clinical practice. He was particularly impressed with the high quality of the trial, noting that 87% of participants managed as outpatients received a direct oral anticoagulant.

The Hestia rule is simpler and more user-friendly. And greater use of this triaging strategy might have advantages in terms of economics and health care utilization by potentially encouraging movement of decision-making regarding outpatient management of acute PE out of the hospital wards and into emergency departments, said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute and a cardiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Roy reported receiving research grants to conduct HOME-PE from the French Ministry of Health, the study sponsor. In addition, he is on scientific advisory boards and/or speakers’ panels for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Aspen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi Aventis.
 

[email protected]

The pragmatic Hestia criteria proved as safe as the more structured, points-based simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score for selection of patients with acute pulmonary embolism for outpatient care in the large, randomized HOME-PE trial presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Walter Serra, Giuseppe De Iaco, Claudio Reverberi, and Tiziano Gherli/Creative Commons License

“These results support outpatient management of acute pulmonary embolism patients using either the Hestia method or the sPESI score with the option for the physician-in-charge to override the decision. In hospitals organized for outpatient management, both triaging strategies enable more than a third of pulmonary embolism patients to be managed at home with a low rate of complications,” Pierre-Marie Roy, MD, said in presenting the HOME-PE findings.

The study clarifies a transatlantic controversy regarding how best to triage patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for outpatient care. The answer? It’s basically a tie between the points-based sPESI score recommended in the current ESC guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9;54[3]:1901647) and the Hestia method endorsed in the American College of Chest Physician guidelines (Chest. 2016 Feb;149[2]:315-52).

The sPESI is a validated tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80 years, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%. A patient needs a score of zero to be eligible for outpatient management. In contrast, the Hestia method relies upon 11 simple bedside criteria rather than a points system, explained Dr. Roy of University Hospital of Angers, France (J Thromb Haemost. 2011 Aug;9[8]:1500-7).

HOME-PE was a randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial conducted at 26 hospitals in France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The study included 1,974 patients presenting to the emergency department with non–high-risk acute PE as defined by hemodynamic stability. About 39% of patients in the Hestia group were eligible for outpatient care on the basis of ‘no’ answers regarding all 11 criteria, while 48% of patients had an sPESI score of 0 and were thus initially considered appropriate for outpatient management.

However, the investigators recognized that no scoring system for acute PE is perfect, and that the judgment of a physician with extensive experience in managing this life-threatening condition counts for a lot. So they stipulated that a patient’s physician-in-charge could overrule a decision for early discharge. This happened 29% of the time in patients with a sPESI score of 0, as compared with a 3% overrule rate with the Hestia rule. The physician-in-charge also moved small numbers of patients who were Hestia or sPESI positive into the outpatient care group. As a result, a similar proportion of patients in both groups were discharged home within 24 hours for outpatient treatment: 38% of the total Hestia group and 37% in the sPESI arm.

Major adverse event rates were reassuringly low in both groups managed on an outpatient basis. The composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, or death within 30 days occurred in 1.3% of Hestia outpatients and 1.1% of sPESI outpatients. Among patients managed in the hospital, these rates were 5.6% in the Hestia group and 4.7% in the sPESI group.

Discussant Stavros V. Konstantinides, MD, who chaired the ESC guideline committee, asked rhetorically, “who’s happy with the HOME-PE trial? I think everybody.”

“The Hestia criteria integrate the feasibility of family support of the individual patient. This is a good thing. And eligibility based on the Hestia criteria, unlike sPESI, does not require age younger than 80 years or no cancer, and it appears from the HOME-PE study that this is okay,” observed Dr. Konstantinides of the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis at the University of Mainz (Germany).

In an interview, Hadley Wilson, MD, called the HOME-PE trial “transformative” and predicted it will change clinical practice. He was particularly impressed with the high quality of the trial, noting that 87% of participants managed as outpatients received a direct oral anticoagulant.

The Hestia rule is simpler and more user-friendly. And greater use of this triaging strategy might have advantages in terms of economics and health care utilization by potentially encouraging movement of decision-making regarding outpatient management of acute PE out of the hospital wards and into emergency departments, said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute and a cardiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Roy reported receiving research grants to conduct HOME-PE from the French Ministry of Health, the study sponsor. In addition, he is on scientific advisory boards and/or speakers’ panels for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Aspen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi Aventis.
 

[email protected]

Marilyn Stebbins, PharmD, fell ill at the end of February 2020. Initially diagnosed with multifocal pneumonia and treated with antibiotics, she later developed severe gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue, and shortness of breath. She was hospitalized in early March and was diagnosed with COVID-19.

It was still early in the pandemic, and testing was not available for her husband. After she was discharged, her husband isolated himself as much as possible. But that limited the amount of care he could offer.

“When I came home after 8 days in the ICU, I felt completely alone and terrified of not being able to care for myself and not knowing how much care my husband could provide,” said Dr. Stebbins, professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.

“I can’t even imagine what it would have been like if I had been home alone without my husband in the house,” she said. “I think about the people who died at home and understand how that might happen.”

Dr. Stebbins is one of tens of thousands of people who, whether hospitalized and discharged or never admitted for inpatient care, needed to find ways to convalesce at home. Data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show that, of 326,674 beneficiaries who tested positive for COVID-19 between May 16 and June 11, 2020, 109,607 were hospitalized, suggesting that two-thirds were outpatients.

Most attention has focused on the sickest patients, leaving less severe cases to fall through the cracks. Despite fever, cough, difficulty breathing, and a surfeit of other symptoms, there are few available resources and all too little support to help patients navigate the physical and emotional struggles of contending with COVID-19 at home.
 

No ‘cookie-cutter’ approach

The speed with which the pandemic progressed caught public health systems off guard, but now, “it is essential to put into place the infrastructure to care for the physical and mental health needs of patients at home because most are in the community and many, if not most, still aren’t receiving sufficient support at home,” said Dr. Stebbins.

Caring for COVID-19 patients at home begins with determining their individual needs, said Gary LeRoy, MD, a family physician in Dayton, Ohio. He emphasized that there is “no cookie-cutter formula” for home care, because every patient’s situation is different.

“I begin by having a detailed conversation with each patient to ascertain whether their home environment is safe and to paint a picture of their circumstances,” Dr. LeRoy, who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview.

Dr. LeRoy suggested questions that constitute “not just a ‘medical’ checklist but a ‘whole life’ checklist.”

• Do you have access to food, water, medications, sanitation/cleaning supplies, a thermometer, and other necessities? If not, who might assist in providing those?
• Do you need help with activities of daily living and self-care?
• Who else lives in your household? Do they have signs and symptoms of the virus? Have they been tested?
• Do you have enough physical space between you and other household members?
• Do you have children? How are they being cared for?
• What type of work do you do? What are the implications for your employment if you are unable to work for an extended period?
• Do you have an emotional, social, and spiritual support system (e.g., family, friends, community, church)?
• Do you have concerns I haven’t mentioned?

Patients’ responses will inform the management plan and determine what medical and social resources are needed, he said.
 

Daily check-in

Dr. Stebbins said the nurse case manager from her insurance company called her daily after she came home from the hospital. She was told that a public health nurse would also call, but no one from the health department called for days – a situation she hopes has improved.

One way or another, she said, “health care providers [or their staff] should check in with patients daily, either telephonically or via video.” She noted that video is superior, because “someone who isn’t a family member needs to put eyes on a patient and might be able to detect warning signs that a family member without healthcare training might not notice.”

Dr. LeRoy, who is also an associate professor of medicine at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, said that, given his time constraints, a nurse or medical assistant in his practice conducts the daily check-ins and notifies him if the patient has fever or other symptoms.

“Under ordinary circumstances, when a patient comes to see me for some type of medical condition, I get to meet the patient, consider what might be going on, then order a test, wait for the results, and suggest a treatment plan. But these are anything but ordinary circumstances,” said Matthew Exline, MD, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

“That traditional structure broke down with COVID-19, when we may have test results without even seeing the patient. And without this interaction, it is harder to know as a physician what course of action to take,” he said in an interview.

Once a diagnosis has been made, the physician has at least some data to help guide next steps, even if there has been no prior meeting with the patient.

For example, a positive test raises a host of issues, not the least of which is the risk of spreading the infection to other household members and questions about whether to go the hospital. Moreover, for patients, positive tests can have serious ramifications.

“Severe shortness of breath at rest is not typical of the flu, nor is loss of taste or smell,” said Dr. Exline. Practitioners must educate patients and families about specific symptoms of COVID-19, including shortness of breath, loss of taste or smell, and gastrointestinal or neurologic symptoms, and when to seek emergency care.

Dr. LeRoy suggests buying a pulse oximeter to gauge blood oxygen levels and pulse rate. Together with a thermometer, a portable blood pressure monitor, and, if indicated, a blood glucose monitor, these devices provide a comprehensive and accurate assessment of vital signs.

Dr. LeRoy also educates patients and their families about when to seek medical attention.

Dr. Stebbins takes a similar approach. “Family members are part of, not apart from, the care of patients with COVID-19, and it’s our responsibility as healthcare providers to consider them in the patient’s care plan.”
 

Keeping family safe

Beyond care, family members need a plan to keep themselves healthy, too.

“A patient with COVID-19 at home should self-quarantine as much as possible to keep other family members safe, if they continue to live in the same house,” Dr. Exline said.

Ideally, uninfected family members should stay with relatives or friends. When that’s not possible, everyone in the household should wear a mask, be vigilant about hand washing, and wipe down all surfaces – including doorknobs, light switches, faucet handles, cellphones, and utensils – regularly with bleach or an alcohol solution.

Caregivers should also minimize the amount of time they are exposed to the patient.

“Set food, water, and medication on the night table and leave the room rather than spending hours at the bedside, since limiting exposure to viral load reduces the chances of contagion,” said Dr. Exline.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers guidance for household members caring for COVID-19 patients at home. It provides tips on how to help patients follow the doctor’s instructions and ways to ensure adequate hydration and rest, among others.

Patients with COVID-19 who live alone face more formidable challenges.

Dr. LeRoy says physicians can help patients by educating themselves about available social services in their community so they can provide appropriate referrals and connections. Such initiatives can include meal programs, friendly visit and financial assistance programs, as well as childcare and home health agencies.

He noted that Aunt Bertha, a social care network, provides a guide to social services throughout the United States. Additional resources are available on USA.gov.
 

Comfort and support

Patients with COVID-19 need to be as comfortable and as supported as possible, both physically and emotionally.

“While I was sick, my dogs curled up next to me and didn’t leave my side, and they were my saving grace. There’s not enough to be said about emotional support,” Dr. Stebbins said.

Although important, emotional support is not enough. For patients with respiratory disorders, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart failure, or pneumonia, their subjective symptoms of shortness of breath, air hunger, or cough may improve with supplemental oxygen at home. Other measures include repositioning of the patient to lessen the body weight over the lungs or the use of lung percussion, Leroy said.

He added that improvement may also come from drainage of sputum from the airway passages, the use of agents to liquefy thick sputum (mucolytics), or aerosolized bronchodilator medications.

However, Dr. LeRoy cautioned, “one remedy does not work for everyone – an individual can improve gradually by using these home support interventions, or their respiratory status can deteriorate rapidly despite all these interventions.”

For this reason, he says patients should consult their personal physician to determine which, if any, of these home treatments would be best for their particular situation.

Patients who need emotional support, psychotherapy, or psychotropic medications may find teletherapy helpful. Guidance for psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers regarding the treatment of COVID-19 patients via teletherapy can be found on the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers websites.

Pharmacists can also help ensure patient safety, Dr. Stebbins said.

If a patient has not picked up their usual medications, Dr. Stebbins said, “they may need a check-in call. Some may be ill and alone and may need encouragement to seek medical attention, and some may have no means of getting to the pharmacy and may need medications delivered.”

A home healthcare agency may also be helpful for homebound patients. David Bersson, director of operations at Synergy Home Care of Bergen County, N.J., has arranged in-home caregivers for patients with COVID-19.

The amount of care that professional caregivers provide can range from several hours per week to full-time, depending on the patient’s needs and budget, and can include companionship, Mr. Bersson said in an interview.

Because patient and caregiver safety are paramount, caregivers are thoroughly trained in protection and decontamination procedures and are regularly tested for COVID-19 prior to being sent into a client’s home.

Health insurance companies do not cover this service, Mr. Bersson noted, but the VetAssist program covers home care for veterans and their spouses who meet income requirements.

Caregiving and companionship are both vital pieces of the at-home care puzzle. “It was the virtual emotional support I got from friends, family, coworkers, and healthcare professionals that meant so much to me, and I know they played an important part in my recovery,” Dr. Stebbins said.

Dr. LeRoy agreed, noting that he calls patients, even if they only have mild symptoms and his nurse has already spoken to them. “The call doesn’t take much time – maybe just a 5-minute conversation – but it makes patients aware that I care.”

Dr. Stebbins, Dr. Exline, and Dr. LeRoy report no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Bersson is the director of operations at Synergy Home Care of Bergen County, New Jersey.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Marilyn Stebbins, PharmD, fell ill at the end of February 2020. Initially diagnosed with multifocal pneumonia and treated with antibiotics, she later developed severe gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue, and shortness of breath. She was hospitalized in early March and was diagnosed with COVID-19.

It was still early in the pandemic, and testing was not available for her husband. After she was discharged, her husband isolated himself as much as possible. But that limited the amount of care he could offer.

“When I came home after 8 days in the ICU, I felt completely alone and terrified of not being able to care for myself and not knowing how much care my husband could provide,” said Dr. Stebbins, professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.

“I can’t even imagine what it would have been like if I had been home alone without my husband in the house,” she said. “I think about the people who died at home and understand how that might happen.”

Dr. Stebbins is one of tens of thousands of people who, whether hospitalized and discharged or never admitted for inpatient care, needed to find ways to convalesce at home. Data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show that, of 326,674 beneficiaries who tested positive for COVID-19 between May 16 and June 11, 2020, 109,607 were hospitalized, suggesting that two-thirds were outpatients.

Most attention has focused on the sickest patients, leaving less severe cases to fall through the cracks. Despite fever, cough, difficulty breathing, and a surfeit of other symptoms, there are few available resources and all too little support to help patients navigate the physical and emotional struggles of contending with COVID-19 at home.
 

No ‘cookie-cutter’ approach

The speed with which the pandemic progressed caught public health systems off guard, but now, “it is essential to put into place the infrastructure to care for the physical and mental health needs of patients at home because most are in the community and many, if not most, still aren’t receiving sufficient support at home,” said Dr. Stebbins.

Caring for COVID-19 patients at home begins with determining their individual needs, said Gary LeRoy, MD, a family physician in Dayton, Ohio. He emphasized that there is “no cookie-cutter formula” for home care, because every patient’s situation is different.

“I begin by having a detailed conversation with each patient to ascertain whether their home environment is safe and to paint a picture of their circumstances,” Dr. LeRoy, who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview.

Dr. LeRoy suggested questions that constitute “not just a ‘medical’ checklist but a ‘whole life’ checklist.”

• Do you have access to food, water, medications, sanitation/cleaning supplies, a thermometer, and other necessities? If not, who might assist in providing those?
• Do you need help with activities of daily living and self-care?
• Who else lives in your household? Do they have signs and symptoms of the virus? Have they been tested?
• Do you have enough physical space between you and other household members?
• Do you have children? How are they being cared for?
• What type of work do you do? What are the implications for your employment if you are unable to work for an extended period?
• Do you have an emotional, social, and spiritual support system (e.g., family, friends, community, church)?
• Do you have concerns I haven’t mentioned?

Patients’ responses will inform the management plan and determine what medical and social resources are needed, he said.
 

Daily check-in

Dr. Stebbins said the nurse case manager from her insurance company called her daily after she came home from the hospital. She was told that a public health nurse would also call, but no one from the health department called for days – a situation she hopes has improved.

One way or another, she said, “health care providers [or their staff] should check in with patients daily, either telephonically or via video.” She noted that video is superior, because “someone who isn’t a family member needs to put eyes on a patient and might be able to detect warning signs that a family member without healthcare training might not notice.”

Dr. LeRoy, who is also an associate professor of medicine at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, said that, given his time constraints, a nurse or medical assistant in his practice conducts the daily check-ins and notifies him if the patient has fever or other symptoms.

“Under ordinary circumstances, when a patient comes to see me for some type of medical condition, I get to meet the patient, consider what might be going on, then order a test, wait for the results, and suggest a treatment plan. But these are anything but ordinary circumstances,” said Matthew Exline, MD, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

“That traditional structure broke down with COVID-19, when we may have test results without even seeing the patient. And without this interaction, it is harder to know as a physician what course of action to take,” he said in an interview.

Once a diagnosis has been made, the physician has at least some data to help guide next steps, even if there has been no prior meeting with the patient.

For example, a positive test raises a host of issues, not the least of which is the risk of spreading the infection to other household members and questions about whether to go the hospital. Moreover, for patients, positive tests can have serious ramifications.

“Severe shortness of breath at rest is not typical of the flu, nor is loss of taste or smell,” said Dr. Exline. Practitioners must educate patients and families about specific symptoms of COVID-19, including shortness of breath, loss of taste or smell, and gastrointestinal or neurologic symptoms, and when to seek emergency care.

Dr. LeRoy suggests buying a pulse oximeter to gauge blood oxygen levels and pulse rate. Together with a thermometer, a portable blood pressure monitor, and, if indicated, a blood glucose monitor, these devices provide a comprehensive and accurate assessment of vital signs.

Dr. LeRoy also educates patients and their families about when to seek medical attention.

Dr. Stebbins takes a similar approach. “Family members are part of, not apart from, the care of patients with COVID-19, and it’s our responsibility as healthcare providers to consider them in the patient’s care plan.”
 

Keeping family safe

Beyond care, family members need a plan to keep themselves healthy, too.

“A patient with COVID-19 at home should self-quarantine as much as possible to keep other family members safe, if they continue to live in the same house,” Dr. Exline said.

Ideally, uninfected family members should stay with relatives or friends. When that’s not possible, everyone in the household should wear a mask, be vigilant about hand washing, and wipe down all surfaces – including doorknobs, light switches, faucet handles, cellphones, and utensils – regularly with bleach or an alcohol solution.

Caregivers should also minimize the amount of time they are exposed to the patient.

“Set food, water, and medication on the night table and leave the room rather than spending hours at the bedside, since limiting exposure to viral load reduces the chances of contagion,” said Dr. Exline.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers guidance for household members caring for COVID-19 patients at home. It provides tips on how to help patients follow the doctor’s instructions and ways to ensure adequate hydration and rest, among others.

Patients with COVID-19 who live alone face more formidable challenges.

Dr. LeRoy says physicians can help patients by educating themselves about available social services in their community so they can provide appropriate referrals and connections. Such initiatives can include meal programs, friendly visit and financial assistance programs, as well as childcare and home health agencies.

He noted that Aunt Bertha, a social care network, provides a guide to social services throughout the United States. Additional resources are available on USA.gov.
 

Comfort and support

Patients with COVID-19 need to be as comfortable and as supported as possible, both physically and emotionally.

“While I was sick, my dogs curled up next to me and didn’t leave my side, and they were my saving grace. There’s not enough to be said about emotional support,” Dr. Stebbins said.

Although important, emotional support is not enough. For patients with respiratory disorders, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart failure, or pneumonia, their subjective symptoms of shortness of breath, air hunger, or cough may improve with supplemental oxygen at home. Other measures include repositioning of the patient to lessen the body weight over the lungs or the use of lung percussion, Leroy said.

He added that improvement may also come from drainage of sputum from the airway passages, the use of agents to liquefy thick sputum (mucolytics), or aerosolized bronchodilator medications.

However, Dr. LeRoy cautioned, “one remedy does not work for everyone – an individual can improve gradually by using these home support interventions, or their respiratory status can deteriorate rapidly despite all these interventions.”

For this reason, he says patients should consult their personal physician to determine which, if any, of these home treatments would be best for their particular situation.

Patients who need emotional support, psychotherapy, or psychotropic medications may find teletherapy helpful. Guidance for psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers regarding the treatment of COVID-19 patients via teletherapy can be found on the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers websites.

Pharmacists can also help ensure patient safety, Dr. Stebbins said.

If a patient has not picked up their usual medications, Dr. Stebbins said, “they may need a check-in call. Some may be ill and alone and may need encouragement to seek medical attention, and some may have no means of getting to the pharmacy and may need medications delivered.”

A home healthcare agency may also be helpful for homebound patients. David Bersson, director of operations at Synergy Home Care of Bergen County, N.J., has arranged in-home caregivers for patients with COVID-19.

The amount of care that professional caregivers provide can range from several hours per week to full-time, depending on the patient’s needs and budget, and can include companionship, Mr. Bersson said in an interview.

Because patient and caregiver safety are paramount, caregivers are thoroughly trained in protection and decontamination procedures and are regularly tested for COVID-19 prior to being sent into a client’s home.

Health insurance companies do not cover this service, Mr. Bersson noted, but the VetAssist program covers home care for veterans and their spouses who meet income requirements.

Caregiving and companionship are both vital pieces of the at-home care puzzle. “It was the virtual emotional support I got from friends, family, coworkers, and healthcare professionals that meant so much to me, and I know they played an important part in my recovery,” Dr. Stebbins said.

Dr. LeRoy agreed, noting that he calls patients, even if they only have mild symptoms and his nurse has already spoken to them. “The call doesn’t take much time – maybe just a 5-minute conversation – but it makes patients aware that I care.”

Dr. Stebbins, Dr. Exline, and Dr. LeRoy report no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Bersson is the director of operations at Synergy Home Care of Bergen County, New Jersey.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Marilyn Stebbins, PharmD, fell ill at the end of February 2020. Initially diagnosed with multifocal pneumonia and treated with antibiotics, she later developed severe gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue, and shortness of breath. She was hospitalized in early March and was diagnosed with COVID-19.

It was still early in the pandemic, and testing was not available for her husband. After she was discharged, her husband isolated himself as much as possible. But that limited the amount of care he could offer.

“When I came home after 8 days in the ICU, I felt completely alone and terrified of not being able to care for myself and not knowing how much care my husband could provide,” said Dr. Stebbins, professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.

“I can’t even imagine what it would have been like if I had been home alone without my husband in the house,” she said. “I think about the people who died at home and understand how that might happen.”

Dr. Stebbins is one of tens of thousands of people who, whether hospitalized and discharged or never admitted for inpatient care, needed to find ways to convalesce at home. Data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show that, of 326,674 beneficiaries who tested positive for COVID-19 between May 16 and June 11, 2020, 109,607 were hospitalized, suggesting that two-thirds were outpatients.

Most attention has focused on the sickest patients, leaving less severe cases to fall through the cracks. Despite fever, cough, difficulty breathing, and a surfeit of other symptoms, there are few available resources and all too little support to help patients navigate the physical and emotional struggles of contending with COVID-19 at home.
 

No ‘cookie-cutter’ approach

The speed with which the pandemic progressed caught public health systems off guard, but now, “it is essential to put into place the infrastructure to care for the physical and mental health needs of patients at home because most are in the community and many, if not most, still aren’t receiving sufficient support at home,” said Dr. Stebbins.

Caring for COVID-19 patients at home begins with determining their individual needs, said Gary LeRoy, MD, a family physician in Dayton, Ohio. He emphasized that there is “no cookie-cutter formula” for home care, because every patient’s situation is different.

“I begin by having a detailed conversation with each patient to ascertain whether their home environment is safe and to paint a picture of their circumstances,” Dr. LeRoy, who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview.

Dr. LeRoy suggested questions that constitute “not just a ‘medical’ checklist but a ‘whole life’ checklist.”

• Do you have access to food, water, medications, sanitation/cleaning supplies, a thermometer, and other necessities? If not, who might assist in providing those?
• Do you need help with activities of daily living and self-care?
• Who else lives in your household? Do they have signs and symptoms of the virus? Have they been tested?
• Do you have enough physical space between you and other household members?
• Do you have children? How are they being cared for?
• What type of work do you do? What are the implications for your employment if you are unable to work for an extended period?
• Do you have an emotional, social, and spiritual support system (e.g., family, friends, community, church)?
• Do you have concerns I haven’t mentioned?

Patients’ responses will inform the management plan and determine what medical and social resources are needed, he said.
 

Daily check-in

Dr. Stebbins said the nurse case manager from her insurance company called her daily after she came home from the hospital. She was told that a public health nurse would also call, but no one from the health department called for days – a situation she hopes has improved.

One way or another, she said, “health care providers [or their staff] should check in with patients daily, either telephonically or via video.” She noted that video is superior, because “someone who isn’t a family member needs to put eyes on a patient and might be able to detect warning signs that a family member without healthcare training might not notice.”

Dr. LeRoy, who is also an associate professor of medicine at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, said that, given his time constraints, a nurse or medical assistant in his practice conducts the daily check-ins and notifies him if the patient has fever or other symptoms.

“Under ordinary circumstances, when a patient comes to see me for some type of medical condition, I get to meet the patient, consider what might be going on, then order a test, wait for the results, and suggest a treatment plan. But these are anything but ordinary circumstances,” said Matthew Exline, MD, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

“That traditional structure broke down with COVID-19, when we may have test results without even seeing the patient. And without this interaction, it is harder to know as a physician what course of action to take,” he said in an interview.

Once a diagnosis has been made, the physician has at least some data to help guide next steps, even if there has been no prior meeting with the patient.

For example, a positive test raises a host of issues, not the least of which is the risk of spreading the infection to other household members and questions about whether to go the hospital. Moreover, for patients, positive tests can have serious ramifications.

“Severe shortness of breath at rest is not typical of the flu, nor is loss of taste or smell,” said Dr. Exline. Practitioners must educate patients and families about specific symptoms of COVID-19, including shortness of breath, loss of taste or smell, and gastrointestinal or neurologic symptoms, and when to seek emergency care.

Dr. LeRoy suggests buying a pulse oximeter to gauge blood oxygen levels and pulse rate. Together with a thermometer, a portable blood pressure monitor, and, if indicated, a blood glucose monitor, these devices provide a comprehensive and accurate assessment of vital signs.

Dr. LeRoy also educates patients and their families about when to seek medical attention.

Dr. Stebbins takes a similar approach. “Family members are part of, not apart from, the care of patients with COVID-19, and it’s our responsibility as healthcare providers to consider them in the patient’s care plan.”
 

Keeping family safe

Beyond care, family members need a plan to keep themselves healthy, too.

“A patient with COVID-19 at home should self-quarantine as much as possible to keep other family members safe, if they continue to live in the same house,” Dr. Exline said.

Ideally, uninfected family members should stay with relatives or friends. When that’s not possible, everyone in the household should wear a mask, be vigilant about hand washing, and wipe down all surfaces – including doorknobs, light switches, faucet handles, cellphones, and utensils – regularly with bleach or an alcohol solution.

Caregivers should also minimize the amount of time they are exposed to the patient.

“Set food, water, and medication on the night table and leave the room rather than spending hours at the bedside, since limiting exposure to viral load reduces the chances of contagion,” said Dr. Exline.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers guidance for household members caring for COVID-19 patients at home. It provides tips on how to help patients follow the doctor’s instructions and ways to ensure adequate hydration and rest, among others.

Patients with COVID-19 who live alone face more formidable challenges.

Dr. LeRoy says physicians can help patients by educating themselves about available social services in their community so they can provide appropriate referrals and connections. Such initiatives can include meal programs, friendly visit and financial assistance programs, as well as childcare and home health agencies.

He noted that Aunt Bertha, a social care network, provides a guide to social services throughout the United States. Additional resources are available on USA.gov.
 

Comfort and support

Patients with COVID-19 need to be as comfortable and as supported as possible, both physically and emotionally.

“While I was sick, my dogs curled up next to me and didn’t leave my side, and they were my saving grace. There’s not enough to be said about emotional support,” Dr. Stebbins said.

Although important, emotional support is not enough. For patients with respiratory disorders, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart failure, or pneumonia, their subjective symptoms of shortness of breath, air hunger, or cough may improve with supplemental oxygen at home. Other measures include repositioning of the patient to lessen the body weight over the lungs or the use of lung percussion, Leroy said.

He added that improvement may also come from drainage of sputum from the airway passages, the use of agents to liquefy thick sputum (mucolytics), or aerosolized bronchodilator medications.

However, Dr. LeRoy cautioned, “one remedy does not work for everyone – an individual can improve gradually by using these home support interventions, or their respiratory status can deteriorate rapidly despite all these interventions.”

For this reason, he says patients should consult their personal physician to determine which, if any, of these home treatments would be best for their particular situation.

Patients who need emotional support, psychotherapy, or psychotropic medications may find teletherapy helpful. Guidance for psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers regarding the treatment of COVID-19 patients via teletherapy can be found on the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers websites.

Pharmacists can also help ensure patient safety, Dr. Stebbins said.

If a patient has not picked up their usual medications, Dr. Stebbins said, “they may need a check-in call. Some may be ill and alone and may need encouragement to seek medical attention, and some may have no means of getting to the pharmacy and may need medications delivered.”

A home healthcare agency may also be helpful for homebound patients. David Bersson, director of operations at Synergy Home Care of Bergen County, N.J., has arranged in-home caregivers for patients with COVID-19.

The amount of care that professional caregivers provide can range from several hours per week to full-time, depending on the patient’s needs and budget, and can include companionship, Mr. Bersson said in an interview.

Because patient and caregiver safety are paramount, caregivers are thoroughly trained in protection and decontamination procedures and are regularly tested for COVID-19 prior to being sent into a client’s home.

Health insurance companies do not cover this service, Mr. Bersson noted, but the VetAssist program covers home care for veterans and their spouses who meet income requirements.

Caregiving and companionship are both vital pieces of the at-home care puzzle. “It was the virtual emotional support I got from friends, family, coworkers, and healthcare professionals that meant so much to me, and I know they played an important part in my recovery,” Dr. Stebbins said.

Dr. LeRoy agreed, noting that he calls patients, even if they only have mild symptoms and his nurse has already spoken to them. “The call doesn’t take much time – maybe just a 5-minute conversation – but it makes patients aware that I care.”

Dr. Stebbins, Dr. Exline, and Dr. LeRoy report no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Bersson is the director of operations at Synergy Home Care of Bergen County, New Jersey.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the use of famotidine was significantly associated with a reduction in death and either death or intubation. It also demonstrated lower levels of serum markers for severe disease.

The findings come from an observational study of 83 hospitalized patients that was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The mechanism of exactly how famotidine works has yet to be proven,” lead study author Jeffrey F. Mather, MS, said in an interview. “There’s thought that it works directly on the virus, and there is thought that it works through inactivating certain proteases that are required for the virus infection, but I think the most interesting [hypothesis] is by Malone et al. “They’re looking at the blocking of the histamine-2 receptor causing a decrease in the amount of histamine. It’s all speculative, but it will be interesting if that gets worked out.”

In a study that largely mimicked that of an earlier, larger published observational study on the topic (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053), Mr. Mather and colleagues retrospectively evaluated 878 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and who required admission to Hartford (Conn.) Hospital between Feb. 24, 2020, and May 14, 2020. Patients were classified as receiving famotidine if they were treated with either oral or intravenous drug within 1 week of COVID-19 screening and/or hospital admission. Primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital death as recorded in the discharge of the patients, requirement for mechanical ventilation, and the composite of death or requirement for ventilation. Secondary outcomes of interest were several serum markers of disease activity including white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, and eosinophil count.

Famotidine was administered orally in 83% of the patients and intravenously in the remaining 17%. Mr. Mather, director of data management in the division of research management at Hartford Hospital, and his colleagues reported that 83 of the 878 patients studied (9.5%) received famotidine. Compared with patients not treated with famotidine, those who received the drug were slightly younger (a mean of 64 vs. 68 years, respectively; P = .021); otherwise, there were no differences between the two groups in baseline demographics or in preexisting comorbidities.

The use of famotidine was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.37; P = .021) as well as combined death or intubation (OR, 0.47; P = .040). The outcomes were similar when the researchers performed propensity score matching to adjust for age differences between groups.

In addition, the use of famotidine was associated with lower levels of serum markers for severe disease including lower median peak C-reactive protein levels (9.4 vs. 12.7 mg/dL; P =. 002), lower median procalcitonin levels (0.16 vs. 0.30 ng/mL; P = .004), and a nonsignificant trend to lower median mean ferritin levels (797.5 vs. 964 ng/mL; P = .076).

Logistic regression analysis revealed that use of famotidine was an independent predictor of both lower mortality and combined death/intubation. In addition, predictors of both adverse outcomes included older age, a body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m², chronic kidney disease, the national early warning score, and a higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio.

“This is an important stepping stone, but until we have a randomized, controlled trial, we really can’t speak about causation; we can only speak about association, and that’s okay,” Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, director of health services research at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, who was not affiliated with the study, said in an interview. “There’s nothing wrong with association because finding associations can raise important hypotheses that can then be tested in prospective randomized trials, for example.”

In July 2020, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues published a separate paper looking at proton pump inhibitors and the risk of COVID-19. “In that study we did look at H₂ blockers, and we did find that they were slightly associated with a reduction in COVID-19,” he said. “It was a small effect, but it was a benefit. When we see consistency among studies, it’s a signal in the noise we can try and follow and see if there is something more to it.”

Mr. Mather acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that patients who did and did not receive famotidine were propensity-matched for age. “The risk factors that others have shown for adverse events are equivalent in the groups, but anytime you do a retrospective study like this there is the potential for underlying factors that may play a role in the outcomes that you’re not considering,” Mr. Mather said. “That’s why the gold standard is the randomized trial, to wash those effects out. There’s only an association here, and it supports the need for a randomized trial.”

Famotidine is currently being tested in a double-blind randomized clinical trial in combination with either hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir (NCT 04370262).

“It’s fascinating because famotidine is a safe medicine,” added Dr. Spiegel, who is also co–editor in chief of the American Journal of Gastroenterology. “There are very few side effects; it’s something we’ve been using for decades.”

Mr. Mather and his colleagues reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Spiegel disclosed that he has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mather J et al. 2020 Aug 14. Am J Gastroenterol.

Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the use of famotidine was significantly associated with a reduction in death and either death or intubation. It also demonstrated lower levels of serum markers for severe disease.

The findings come from an observational study of 83 hospitalized patients that was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The mechanism of exactly how famotidine works has yet to be proven,” lead study author Jeffrey F. Mather, MS, said in an interview. “There’s thought that it works directly on the virus, and there is thought that it works through inactivating certain proteases that are required for the virus infection, but I think the most interesting [hypothesis] is by Malone et al. “They’re looking at the blocking of the histamine-2 receptor causing a decrease in the amount of histamine. It’s all speculative, but it will be interesting if that gets worked out.”

In a study that largely mimicked that of an earlier, larger published observational study on the topic (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053), Mr. Mather and colleagues retrospectively evaluated 878 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and who required admission to Hartford (Conn.) Hospital between Feb. 24, 2020, and May 14, 2020. Patients were classified as receiving famotidine if they were treated with either oral or intravenous drug within 1 week of COVID-19 screening and/or hospital admission. Primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital death as recorded in the discharge of the patients, requirement for mechanical ventilation, and the composite of death or requirement for ventilation. Secondary outcomes of interest were several serum markers of disease activity including white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, and eosinophil count.

Famotidine was administered orally in 83% of the patients and intravenously in the remaining 17%. Mr. Mather, director of data management in the division of research management at Hartford Hospital, and his colleagues reported that 83 of the 878 patients studied (9.5%) received famotidine. Compared with patients not treated with famotidine, those who received the drug were slightly younger (a mean of 64 vs. 68 years, respectively; P = .021); otherwise, there were no differences between the two groups in baseline demographics or in preexisting comorbidities.

The use of famotidine was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.37; P = .021) as well as combined death or intubation (OR, 0.47; P = .040). The outcomes were similar when the researchers performed propensity score matching to adjust for age differences between groups.

In addition, the use of famotidine was associated with lower levels of serum markers for severe disease including lower median peak C-reactive protein levels (9.4 vs. 12.7 mg/dL; P =. 002), lower median procalcitonin levels (0.16 vs. 0.30 ng/mL; P = .004), and a nonsignificant trend to lower median mean ferritin levels (797.5 vs. 964 ng/mL; P = .076).

Logistic regression analysis revealed that use of famotidine was an independent predictor of both lower mortality and combined death/intubation. In addition, predictors of both adverse outcomes included older age, a body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m², chronic kidney disease, the national early warning score, and a higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio.

“This is an important stepping stone, but until we have a randomized, controlled trial, we really can’t speak about causation; we can only speak about association, and that’s okay,” Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, director of health services research at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, who was not affiliated with the study, said in an interview. “There’s nothing wrong with association because finding associations can raise important hypotheses that can then be tested in prospective randomized trials, for example.”

In July 2020, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues published a separate paper looking at proton pump inhibitors and the risk of COVID-19. “In that study we did look at H₂ blockers, and we did find that they were slightly associated with a reduction in COVID-19,” he said. “It was a small effect, but it was a benefit. When we see consistency among studies, it’s a signal in the noise we can try and follow and see if there is something more to it.”

Mr. Mather acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that patients who did and did not receive famotidine were propensity-matched for age. “The risk factors that others have shown for adverse events are equivalent in the groups, but anytime you do a retrospective study like this there is the potential for underlying factors that may play a role in the outcomes that you’re not considering,” Mr. Mather said. “That’s why the gold standard is the randomized trial, to wash those effects out. There’s only an association here, and it supports the need for a randomized trial.”

Famotidine is currently being tested in a double-blind randomized clinical trial in combination with either hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir (NCT 04370262).

“It’s fascinating because famotidine is a safe medicine,” added Dr. Spiegel, who is also co–editor in chief of the American Journal of Gastroenterology. “There are very few side effects; it’s something we’ve been using for decades.”

Mr. Mather and his colleagues reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Spiegel disclosed that he has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mather J et al. 2020 Aug 14. Am J Gastroenterol.

Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the use of famotidine was significantly associated with a reduction in death and either death or intubation. It also demonstrated lower levels of serum markers for severe disease.

The findings come from an observational study of 83 hospitalized patients that was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The mechanism of exactly how famotidine works has yet to be proven,” lead study author Jeffrey F. Mather, MS, said in an interview. “There’s thought that it works directly on the virus, and there is thought that it works through inactivating certain proteases that are required for the virus infection, but I think the most interesting [hypothesis] is by Malone et al. “They’re looking at the blocking of the histamine-2 receptor causing a decrease in the amount of histamine. It’s all speculative, but it will be interesting if that gets worked out.”

In a study that largely mimicked that of an earlier, larger published observational study on the topic (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053), Mr. Mather and colleagues retrospectively evaluated 878 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and who required admission to Hartford (Conn.) Hospital between Feb. 24, 2020, and May 14, 2020. Patients were classified as receiving famotidine if they were treated with either oral or intravenous drug within 1 week of COVID-19 screening and/or hospital admission. Primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital death as recorded in the discharge of the patients, requirement for mechanical ventilation, and the composite of death or requirement for ventilation. Secondary outcomes of interest were several serum markers of disease activity including white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, and eosinophil count.

Famotidine was administered orally in 83% of the patients and intravenously in the remaining 17%. Mr. Mather, director of data management in the division of research management at Hartford Hospital, and his colleagues reported that 83 of the 878 patients studied (9.5%) received famotidine. Compared with patients not treated with famotidine, those who received the drug were slightly younger (a mean of 64 vs. 68 years, respectively; P = .021); otherwise, there were no differences between the two groups in baseline demographics or in preexisting comorbidities.

The use of famotidine was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.37; P = .021) as well as combined death or intubation (OR, 0.47; P = .040). The outcomes were similar when the researchers performed propensity score matching to adjust for age differences between groups.

In addition, the use of famotidine was associated with lower levels of serum markers for severe disease including lower median peak C-reactive protein levels (9.4 vs. 12.7 mg/dL; P =. 002), lower median procalcitonin levels (0.16 vs. 0.30 ng/mL; P = .004), and a nonsignificant trend to lower median mean ferritin levels (797.5 vs. 964 ng/mL; P = .076).

Logistic regression analysis revealed that use of famotidine was an independent predictor of both lower mortality and combined death/intubation. In addition, predictors of both adverse outcomes included older age, a body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m², chronic kidney disease, the national early warning score, and a higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio.

“This is an important stepping stone, but until we have a randomized, controlled trial, we really can’t speak about causation; we can only speak about association, and that’s okay,” Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, director of health services research at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, who was not affiliated with the study, said in an interview. “There’s nothing wrong with association because finding associations can raise important hypotheses that can then be tested in prospective randomized trials, for example.”

In July 2020, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues published a separate paper looking at proton pump inhibitors and the risk of COVID-19. “In that study we did look at H₂ blockers, and we did find that they were slightly associated with a reduction in COVID-19,” he said. “It was a small effect, but it was a benefit. When we see consistency among studies, it’s a signal in the noise we can try and follow and see if there is something more to it.”

Mr. Mather acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that patients who did and did not receive famotidine were propensity-matched for age. “The risk factors that others have shown for adverse events are equivalent in the groups, but anytime you do a retrospective study like this there is the potential for underlying factors that may play a role in the outcomes that you’re not considering,” Mr. Mather said. “That’s why the gold standard is the randomized trial, to wash those effects out. There’s only an association here, and it supports the need for a randomized trial.”

Famotidine is currently being tested in a double-blind randomized clinical trial in combination with either hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir (NCT 04370262).

“It’s fascinating because famotidine is a safe medicine,” added Dr. Spiegel, who is also co–editor in chief of the American Journal of Gastroenterology. “There are very few side effects; it’s something we’ve been using for decades.”

Mr. Mather and his colleagues reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Spiegel disclosed that he has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mather J et al. 2020 Aug 14. Am J Gastroenterol.

Complications from tobacco use are the most common preventable cause of death, disability, and disease in the United States. Tobacco use causes 480,000 premature deaths every year. In pregnancy, tobacco use causes complications such as premature birth, intrauterine growth restriction, and placental abruption. In the perinatal period, it is associated with sudden infant death syndrome. While cigarette smoking is decreasing in adolescents, e-cigarette use in on the rise. Approximately 1,600 children aged 12-17 smoke their first cigarette every day and it is estimated that 5.6 million children and adolescents will die of a tobacco use–related death.¹ For these reasons it is important to address tobacco use and cessation with patients whenever it is possible. Below is a case and recommendations related to a new American Thoracic Society guideline on initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults.

A forty-five-year-old male who rarely comes to the office is here today for a physical exam at the urging of his partner. He has been smoking a pack a day since age 17. You have tried at past visits to discuss quitting, but he had been in the precontemplative stage and had been unwilling to consider any change. This visit, however, he is ready to try to quit. What can you offer him?

Core recommendations from ATS guidelines

This patient can be offered varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy rather than nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, e-cigarettes, or varenicline alone. His course of therapy should extend beyond 12 weeks instead of the standard 6- to 12-week therapy. Alternatively, he could be offered varenicline alone, rather than nicotine replacement.²

A change from previous guidelines

What makes this recommendation so interesting and new is the emphasis it places on varenicline. The United States Preventive Services Task Force released a recommendation statement in 2015 that stressed a combination of pharmacological and behavioral interventions. It discussed nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline, but did not recommend any one over any of the others.³ The new recommendation from the American Thoracic Society favors varenicline over other pharmacologic interventions. It is based on an independent systematic review of the literature that showed higher rates of tobacco use abstinence at the 6-month follow-up with varenicline alone versus nicotine replacement therapy alone, bupropion alone, or e-cigarette use only.

A review of 14 randomized controlled trials showed that varenicline improves abstinence rates during treatment by approximately 40% compared with nicotine replacement, and by 20% at the end of 6 months of treatment. The review found that varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy is more effective than varenicline alone. In this comparison, based on three trials, there was a 36% higher abstinence rate at 6 months using varenicline plus nicotine replacement. When varenicline use was compared with use of a nicotine patch, bupropion, or e-cigarettes, there was a reduction in serious adverse events – changes in mood, suicidal ideation, and neurological side effects such as seizures.² Clinicians may remember a black box warning on the varenicline label citing neuropsychiatric effects and it is important to note that the Food and Drug Administration removed this boxed warning in 2016.⁴

Opinion

This recommendation represents an important, evidence-based change from previous guidelines. It presents the opportunity for better outcomes, but will likely take a while to filter into practice, as clinicians need to become more comfortable with the use of varenicline and insurance supports the cost of varenicline.

The average cost of varenicline for 12 weeks is between $1,220 and $1,584. For comparison, nicotine replacement therapy costs $170 to $240 for the same number of weeks. To put those costs in perspective, the 12-week cost of cigarettes for a two-pack-a-day smoker is approximately $1,000.

For some patients, the motivation to quit smoking comes from the realization of how much they are spending on cigarettes each month. That said, if a patient does not have insurance or their insurance does not cover the cost of varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy might be more appealing. It should be noted that better abstinence rates have been seen in patients taking varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy versus varenicline alone.

Suggested treatment

Based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, the American Thoracic Society’s guideline on pharmacological treatment in tobacco-dependent adults concludes that varenicline plus nicotine patch is the preferred pharmacological treatment for tobacco cessation when compared with varenicline alone, bupropion alone, nicotine replacement therapy alone, and e-cigarettes alone. If the patient does not want to start two medicines at once, then varenicline alone would be the preferred choice.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Primary care interventions for prevention and cessation of tobacco use in children and adolescents: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA.2020;323(16):1590-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4679.

2. Leone FT et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(2):e5–e31.

3. Tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant women: Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2015 Sep 21.

4. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA revises description of mental health side effects of the stop-smoking medicines Chantix (varenicline) and Zyban (bupropion) to reflect clinical trial findings. 2016 Dec. 16.

Complications from tobacco use are the most common preventable cause of death, disability, and disease in the United States. Tobacco use causes 480,000 premature deaths every year. In pregnancy, tobacco use causes complications such as premature birth, intrauterine growth restriction, and placental abruption. In the perinatal period, it is associated with sudden infant death syndrome. While cigarette smoking is decreasing in adolescents, e-cigarette use in on the rise. Approximately 1,600 children aged 12-17 smoke their first cigarette every day and it is estimated that 5.6 million children and adolescents will die of a tobacco use–related death.¹ For these reasons it is important to address tobacco use and cessation with patients whenever it is possible. Below is a case and recommendations related to a new American Thoracic Society guideline on initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults.

A forty-five-year-old male who rarely comes to the office is here today for a physical exam at the urging of his partner. He has been smoking a pack a day since age 17. You have tried at past visits to discuss quitting, but he had been in the precontemplative stage and had been unwilling to consider any change. This visit, however, he is ready to try to quit. What can you offer him?

Core recommendations from ATS guidelines

This patient can be offered varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy rather than nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, e-cigarettes, or varenicline alone. His course of therapy should extend beyond 12 weeks instead of the standard 6- to 12-week therapy. Alternatively, he could be offered varenicline alone, rather than nicotine replacement.²

A change from previous guidelines

What makes this recommendation so interesting and new is the emphasis it places on varenicline. The United States Preventive Services Task Force released a recommendation statement in 2015 that stressed a combination of pharmacological and behavioral interventions. It discussed nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline, but did not recommend any one over any of the others.³ The new recommendation from the American Thoracic Society favors varenicline over other pharmacologic interventions. It is based on an independent systematic review of the literature that showed higher rates of tobacco use abstinence at the 6-month follow-up with varenicline alone versus nicotine replacement therapy alone, bupropion alone, or e-cigarette use only.

A review of 14 randomized controlled trials showed that varenicline improves abstinence rates during treatment by approximately 40% compared with nicotine replacement, and by 20% at the end of 6 months of treatment. The review found that varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy is more effective than varenicline alone. In this comparison, based on three trials, there was a 36% higher abstinence rate at 6 months using varenicline plus nicotine replacement. When varenicline use was compared with use of a nicotine patch, bupropion, or e-cigarettes, there was a reduction in serious adverse events – changes in mood, suicidal ideation, and neurological side effects such as seizures.² Clinicians may remember a black box warning on the varenicline label citing neuropsychiatric effects and it is important to note that the Food and Drug Administration removed this boxed warning in 2016.⁴

Opinion

This recommendation represents an important, evidence-based change from previous guidelines. It presents the opportunity for better outcomes, but will likely take a while to filter into practice, as clinicians need to become more comfortable with the use of varenicline and insurance supports the cost of varenicline.

The average cost of varenicline for 12 weeks is between $1,220 and $1,584. For comparison, nicotine replacement therapy costs $170 to $240 for the same number of weeks. To put those costs in perspective, the 12-week cost of cigarettes for a two-pack-a-day smoker is approximately $1,000.

For some patients, the motivation to quit smoking comes from the realization of how much they are spending on cigarettes each month. That said, if a patient does not have insurance or their insurance does not cover the cost of varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy might be more appealing. It should be noted that better abstinence rates have been seen in patients taking varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy versus varenicline alone.

Suggested treatment

Based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, the American Thoracic Society’s guideline on pharmacological treatment in tobacco-dependent adults concludes that varenicline plus nicotine patch is the preferred pharmacological treatment for tobacco cessation when compared with varenicline alone, bupropion alone, nicotine replacement therapy alone, and e-cigarettes alone. If the patient does not want to start two medicines at once, then varenicline alone would be the preferred choice.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Primary care interventions for prevention and cessation of tobacco use in children and adolescents: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA.2020;323(16):1590-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4679.

2. Leone FT et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(2):e5–e31.

3. Tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant women: Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2015 Sep 21.

4. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA revises description of mental health side effects of the stop-smoking medicines Chantix (varenicline) and Zyban (bupropion) to reflect clinical trial findings. 2016 Dec. 16.

Complications from tobacco use are the most common preventable cause of death, disability, and disease in the United States. Tobacco use causes 480,000 premature deaths every year. In pregnancy, tobacco use causes complications such as premature birth, intrauterine growth restriction, and placental abruption. In the perinatal period, it is associated with sudden infant death syndrome. While cigarette smoking is decreasing in adolescents, e-cigarette use in on the rise. Approximately 1,600 children aged 12-17 smoke their first cigarette every day and it is estimated that 5.6 million children and adolescents will die of a tobacco use–related death.¹ For these reasons it is important to address tobacco use and cessation with patients whenever it is possible. Below is a case and recommendations related to a new American Thoracic Society guideline on initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults.

A forty-five-year-old male who rarely comes to the office is here today for a physical exam at the urging of his partner. He has been smoking a pack a day since age 17. You have tried at past visits to discuss quitting, but he had been in the precontemplative stage and had been unwilling to consider any change. This visit, however, he is ready to try to quit. What can you offer him?

Core recommendations from ATS guidelines

This patient can be offered varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy rather than nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, e-cigarettes, or varenicline alone. His course of therapy should extend beyond 12 weeks instead of the standard 6- to 12-week therapy. Alternatively, he could be offered varenicline alone, rather than nicotine replacement.²

A change from previous guidelines

What makes this recommendation so interesting and new is the emphasis it places on varenicline. The United States Preventive Services Task Force released a recommendation statement in 2015 that stressed a combination of pharmacological and behavioral interventions. It discussed nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline, but did not recommend any one over any of the others.³ The new recommendation from the American Thoracic Society favors varenicline over other pharmacologic interventions. It is based on an independent systematic review of the literature that showed higher rates of tobacco use abstinence at the 6-month follow-up with varenicline alone versus nicotine replacement therapy alone, bupropion alone, or e-cigarette use only.

A review of 14 randomized controlled trials showed that varenicline improves abstinence rates during treatment by approximately 40% compared with nicotine replacement, and by 20% at the end of 6 months of treatment. The review found that varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy is more effective than varenicline alone. In this comparison, based on three trials, there was a 36% higher abstinence rate at 6 months using varenicline plus nicotine replacement. When varenicline use was compared with use of a nicotine patch, bupropion, or e-cigarettes, there was a reduction in serious adverse events – changes in mood, suicidal ideation, and neurological side effects such as seizures.² Clinicians may remember a black box warning on the varenicline label citing neuropsychiatric effects and it is important to note that the Food and Drug Administration removed this boxed warning in 2016.⁴

Opinion

This recommendation represents an important, evidence-based change from previous guidelines. It presents the opportunity for better outcomes, but will likely take a while to filter into practice, as clinicians need to become more comfortable with the use of varenicline and insurance supports the cost of varenicline.

The average cost of varenicline for 12 weeks is between $1,220 and $1,584. For comparison, nicotine replacement therapy costs $170 to $240 for the same number of weeks. To put those costs in perspective, the 12-week cost of cigarettes for a two-pack-a-day smoker is approximately $1,000.

For some patients, the motivation to quit smoking comes from the realization of how much they are spending on cigarettes each month. That said, if a patient does not have insurance or their insurance does not cover the cost of varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy might be more appealing. It should be noted that better abstinence rates have been seen in patients taking varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy versus varenicline alone.

Suggested treatment

Based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, the American Thoracic Society’s guideline on pharmacological treatment in tobacco-dependent adults concludes that varenicline plus nicotine patch is the preferred pharmacological treatment for tobacco cessation when compared with varenicline alone, bupropion alone, nicotine replacement therapy alone, and e-cigarettes alone. If the patient does not want to start two medicines at once, then varenicline alone would be the preferred choice.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Primary care interventions for prevention and cessation of tobacco use in children and adolescents: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA.2020;323(16):1590-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4679.

2. Leone FT et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(2):e5–e31.

3. Tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant women: Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2015 Sep 21.

4. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA revises description of mental health side effects of the stop-smoking medicines Chantix (varenicline) and Zyban (bupropion) to reflect clinical trial findings. 2016 Dec. 16.

Pulmonary artery denervation (PADN) provides persistent and clinically significant hemodynamic improvements in patients with persistent chronic thromboembolic hypertension (CTEPH) after pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), according to a randomized, sham-controlled trial.

“PADN in patients with CTEPH after PEA was safe and effective,” according to an investigating team led by Alexander Romanov, MD, PhD.

The mean reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) was 258 dyn/sec per cm^–5 for those randomized to PADN versus 149 dyn/sec per cm^–5 (P = .001) for those randomized to the sham procedure, according to the newly published findings.

For the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), the mean distance was 470 m for the experimental group versus 399 m (P = .03) for the controls.

Several secondary endpoints measuring hemodynamics also favored PADN relative to the sham procedure at 12 months. This included the relative increase in tricuspid annular systolic excursion (P = .03) and the increase in the right ventricular fraction area (P < .001).

A total of 50 patients with residual CTEPH for at least 6 months after PEA despite medical therapy were enrolled and randomized. Entry criteria included a mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) of 25 mm Hg or greater or PVR greater than 400 dyn/sec per cm^–5 on right heart catheterization. Patients with comorbidities associated with a life expectancy of less than 1 year were excluded.

Those randomized to the sham group were treated with riociguat over the course of follow-up. This therapy was not offered to patients in the PADN group, but all patients were blinded to the procedure and told that riociguat might or might not be administered.

Following the procedure, participating clinicians, who were also blinded to the procedure, were instructed to provide standard therapies for heart failure, such beta-blockers, diuretics, or digoxin, as needed. All patients were placed on an oral anticoagulant.

At 12 months the mean PAP (26 vs. 35 mm Hg; P < .001) and the mean systolic PAP (46 vs. 54 mm Hg; P = .01) were significantly lower in the PADN group versus those who underwent a sham procedure.

About 52% of the PADN group versus 12% of the sham group were classified as responders by the definition of a PVR reduction of at least 150 dyn/sec per cm^–5 and 6MWT improvement of at least 20%, compared with baseline, reported Dr. Romanov, of the E. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, ministry of health, Novosibirsk, Russia, and coinvestigators.

Of the three deaths caused by heart failure over the course of follow-up, two occurred in the sham group. Of the eight hospitalizations for heart failure, seven (29% of the sham group) occurred among controls versus one in those treated with PADN (4% of this group; P = .049).

There was one groin hematoma at the puncture site in each group. Both resolved without any consequences prior to hospital discharge. There were no other significant procedure-related complications in either group.

Larger multicenter trials are needed to confirm these findings, according to both the trial investigators and Marius M. Hoeper, MD, who is charge of the pulmonary hypertension program at the Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

In an editorial that accompanied publication of these findings, Dr. Hoeper identified the small sample size of this study as one of its limitations, but he said the results are consistent with several other small studies associating pulmonary artery denervation with benefit in pulmonary hypertension.

“It appears as if we are currently witnessing the emergence of a new treatment option for various forms of pulmonary hypertension,” Dr. Hoeper wrote. In his critique of the study, he suggested that it would have been “more informative” if both groups were on background riociguat, but the data from this and other studies so far indicates that ablation to achieve denervation “is safe and feasible.”

The PADN technique used in this study might be relevant to the results. Dr. Hoeper noted that the investigators employed catheter tip–based electroanatomic mapping with a novel remote navigation system with three-dimensional imaging of the right ventricle and central pulmonary arteries.

“Apparently, this approach minimizes radiation exposure and provides precise location of ablation sites,” Dr. Hoeper observed. However, he called for direct comparisons of this tool to the guidance systems used in other studies.

In an interview, Dr. Hoeper acknowledged that it is not yet clear that a large-scale trial of pulmonary artery denervation for the indication evaluated in this study is coming. He noted several strategies in CTEPH are widely used without trials confirming a reduction in clinical events.

“Balloon pulmonary angioplasty for CTEPH has become an established treatment around the world without any randomized, controlled trial and without demonstration of improved outcomes. A couple of well-conducted observational trials might be sufficient to convince physicians to introduce PADN as well,” he said. If such studies associated PADN with “improvements in hemodynamics, exercise capacity, and patient-reported outcomes, it might be sufficient.”

Currently, Dr. Hoeper is most concerned about obtaining further evidence of safety, which he characterized as a “major issue.”

If a multicenter trial is conducted “the primary endpoint should be focused on clinical events,” according to Dr. Romanov, who was asked to comment on the next steps in validating PADN for the treatment of CTEPH-associated pulmonary hypertension persisting after endarterectomy.

“The mortality rate during 1-year long-term follow-up is not so high, but heart failure progression is a problem. So in my view, the primary endpoint should be a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization,” he said. He called for follow-up duration of 2-3 years.

Jonathan Steinberg, MD, director of cardiac clinical trials and education, Summit Medical Group, Montclair, N.J., also called a trial with hard endpoints, such as death, the ideal.

In the meantime, hemodynamic and functional measures “are still quite valuable and move the ball forward for this intervention,” he said in an interview. Senior author of this trial and principle investigator of the recent ERADICATE-AF trial, which evaluated renal denervation in preventing recurrence of atrial fibrillation (JAMA. 2020;323:248-55), Dr. Steinberg predicted, “I do indeed suspect we will see trials that are more accomplishable [than a large-scale, randomized, controlled trial] in the not too distant future.”

Dr. Romanov received funding from Biosense Webster. Dr. Hoeper has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Romanov A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 17;76:916-26.

Pulmonary artery denervation (PADN) provides persistent and clinically significant hemodynamic improvements in patients with persistent chronic thromboembolic hypertension (CTEPH) after pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), according to a randomized, sham-controlled trial.

“PADN in patients with CTEPH after PEA was safe and effective,” according to an investigating team led by Alexander Romanov, MD, PhD.

The mean reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) was 258 dyn/sec per cm^–5 for those randomized to PADN versus 149 dyn/sec per cm^–5 (P = .001) for those randomized to the sham procedure, according to the newly published findings.

For the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), the mean distance was 470 m for the experimental group versus 399 m (P = .03) for the controls.

Several secondary endpoints measuring hemodynamics also favored PADN relative to the sham procedure at 12 months. This included the relative increase in tricuspid annular systolic excursion (P = .03) and the increase in the right ventricular fraction area (P < .001).

A total of 50 patients with residual CTEPH for at least 6 months after PEA despite medical therapy were enrolled and randomized. Entry criteria included a mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) of 25 mm Hg or greater or PVR greater than 400 dyn/sec per cm^–5 on right heart catheterization. Patients with comorbidities associated with a life expectancy of less than 1 year were excluded.

Those randomized to the sham group were treated with riociguat over the course of follow-up. This therapy was not offered to patients in the PADN group, but all patients were blinded to the procedure and told that riociguat might or might not be administered.

Following the procedure, participating clinicians, who were also blinded to the procedure, were instructed to provide standard therapies for heart failure, such beta-blockers, diuretics, or digoxin, as needed. All patients were placed on an oral anticoagulant.

At 12 months the mean PAP (26 vs. 35 mm Hg; P < .001) and the mean systolic PAP (46 vs. 54 mm Hg; P = .01) were significantly lower in the PADN group versus those who underwent a sham procedure.

About 52% of the PADN group versus 12% of the sham group were classified as responders by the definition of a PVR reduction of at least 150 dyn/sec per cm^–5 and 6MWT improvement of at least 20%, compared with baseline, reported Dr. Romanov, of the E. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, ministry of health, Novosibirsk, Russia, and coinvestigators.

Of the three deaths caused by heart failure over the course of follow-up, two occurred in the sham group. Of the eight hospitalizations for heart failure, seven (29% of the sham group) occurred among controls versus one in those treated with PADN (4% of this group; P = .049).

There was one groin hematoma at the puncture site in each group. Both resolved without any consequences prior to hospital discharge. There were no other significant procedure-related complications in either group.

Larger multicenter trials are needed to confirm these findings, according to both the trial investigators and Marius M. Hoeper, MD, who is charge of the pulmonary hypertension program at the Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

In an editorial that accompanied publication of these findings, Dr. Hoeper identified the small sample size of this study as one of its limitations, but he said the results are consistent with several other small studies associating pulmonary artery denervation with benefit in pulmonary hypertension.

“It appears as if we are currently witnessing the emergence of a new treatment option for various forms of pulmonary hypertension,” Dr. Hoeper wrote. In his critique of the study, he suggested that it would have been “more informative” if both groups were on background riociguat, but the data from this and other studies so far indicates that ablation to achieve denervation “is safe and feasible.”

The PADN technique used in this study might be relevant to the results. Dr. Hoeper noted that the investigators employed catheter tip–based electroanatomic mapping with a novel remote navigation system with three-dimensional imaging of the right ventricle and central pulmonary arteries.

“Apparently, this approach minimizes radiation exposure and provides precise location of ablation sites,” Dr. Hoeper observed. However, he called for direct comparisons of this tool to the guidance systems used in other studies.

In an interview, Dr. Hoeper acknowledged that it is not yet clear that a large-scale trial of pulmonary artery denervation for the indication evaluated in this study is coming. He noted several strategies in CTEPH are widely used without trials confirming a reduction in clinical events.

“Balloon pulmonary angioplasty for CTEPH has become an established treatment around the world without any randomized, controlled trial and without demonstration of improved outcomes. A couple of well-conducted observational trials might be sufficient to convince physicians to introduce PADN as well,” he said. If such studies associated PADN with “improvements in hemodynamics, exercise capacity, and patient-reported outcomes, it might be sufficient.”

Currently, Dr. Hoeper is most concerned about obtaining further evidence of safety, which he characterized as a “major issue.”

If a multicenter trial is conducted “the primary endpoint should be focused on clinical events,” according to Dr. Romanov, who was asked to comment on the next steps in validating PADN for the treatment of CTEPH-associated pulmonary hypertension persisting after endarterectomy.

“The mortality rate during 1-year long-term follow-up is not so high, but heart failure progression is a problem. So in my view, the primary endpoint should be a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization,” he said. He called for follow-up duration of 2-3 years.

Jonathan Steinberg, MD, director of cardiac clinical trials and education, Summit Medical Group, Montclair, N.J., also called a trial with hard endpoints, such as death, the ideal.

In the meantime, hemodynamic and functional measures “are still quite valuable and move the ball forward for this intervention,” he said in an interview. Senior author of this trial and principle investigator of the recent ERADICATE-AF trial, which evaluated renal denervation in preventing recurrence of atrial fibrillation (JAMA. 2020;323:248-55), Dr. Steinberg predicted, “I do indeed suspect we will see trials that are more accomplishable [than a large-scale, randomized, controlled trial] in the not too distant future.”

Dr. Romanov received funding from Biosense Webster. Dr. Hoeper has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Romanov A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 17;76:916-26.

Pulmonary artery denervation (PADN) provides persistent and clinically significant hemodynamic improvements in patients with persistent chronic thromboembolic hypertension (CTEPH) after pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), according to a randomized, sham-controlled trial.

“PADN in patients with CTEPH after PEA was safe and effective,” according to an investigating team led by Alexander Romanov, MD, PhD.

The mean reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) was 258 dyn/sec per cm^–5 for those randomized to PADN versus 149 dyn/sec per cm^–5 (P = .001) for those randomized to the sham procedure, according to the newly published findings.

For the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), the mean distance was 470 m for the experimental group versus 399 m (P = .03) for the controls.

Several secondary endpoints measuring hemodynamics also favored PADN relative to the sham procedure at 12 months. This included the relative increase in tricuspid annular systolic excursion (P = .03) and the increase in the right ventricular fraction area (P < .001).

A total of 50 patients with residual CTEPH for at least 6 months after PEA despite medical therapy were enrolled and randomized. Entry criteria included a mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) of 25 mm Hg or greater or PVR greater than 400 dyn/sec per cm^–5 on right heart catheterization. Patients with comorbidities associated with a life expectancy of less than 1 year were excluded.

Those randomized to the sham group were treated with riociguat over the course of follow-up. This therapy was not offered to patients in the PADN group, but all patients were blinded to the procedure and told that riociguat might or might not be administered.

Following the procedure, participating clinicians, who were also blinded to the procedure, were instructed to provide standard therapies for heart failure, such beta-blockers, diuretics, or digoxin, as needed. All patients were placed on an oral anticoagulant.

At 12 months the mean PAP (26 vs. 35 mm Hg; P < .001) and the mean systolic PAP (46 vs. 54 mm Hg; P = .01) were significantly lower in the PADN group versus those who underwent a sham procedure.

About 52% of the PADN group versus 12% of the sham group were classified as responders by the definition of a PVR reduction of at least 150 dyn/sec per cm^–5 and 6MWT improvement of at least 20%, compared with baseline, reported Dr. Romanov, of the E. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, ministry of health, Novosibirsk, Russia, and coinvestigators.

Of the three deaths caused by heart failure over the course of follow-up, two occurred in the sham group. Of the eight hospitalizations for heart failure, seven (29% of the sham group) occurred among controls versus one in those treated with PADN (4% of this group; P = .049).

There was one groin hematoma at the puncture site in each group. Both resolved without any consequences prior to hospital discharge. There were no other significant procedure-related complications in either group.

Larger multicenter trials are needed to confirm these findings, according to both the trial investigators and Marius M. Hoeper, MD, who is charge of the pulmonary hypertension program at the Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

In an editorial that accompanied publication of these findings, Dr. Hoeper identified the small sample size of this study as one of its limitations, but he said the results are consistent with several other small studies associating pulmonary artery denervation with benefit in pulmonary hypertension.

“It appears as if we are currently witnessing the emergence of a new treatment option for various forms of pulmonary hypertension,” Dr. Hoeper wrote. In his critique of the study, he suggested that it would have been “more informative” if both groups were on background riociguat, but the data from this and other studies so far indicates that ablation to achieve denervation “is safe and feasible.”

The PADN technique used in this study might be relevant to the results. Dr. Hoeper noted that the investigators employed catheter tip–based electroanatomic mapping with a novel remote navigation system with three-dimensional imaging of the right ventricle and central pulmonary arteries.

“Apparently, this approach minimizes radiation exposure and provides precise location of ablation sites,” Dr. Hoeper observed. However, he called for direct comparisons of this tool to the guidance systems used in other studies.

In an interview, Dr. Hoeper acknowledged that it is not yet clear that a large-scale trial of pulmonary artery denervation for the indication evaluated in this study is coming. He noted several strategies in CTEPH are widely used without trials confirming a reduction in clinical events.

“Balloon pulmonary angioplasty for CTEPH has become an established treatment around the world without any randomized, controlled trial and without demonstration of improved outcomes. A couple of well-conducted observational trials might be sufficient to convince physicians to introduce PADN as well,” he said. If such studies associated PADN with “improvements in hemodynamics, exercise capacity, and patient-reported outcomes, it might be sufficient.”

Currently, Dr. Hoeper is most concerned about obtaining further evidence of safety, which he characterized as a “major issue.”

If a multicenter trial is conducted “the primary endpoint should be focused on clinical events,” according to Dr. Romanov, who was asked to comment on the next steps in validating PADN for the treatment of CTEPH-associated pulmonary hypertension persisting after endarterectomy.

“The mortality rate during 1-year long-term follow-up is not so high, but heart failure progression is a problem. So in my view, the primary endpoint should be a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization,” he said. He called for follow-up duration of 2-3 years.

Jonathan Steinberg, MD, director of cardiac clinical trials and education, Summit Medical Group, Montclair, N.J., also called a trial with hard endpoints, such as death, the ideal.

In the meantime, hemodynamic and functional measures “are still quite valuable and move the ball forward for this intervention,” he said in an interview. Senior author of this trial and principle investigator of the recent ERADICATE-AF trial, which evaluated renal denervation in preventing recurrence of atrial fibrillation (JAMA. 2020;323:248-55), Dr. Steinberg predicted, “I do indeed suspect we will see trials that are more accomplishable [than a large-scale, randomized, controlled trial] in the not too distant future.”

Dr. Romanov received funding from Biosense Webster. Dr. Hoeper has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Romanov A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 17;76:916-26.

Pulmonary rehabilitation reduces the likelihood that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) will be readmitted to the hospital in the year after discharge by 33%, new research shows, but few patients participate in those programs.

In fact, in a retrospective cohort of 197,376 patients from 4446 hospitals, only 1.5% of patients initiated pulmonary rehabilitation in the 90 days after hospital discharge.

“This is a striking finding,” said Mihaela Stefan, PhD, from the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate in Springfield. “Our study demonstrates that we need to increase access to rehabilitation to reduce the risk of readmissions.”

Not enough patients are initiating rehabilitation, but the onus is not only on them; the system is failing them. “We wanted to understand how much pulmonary rehabilitation lowers the readmission rate,” Stefan told Medscape Medical News.

So she and her colleagues examined the records of patients who were hospitalized for COPD in 2014 to see whether they had begun rehabilitation in the 90 days after discharge and whether they were readmitted to the hospital in the subsequent 12 months.

Patients who were unlikely to initiate pulmonary rehabilitation — such as those with dementia or metastatic cancer and those discharged to hospice care or a nursing home — were excluded from the analysis, Stefan said during her presentation at the study results at the virtual American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2020 International Conference.

The risk analysis was complex because many patients died before the year was out, and “a patient who dies has no risk of being readmitted,” she explained. Selection bias was also a factor because patients who do pulmonary rehab tend to be in better shape.

The researchers used propensity score matching and Anderson–Gill models of cumulative rehospitalizations or death at 1 year with time-varying exposure to pulmonary rehabilitation to account for clustering of individual events and adjust for covariates. “It was a complicated risk analysis,” she said.

In the year after discharge, 130,660 patients (66%) were readmitted to the hospital. The rate of rehospitalization was lower for those who initiated rehabilitation than for those who did not (59% vs 66%), as was the mean number of readmissions per patient (1.4 vs 1.8).

Rehabilitation was associated with a lower risk for readmission or death (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.66 - 0.69).

“We know the referral rates are low and that pulmonary rehabilitation is effective in clinical trials,” said Stefan, and now “we see that pulmonary rehabilitation is effective when you look at patients in real life.”

From a provider perspective, “we need to make sure that hospitals get more money for pulmonary rehabilitation. Cardiac rehabilitation is paid for,” she explained. "But pulmonary rehab is not a lucrative business. I don›t know why the CMS pays more for cardiac."

A rehabilitation program generally consists of 36 sessions, held two or three times a week, and many patients can’t afford that on their own, she noted. Transportation is another huge issue.

A recent study in which semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 COPD patients showed that the main barriers to enrollment in a pulmonary rehabilitation program are lack of awareness, family obligations, transportation, and lack of motivation, said Stefan, who was involved in that research.

Telehealth rehabilitation programs might become more available in the near future, given the COVID pandemic. But “currently, Medicare doesn’t pay for telerehab,” she said. Virtual sessions might attract more patients, but lack of computer access and training could present another barrier for some.

PAH rehab

Uptake for pulmonary rehabilitation is as low for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) as it is for those with COPD, according to another study presented at the virtual ATS meeting.

An examination of the electronic health records of 111,356 veterans who experienced incident PAH from 2010 to 2016 showed that only 1,737 (1.6%) followed through on pulmonary rehabilitation.

“Exercise therapy is safe and effective at improving outcomes,” lead author Thomas Cascino, MD, from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in an ATS press release. “Recognizing that it is being underutilized is a necessary first step in working toward increasing patient access to rehab.

His group is currently working on a trial for home-based rehabilitation “using wearable technology as a means to expand access for people unable to come to center-based rehab for a variety of reasons,” he explained.

“The goal of all our treatments is to help people feel better and live longer,” Cascino added.

Stefan and Cascino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pulmonary rehabilitation reduces the likelihood that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) will be readmitted to the hospital in the year after discharge by 33%, new research shows, but few patients participate in those programs.

In fact, in a retrospective cohort of 197,376 patients from 4446 hospitals, only 1.5% of patients initiated pulmonary rehabilitation in the 90 days after hospital discharge.

“This is a striking finding,” said Mihaela Stefan, PhD, from the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate in Springfield. “Our study demonstrates that we need to increase access to rehabilitation to reduce the risk of readmissions.”

Not enough patients are initiating rehabilitation, but the onus is not only on them; the system is failing them. “We wanted to understand how much pulmonary rehabilitation lowers the readmission rate,” Stefan told Medscape Medical News.

So she and her colleagues examined the records of patients who were hospitalized for COPD in 2014 to see whether they had begun rehabilitation in the 90 days after discharge and whether they were readmitted to the hospital in the subsequent 12 months.

Patients who were unlikely to initiate pulmonary rehabilitation — such as those with dementia or metastatic cancer and those discharged to hospice care or a nursing home — were excluded from the analysis, Stefan said during her presentation at the study results at the virtual American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2020 International Conference.

The risk analysis was complex because many patients died before the year was out, and “a patient who dies has no risk of being readmitted,” she explained. Selection bias was also a factor because patients who do pulmonary rehab tend to be in better shape.

The researchers used propensity score matching and Anderson–Gill models of cumulative rehospitalizations or death at 1 year with time-varying exposure to pulmonary rehabilitation to account for clustering of individual events and adjust for covariates. “It was a complicated risk analysis,” she said.

In the year after discharge, 130,660 patients (66%) were readmitted to the hospital. The rate of rehospitalization was lower for those who initiated rehabilitation than for those who did not (59% vs 66%), as was the mean number of readmissions per patient (1.4 vs 1.8).

Rehabilitation was associated with a lower risk for readmission or death (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.66 - 0.69).

“We know the referral rates are low and that pulmonary rehabilitation is effective in clinical trials,” said Stefan, and now “we see that pulmonary rehabilitation is effective when you look at patients in real life.”

From a provider perspective, “we need to make sure that hospitals get more money for pulmonary rehabilitation. Cardiac rehabilitation is paid for,” she explained. "But pulmonary rehab is not a lucrative business. I don›t know why the CMS pays more for cardiac."

A rehabilitation program generally consists of 36 sessions, held two or three times a week, and many patients can’t afford that on their own, she noted. Transportation is another huge issue.

A recent study in which semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 COPD patients showed that the main barriers to enrollment in a pulmonary rehabilitation program are lack of awareness, family obligations, transportation, and lack of motivation, said Stefan, who was involved in that research.

Telehealth rehabilitation programs might become more available in the near future, given the COVID pandemic. But “currently, Medicare doesn’t pay for telerehab,” she said. Virtual sessions might attract more patients, but lack of computer access and training could present another barrier for some.

PAH rehab

Uptake for pulmonary rehabilitation is as low for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) as it is for those with COPD, according to another study presented at the virtual ATS meeting.

An examination of the electronic health records of 111,356 veterans who experienced incident PAH from 2010 to 2016 showed that only 1,737 (1.6%) followed through on pulmonary rehabilitation.

“Exercise therapy is safe and effective at improving outcomes,” lead author Thomas Cascino, MD, from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in an ATS press release. “Recognizing that it is being underutilized is a necessary first step in working toward increasing patient access to rehab.

His group is currently working on a trial for home-based rehabilitation “using wearable technology as a means to expand access for people unable to come to center-based rehab for a variety of reasons,” he explained.

“The goal of all our treatments is to help people feel better and live longer,” Cascino added.

Stefan and Cascino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pulmonary rehabilitation reduces the likelihood that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) will be readmitted to the hospital in the year after discharge by 33%, new research shows, but few patients participate in those programs.

In fact, in a retrospective cohort of 197,376 patients from 4446 hospitals, only 1.5% of patients initiated pulmonary rehabilitation in the 90 days after hospital discharge.

“This is a striking finding,” said Mihaela Stefan, PhD, from the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate in Springfield. “Our study demonstrates that we need to increase access to rehabilitation to reduce the risk of readmissions.”

Not enough patients are initiating rehabilitation, but the onus is not only on them; the system is failing them. “We wanted to understand how much pulmonary rehabilitation lowers the readmission rate,” Stefan told Medscape Medical News.

So she and her colleagues examined the records of patients who were hospitalized for COPD in 2014 to see whether they had begun rehabilitation in the 90 days after discharge and whether they were readmitted to the hospital in the subsequent 12 months.

Patients who were unlikely to initiate pulmonary rehabilitation — such as those with dementia or metastatic cancer and those discharged to hospice care or a nursing home — were excluded from the analysis, Stefan said during her presentation at the study results at the virtual American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2020 International Conference.

The risk analysis was complex because many patients died before the year was out, and “a patient who dies has no risk of being readmitted,” she explained. Selection bias was also a factor because patients who do pulmonary rehab tend to be in better shape.

The researchers used propensity score matching and Anderson–Gill models of cumulative rehospitalizations or death at 1 year with time-varying exposure to pulmonary rehabilitation to account for clustering of individual events and adjust for covariates. “It was a complicated risk analysis,” she said.

In the year after discharge, 130,660 patients (66%) were readmitted to the hospital. The rate of rehospitalization was lower for those who initiated rehabilitation than for those who did not (59% vs 66%), as was the mean number of readmissions per patient (1.4 vs 1.8).

Rehabilitation was associated with a lower risk for readmission or death (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.66 - 0.69).

“We know the referral rates are low and that pulmonary rehabilitation is effective in clinical trials,” said Stefan, and now “we see that pulmonary rehabilitation is effective when you look at patients in real life.”

From a provider perspective, “we need to make sure that hospitals get more money for pulmonary rehabilitation. Cardiac rehabilitation is paid for,” she explained. "But pulmonary rehab is not a lucrative business. I don›t know why the CMS pays more for cardiac."

A rehabilitation program generally consists of 36 sessions, held two or three times a week, and many patients can’t afford that on their own, she noted. Transportation is another huge issue.

A recent study in which semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 COPD patients showed that the main barriers to enrollment in a pulmonary rehabilitation program are lack of awareness, family obligations, transportation, and lack of motivation, said Stefan, who was involved in that research.

Telehealth rehabilitation programs might become more available in the near future, given the COVID pandemic. But “currently, Medicare doesn’t pay for telerehab,” she said. Virtual sessions might attract more patients, but lack of computer access and training could present another barrier for some.

PAH rehab

Uptake for pulmonary rehabilitation is as low for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) as it is for those with COPD, according to another study presented at the virtual ATS meeting.

An examination of the electronic health records of 111,356 veterans who experienced incident PAH from 2010 to 2016 showed that only 1,737 (1.6%) followed through on pulmonary rehabilitation.

“Exercise therapy is safe and effective at improving outcomes,” lead author Thomas Cascino, MD, from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in an ATS press release. “Recognizing that it is being underutilized is a necessary first step in working toward increasing patient access to rehab.

His group is currently working on a trial for home-based rehabilitation “using wearable technology as a means to expand access for people unable to come to center-based rehab for a variety of reasons,” he explained.

“The goal of all our treatments is to help people feel better and live longer,” Cascino added.

Stefan and Cascino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Following invasive ventilation for severe hypercapnic respiratory failure, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease had similar levels of treatment failure if they received high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation, recent research in Critical Care has suggested.

However, for patients with COPD weaned off invasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy was “more comfortable and better tolerated,” compared with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). In addition, “airway care interventions and the incidence of nasofacial skin breakdown associated with HFNC were significantly lower than in NIV,” according to Dingyu Tan of the Clinical Medical College of Yangzhou (China) University, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, and colleagues. “HFNC appears to be an effective means of respiratory support for COPD patients extubated after severe hypercapnic respiratory failure,” they said.

The investigators screened patients with COPD and hypercapnic respiratory failure for enrollment, including those who met Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria, were 85 years old or younger and caring for themselves, had bronchopulmonary infection–induced respiratory failure, and had achieved pulmonary infection control criteria. Exclusion criteria were:

• Patients under age 18 years.
• Presence of oral or facial trauma.
• Poor sputum excretion ability.
• Hemodynamic instability that would contraindicate use of NIV.
• Poor cough during PIC window.
• Poor short-term prognosis.
• Failure of the heart, brain, liver or kidney.
• Patients who could not consent to treatment.

Patients were determined to have failed treatment if they returned to invasive mechanical ventilation or switched from one treatment to another (HFNC to NIV or NIV to HFNC). Investigators also performed an arterial blood gas analysis, recorded the number of duration of airway care interventions, and monitored vital signs at 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours after extubation as secondary analyses.

Overall, 44 patients randomized to receive HFNC and 42 patients randomized for NIV were available for analysis. The investigators found 22.7% of patients in the HFNC group and 28.6% in the NIV group experienced treatment failure (risk difference, –5.8%; 95% confidence interval, −23.8 to 12.4%; P = .535), with patients in the HFNC group experiencing a significantly lower level of treatment intolerance, compared with patients in the NIV group (risk difference, ­–50.0%; 95% CI, −74.6 to −12.9%; P = .015). There were no significant differences between either group regarding intubation (−0.65%; 95% CI, −16.01 to 14.46%), while rate of switching treatments was lower in the HFNC group but not significant (−5.2%; 95% CI, −19.82 to 9.05%).

Patients in both the HFNC and NIV groups had faster mean respiratory rates 1 hour after extubation (P < .050). After 24 hours, the NIV group had higher-than-baseline respiratory rates, compared with the HFNC group, which had returned to normal (20 vs. 24.5 breaths per minute; P < .050). Both groups had returned to baseline by 48 hours after extubation. At 1 hour after extubation, patients in the HFNC group had lower PaO₂/FiO₂ (P < .050) and pH values (P < .050), and higher PaCO₂ values (P less than .050), compared with baseline. There were no statistically significant differences in PaO₂/FiO₂, pH, and PaCO₂ values in either group at 24 hours or 48 hours after extubation.

Daily airway care interventions were significantly higher on average in the NIV group, compared with the HFNC group (7 vs. 6; P = .0006), and the HFNC group also had significantly better comfort scores (7 vs. 5; P < .001) as measured by a modified visual analog scale, as well as incidence of nasal and facial skin breakdown (0 vs. 9.6%; P = .027), compared with the NIV group.
 

Results difficult to apply to North American patients

David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, a professor specializing in critical care at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview the results of this trial may not be applicable for patients with infection-related respiratory failure and COPD in North America “due to the differences in common weaning practices between North America and China.”

For example, the trial used the pulmonary infection control (PIC) window criteria for extubation, which requires a significant decrease in radiographic infiltrates, improvement in quality and quantity of sputum, normalizing of leukocyte count, a synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) rate of 10-12 breaths per minute, and pressure support less than 10-12 cm/H₂O (Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:1255-67).

“The process used to achieve these measures is not standardized. In North America, daily awakening and screening for spontaneous breathing trials would be usual, but this was not reported in the current trial,” he explained.

Differences in patient population also make the application of the results difficult, Dr. Bowton said. “Only 60% of the patients had spirometrically confirmed COPD and fewer than half were on at least dual inhaled therapy prior to hospitalization with only one-third taking beta agonists or anticholinergic agents,” he noted. “The cause of respiratory failure was infectious, requiring an infiltrate on chest radiograph; thus, patients with hypercarbic respiratory failure without a new infiltrate were excluded from the study. On average, patients were hypercarbic, yet alkalemic at the time of extubation; the PaCO₂ and pH at the time of intubation were not reported.

“This study suggests that in some patients with COPD and respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, HFO [high-flow oxygen] may be better tolerated and equally effective as NIPPV [noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation] at mitigating the need for reintubation following extubation. In this patient population where hypoxemia prior to extubation was not severe, the mechanisms by which HFO is beneficial remain speculative,” he said.

This study was funded by the Rui E special fund for emergency medicine research and the Yangzhou Science and Technology Development Plan. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Bowton reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Tan D et al. Crit Care. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03214-9.

Following invasive ventilation for severe hypercapnic respiratory failure, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease had similar levels of treatment failure if they received high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation, recent research in Critical Care has suggested.

However, for patients with COPD weaned off invasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy was “more comfortable and better tolerated,” compared with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). In addition, “airway care interventions and the incidence of nasofacial skin breakdown associated with HFNC were significantly lower than in NIV,” according to Dingyu Tan of the Clinical Medical College of Yangzhou (China) University, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, and colleagues. “HFNC appears to be an effective means of respiratory support for COPD patients extubated after severe hypercapnic respiratory failure,” they said.

The investigators screened patients with COPD and hypercapnic respiratory failure for enrollment, including those who met Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria, were 85 years old or younger and caring for themselves, had bronchopulmonary infection–induced respiratory failure, and had achieved pulmonary infection control criteria. Exclusion criteria were:

• Patients under age 18 years.
• Presence of oral or facial trauma.
• Poor sputum excretion ability.
• Hemodynamic instability that would contraindicate use of NIV.
• Poor cough during PIC window.
• Poor short-term prognosis.
• Failure of the heart, brain, liver or kidney.
• Patients who could not consent to treatment.

Patients were determined to have failed treatment if they returned to invasive mechanical ventilation or switched from one treatment to another (HFNC to NIV or NIV to HFNC). Investigators also performed an arterial blood gas analysis, recorded the number of duration of airway care interventions, and monitored vital signs at 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours after extubation as secondary analyses.

Overall, 44 patients randomized to receive HFNC and 42 patients randomized for NIV were available for analysis. The investigators found 22.7% of patients in the HFNC group and 28.6% in the NIV group experienced treatment failure (risk difference, –5.8%; 95% confidence interval, −23.8 to 12.4%; P = .535), with patients in the HFNC group experiencing a significantly lower level of treatment intolerance, compared with patients in the NIV group (risk difference, ­–50.0%; 95% CI, −74.6 to −12.9%; P = .015). There were no significant differences between either group regarding intubation (−0.65%; 95% CI, −16.01 to 14.46%), while rate of switching treatments was lower in the HFNC group but not significant (−5.2%; 95% CI, −19.82 to 9.05%).

Patients in both the HFNC and NIV groups had faster mean respiratory rates 1 hour after extubation (P < .050). After 24 hours, the NIV group had higher-than-baseline respiratory rates, compared with the HFNC group, which had returned to normal (20 vs. 24.5 breaths per minute; P < .050). Both groups had returned to baseline by 48 hours after extubation. At 1 hour after extubation, patients in the HFNC group had lower PaO₂/FiO₂ (P < .050) and pH values (P < .050), and higher PaCO₂ values (P less than .050), compared with baseline. There were no statistically significant differences in PaO₂/FiO₂, pH, and PaCO₂ values in either group at 24 hours or 48 hours after extubation.

Daily airway care interventions were significantly higher on average in the NIV group, compared with the HFNC group (7 vs. 6; P = .0006), and the HFNC group also had significantly better comfort scores (7 vs. 5; P < .001) as measured by a modified visual analog scale, as well as incidence of nasal and facial skin breakdown (0 vs. 9.6%; P = .027), compared with the NIV group.
 

Results difficult to apply to North American patients

David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, a professor specializing in critical care at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview the results of this trial may not be applicable for patients with infection-related respiratory failure and COPD in North America “due to the differences in common weaning practices between North America and China.”

For example, the trial used the pulmonary infection control (PIC) window criteria for extubation, which requires a significant decrease in radiographic infiltrates, improvement in quality and quantity of sputum, normalizing of leukocyte count, a synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) rate of 10-12 breaths per minute, and pressure support less than 10-12 cm/H₂O (Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:1255-67).

“The process used to achieve these measures is not standardized. In North America, daily awakening and screening for spontaneous breathing trials would be usual, but this was not reported in the current trial,” he explained.

Differences in patient population also make the application of the results difficult, Dr. Bowton said. “Only 60% of the patients had spirometrically confirmed COPD and fewer than half were on at least dual inhaled therapy prior to hospitalization with only one-third taking beta agonists or anticholinergic agents,” he noted. “The cause of respiratory failure was infectious, requiring an infiltrate on chest radiograph; thus, patients with hypercarbic respiratory failure without a new infiltrate were excluded from the study. On average, patients were hypercarbic, yet alkalemic at the time of extubation; the PaCO₂ and pH at the time of intubation were not reported.

“This study suggests that in some patients with COPD and respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, HFO [high-flow oxygen] may be better tolerated and equally effective as NIPPV [noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation] at mitigating the need for reintubation following extubation. In this patient population where hypoxemia prior to extubation was not severe, the mechanisms by which HFO is beneficial remain speculative,” he said.

This study was funded by the Rui E special fund for emergency medicine research and the Yangzhou Science and Technology Development Plan. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Bowton reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Tan D et al. Crit Care. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03214-9.

Following invasive ventilation for severe hypercapnic respiratory failure, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease had similar levels of treatment failure if they received high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation, recent research in Critical Care has suggested.

However, for patients with COPD weaned off invasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy was “more comfortable and better tolerated,” compared with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). In addition, “airway care interventions and the incidence of nasofacial skin breakdown associated with HFNC were significantly lower than in NIV,” according to Dingyu Tan of the Clinical Medical College of Yangzhou (China) University, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, and colleagues. “HFNC appears to be an effective means of respiratory support for COPD patients extubated after severe hypercapnic respiratory failure,” they said.

The investigators screened patients with COPD and hypercapnic respiratory failure for enrollment, including those who met Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria, were 85 years old or younger and caring for themselves, had bronchopulmonary infection–induced respiratory failure, and had achieved pulmonary infection control criteria. Exclusion criteria were:

• Patients under age 18 years.
• Presence of oral or facial trauma.
• Poor sputum excretion ability.
• Hemodynamic instability that would contraindicate use of NIV.
• Poor cough during PIC window.
• Poor short-term prognosis.
• Failure of the heart, brain, liver or kidney.
• Patients who could not consent to treatment.

Patients were determined to have failed treatment if they returned to invasive mechanical ventilation or switched from one treatment to another (HFNC to NIV or NIV to HFNC). Investigators also performed an arterial blood gas analysis, recorded the number of duration of airway care interventions, and monitored vital signs at 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours after extubation as secondary analyses.

Overall, 44 patients randomized to receive HFNC and 42 patients randomized for NIV were available for analysis. The investigators found 22.7% of patients in the HFNC group and 28.6% in the NIV group experienced treatment failure (risk difference, –5.8%; 95% confidence interval, −23.8 to 12.4%; P = .535), with patients in the HFNC group experiencing a significantly lower level of treatment intolerance, compared with patients in the NIV group (risk difference, ­–50.0%; 95% CI, −74.6 to −12.9%; P = .015). There were no significant differences between either group regarding intubation (−0.65%; 95% CI, −16.01 to 14.46%), while rate of switching treatments was lower in the HFNC group but not significant (−5.2%; 95% CI, −19.82 to 9.05%).

Patients in both the HFNC and NIV groups had faster mean respiratory rates 1 hour after extubation (P < .050). After 24 hours, the NIV group had higher-than-baseline respiratory rates, compared with the HFNC group, which had returned to normal (20 vs. 24.5 breaths per minute; P < .050). Both groups had returned to baseline by 48 hours after extubation. At 1 hour after extubation, patients in the HFNC group had lower PaO₂/FiO₂ (P < .050) and pH values (P < .050), and higher PaCO₂ values (P less than .050), compared with baseline. There were no statistically significant differences in PaO₂/FiO₂, pH, and PaCO₂ values in either group at 24 hours or 48 hours after extubation.

Daily airway care interventions were significantly higher on average in the NIV group, compared with the HFNC group (7 vs. 6; P = .0006), and the HFNC group also had significantly better comfort scores (7 vs. 5; P < .001) as measured by a modified visual analog scale, as well as incidence of nasal and facial skin breakdown (0 vs. 9.6%; P = .027), compared with the NIV group.
 

Results difficult to apply to North American patients

David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, a professor specializing in critical care at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview the results of this trial may not be applicable for patients with infection-related respiratory failure and COPD in North America “due to the differences in common weaning practices between North America and China.”

For example, the trial used the pulmonary infection control (PIC) window criteria for extubation, which requires a significant decrease in radiographic infiltrates, improvement in quality and quantity of sputum, normalizing of leukocyte count, a synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) rate of 10-12 breaths per minute, and pressure support less than 10-12 cm/H₂O (Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:1255-67).

“The process used to achieve these measures is not standardized. In North America, daily awakening and screening for spontaneous breathing trials would be usual, but this was not reported in the current trial,” he explained.

Differences in patient population also make the application of the results difficult, Dr. Bowton said. “Only 60% of the patients had spirometrically confirmed COPD and fewer than half were on at least dual inhaled therapy prior to hospitalization with only one-third taking beta agonists or anticholinergic agents,” he noted. “The cause of respiratory failure was infectious, requiring an infiltrate on chest radiograph; thus, patients with hypercarbic respiratory failure without a new infiltrate were excluded from the study. On average, patients were hypercarbic, yet alkalemic at the time of extubation; the PaCO₂ and pH at the time of intubation were not reported.

“This study suggests that in some patients with COPD and respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, HFO [high-flow oxygen] may be better tolerated and equally effective as NIPPV [noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation] at mitigating the need for reintubation following extubation. In this patient population where hypoxemia prior to extubation was not severe, the mechanisms by which HFO is beneficial remain speculative,” he said.

This study was funded by the Rui E special fund for emergency medicine research and the Yangzhou Science and Technology Development Plan. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Bowton reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Tan D et al. Crit Care. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03214-9.

In a large California health care plan, among patients with COVID-19, men aged 60 years and younger had a much higher risk of dying within 3 weeks of diagnosis if they had severe obesity as opposed to being of normal weight, independently of other risk factors.

The research shows that “obesity plays a profound role in risk for death from COVID-19, particularly in male patients and younger populations,” reported Sara Y. Tartof, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif., and coauthors.

The data “highlight the leading role of severe obesity over correlated risk factors, providing a target for early intervention,” they concluded in an article published online Aug. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This work adds to nearly 300 articles that have shown that severe obesity is associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

In an accompanying editorial, David A. Kass, MD, said: “Consistency of this new study and prior research should put to rest the contention that obesity is common in severe COVID-19 because it is common in the population.”

Rather, these findings show that “obesity is an important independent risk factor for serious COVID-19 disease,” he pointed out.

On the basis of this evidence, “arguably the hardest question to answer is: What is to be done?” wondered Kass, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Although data consistently show that a body mass index >35 kg/m² is predictive of major health risks, “weight reduction at that level of obesity is difficult and certainly is not achieved rapidly,” Dr. Kass stressed.

“Therefore ... social distancing; altering behaviors to reduce viral exposure and transmission, such as wearing masks; and instituting policies and health care approaches that recognize the potential effects of obesity should be implemented,” he emphasized. “These actions should help and are certainly doable.”

Similarly, Dr. Tartof and colleagues said their “findings also reveal the distressing collision of two pandemics: COVID-19 and obesity.

“As COVID-19 continues to spread unabated, we must focus our immediate efforts on containing the crisis at hand,” they urged.

However, the findings also “underscore the need for future collective efforts to combat the equally devastating, and potentially synergistic, force of the obesity epidemic.”
 

COVID-19 pandemic collides with obesity epidemic

Previous studies of obesity and COVID-19 were small, did not adjust for multiple confounders, or did not include nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Tartof and coauthors wrote.

Their study included 6,916 members of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care plan who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 13 to May 2, 2020.

The researchers calculated the risk for death at 21 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis; findings were corrected for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, renal disease, metastatic tumor or malignancy, other immune disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, asthma, organ transplant, and diabetes status.

On the basis of BMI, the patients were classified as being underweight, of normal weight, overweight, or as having class 1, 2, or 3 obesity. BMI of 18.5 to 24 kg/m² is defined as normal weight.

Class 3 obesity, also called severe obesity, included moderately severe obesity (BMI, 40-44 kg/m²) and extremely severe obesity (≥45 kg/m²).

A little more than half of the patients were women (55%), and more than 50% were Hispanic (54%).

A total of 206 patients (3%) died within 21 days of being diagnosed with COVID-19; of these, 67% had been hospitalized, and 43% had been intubated.

Overall, the COVID-19 patients with moderately severe or extremely severe obesity had a 2.7-fold and 4.2-fold increased risk for death, respectively, within 3 weeks compared with patients of normal weight.

Patients in the other BMI categories did not have a significantly higher risk of dying during follow-up.

However, each decade of increasing age after age 40 was associated with a stepwise increased risk for death within 3 weeks of the COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Risk stratified by age and sex

Further analysis showed that, “most strikingly,” among patients aged 60 and younger, those with moderately severe obesity and extremely severe obesity had significant 17-fold and 12-fold higher risks of dying during follow-up, respectively, compared with patients of normal weight, the researchers reported.

In patients older than 60, moderately severe obesity did not confer a significant increased risk for imminent death from COVID-19; extremely severe obesity conferred a smaller, threefold increased risk for this.

“Our finding that severe obesity, particularly among younger patients, eclipses the mortality risk posed by other obesity-related conditions, such as history of myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, suggests a significant pathophysiologic link between excess adiposity and severe COVID-19 illness,” the researchers noted.

This independent increased risk for death with severe obesity was seen in men but not in women.

Men with moderately severe and extremely severe obesity had significant 4.8-fold and 10-fold higher risks of dying within 3 weeks, respectively, compared with men of normal weight.

“That the risks are higher in younger patients is probably not because obesity is particularly damaging in this age group; it is more likely that other serious comorbidities that evolve later in life take over as dominant risk factors,” Dr. Kass suggested in his editorial.

“That males are particularly affected may reflect their greater visceral adiposity over females, given that this fat is notably proinflammatory and contributes to metabolic and vascular disease,” he added.

“As a cardiologist who studies heart failure,” Dr. Kass wrote, “I am struck by how many of the mechanisms that are mentioned in reviews of obesity risk and heart disease are also mentioned in reviews of obesity and COVID-19.”

The study was funded by Roche-Genentech. Kass has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures of the authors are listed in the article.
 

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

In a large California health care plan, among patients with COVID-19, men aged 60 years and younger had a much higher risk of dying within 3 weeks of diagnosis if they had severe obesity as opposed to being of normal weight, independently of other risk factors.

The research shows that “obesity plays a profound role in risk for death from COVID-19, particularly in male patients and younger populations,” reported Sara Y. Tartof, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif., and coauthors.

The data “highlight the leading role of severe obesity over correlated risk factors, providing a target for early intervention,” they concluded in an article published online Aug. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This work adds to nearly 300 articles that have shown that severe obesity is associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

In an accompanying editorial, David A. Kass, MD, said: “Consistency of this new study and prior research should put to rest the contention that obesity is common in severe COVID-19 because it is common in the population.”

Rather, these findings show that “obesity is an important independent risk factor for serious COVID-19 disease,” he pointed out.

On the basis of this evidence, “arguably the hardest question to answer is: What is to be done?” wondered Kass, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Although data consistently show that a body mass index >35 kg/m² is predictive of major health risks, “weight reduction at that level of obesity is difficult and certainly is not achieved rapidly,” Dr. Kass stressed.

“Therefore ... social distancing; altering behaviors to reduce viral exposure and transmission, such as wearing masks; and instituting policies and health care approaches that recognize the potential effects of obesity should be implemented,” he emphasized. “These actions should help and are certainly doable.”

Similarly, Dr. Tartof and colleagues said their “findings also reveal the distressing collision of two pandemics: COVID-19 and obesity.

“As COVID-19 continues to spread unabated, we must focus our immediate efforts on containing the crisis at hand,” they urged.

However, the findings also “underscore the need for future collective efforts to combat the equally devastating, and potentially synergistic, force of the obesity epidemic.”
 

COVID-19 pandemic collides with obesity epidemic

Previous studies of obesity and COVID-19 were small, did not adjust for multiple confounders, or did not include nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Tartof and coauthors wrote.

Their study included 6,916 members of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care plan who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 13 to May 2, 2020.

The researchers calculated the risk for death at 21 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis; findings were corrected for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, renal disease, metastatic tumor or malignancy, other immune disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, asthma, organ transplant, and diabetes status.

On the basis of BMI, the patients were classified as being underweight, of normal weight, overweight, or as having class 1, 2, or 3 obesity. BMI of 18.5 to 24 kg/m² is defined as normal weight.

Class 3 obesity, also called severe obesity, included moderately severe obesity (BMI, 40-44 kg/m²) and extremely severe obesity (≥45 kg/m²).

A little more than half of the patients were women (55%), and more than 50% were Hispanic (54%).

A total of 206 patients (3%) died within 21 days of being diagnosed with COVID-19; of these, 67% had been hospitalized, and 43% had been intubated.

Overall, the COVID-19 patients with moderately severe or extremely severe obesity had a 2.7-fold and 4.2-fold increased risk for death, respectively, within 3 weeks compared with patients of normal weight.

Patients in the other BMI categories did not have a significantly higher risk of dying during follow-up.

However, each decade of increasing age after age 40 was associated with a stepwise increased risk for death within 3 weeks of the COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Risk stratified by age and sex

Further analysis showed that, “most strikingly,” among patients aged 60 and younger, those with moderately severe obesity and extremely severe obesity had significant 17-fold and 12-fold higher risks of dying during follow-up, respectively, compared with patients of normal weight, the researchers reported.

In patients older than 60, moderately severe obesity did not confer a significant increased risk for imminent death from COVID-19; extremely severe obesity conferred a smaller, threefold increased risk for this.

“Our finding that severe obesity, particularly among younger patients, eclipses the mortality risk posed by other obesity-related conditions, such as history of myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, suggests a significant pathophysiologic link between excess adiposity and severe COVID-19 illness,” the researchers noted.

This independent increased risk for death with severe obesity was seen in men but not in women.

Men with moderately severe and extremely severe obesity had significant 4.8-fold and 10-fold higher risks of dying within 3 weeks, respectively, compared with men of normal weight.

“That the risks are higher in younger patients is probably not because obesity is particularly damaging in this age group; it is more likely that other serious comorbidities that evolve later in life take over as dominant risk factors,” Dr. Kass suggested in his editorial.

“That males are particularly affected may reflect their greater visceral adiposity over females, given that this fat is notably proinflammatory and contributes to metabolic and vascular disease,” he added.

“As a cardiologist who studies heart failure,” Dr. Kass wrote, “I am struck by how many of the mechanisms that are mentioned in reviews of obesity risk and heart disease are also mentioned in reviews of obesity and COVID-19.”

The study was funded by Roche-Genentech. Kass has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures of the authors are listed in the article.
 

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

In a large California health care plan, among patients with COVID-19, men aged 60 years and younger had a much higher risk of dying within 3 weeks of diagnosis if they had severe obesity as opposed to being of normal weight, independently of other risk factors.

The research shows that “obesity plays a profound role in risk for death from COVID-19, particularly in male patients and younger populations,” reported Sara Y. Tartof, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif., and coauthors.

The data “highlight the leading role of severe obesity over correlated risk factors, providing a target for early intervention,” they concluded in an article published online Aug. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This work adds to nearly 300 articles that have shown that severe obesity is associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

In an accompanying editorial, David A. Kass, MD, said: “Consistency of this new study and prior research should put to rest the contention that obesity is common in severe COVID-19 because it is common in the population.”

Rather, these findings show that “obesity is an important independent risk factor for serious COVID-19 disease,” he pointed out.

On the basis of this evidence, “arguably the hardest question to answer is: What is to be done?” wondered Kass, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Although data consistently show that a body mass index >35 kg/m² is predictive of major health risks, “weight reduction at that level of obesity is difficult and certainly is not achieved rapidly,” Dr. Kass stressed.

“Therefore ... social distancing; altering behaviors to reduce viral exposure and transmission, such as wearing masks; and instituting policies and health care approaches that recognize the potential effects of obesity should be implemented,” he emphasized. “These actions should help and are certainly doable.”

Similarly, Dr. Tartof and colleagues said their “findings also reveal the distressing collision of two pandemics: COVID-19 and obesity.

“As COVID-19 continues to spread unabated, we must focus our immediate efforts on containing the crisis at hand,” they urged.

However, the findings also “underscore the need for future collective efforts to combat the equally devastating, and potentially synergistic, force of the obesity epidemic.”
 

COVID-19 pandemic collides with obesity epidemic

Previous studies of obesity and COVID-19 were small, did not adjust for multiple confounders, or did not include nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Tartof and coauthors wrote.

Their study included 6,916 members of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care plan who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 13 to May 2, 2020.

The researchers calculated the risk for death at 21 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis; findings were corrected for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, renal disease, metastatic tumor or malignancy, other immune disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, asthma, organ transplant, and diabetes status.

On the basis of BMI, the patients were classified as being underweight, of normal weight, overweight, or as having class 1, 2, or 3 obesity. BMI of 18.5 to 24 kg/m² is defined as normal weight.

Class 3 obesity, also called severe obesity, included moderately severe obesity (BMI, 40-44 kg/m²) and extremely severe obesity (≥45 kg/m²).

A little more than half of the patients were women (55%), and more than 50% were Hispanic (54%).

A total of 206 patients (3%) died within 21 days of being diagnosed with COVID-19; of these, 67% had been hospitalized, and 43% had been intubated.

Overall, the COVID-19 patients with moderately severe or extremely severe obesity had a 2.7-fold and 4.2-fold increased risk for death, respectively, within 3 weeks compared with patients of normal weight.

Patients in the other BMI categories did not have a significantly higher risk of dying during follow-up.

However, each decade of increasing age after age 40 was associated with a stepwise increased risk for death within 3 weeks of the COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Risk stratified by age and sex

Further analysis showed that, “most strikingly,” among patients aged 60 and younger, those with moderately severe obesity and extremely severe obesity had significant 17-fold and 12-fold higher risks of dying during follow-up, respectively, compared with patients of normal weight, the researchers reported.

In patients older than 60, moderately severe obesity did not confer a significant increased risk for imminent death from COVID-19; extremely severe obesity conferred a smaller, threefold increased risk for this.

“Our finding that severe obesity, particularly among younger patients, eclipses the mortality risk posed by other obesity-related conditions, such as history of myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, suggests a significant pathophysiologic link between excess adiposity and severe COVID-19 illness,” the researchers noted.

This independent increased risk for death with severe obesity was seen in men but not in women.

Men with moderately severe and extremely severe obesity had significant 4.8-fold and 10-fold higher risks of dying within 3 weeks, respectively, compared with men of normal weight.

“That the risks are higher in younger patients is probably not because obesity is particularly damaging in this age group; it is more likely that other serious comorbidities that evolve later in life take over as dominant risk factors,” Dr. Kass suggested in his editorial.

“That males are particularly affected may reflect their greater visceral adiposity over females, given that this fat is notably proinflammatory and contributes to metabolic and vascular disease,” he added.

“As a cardiologist who studies heart failure,” Dr. Kass wrote, “I am struck by how many of the mechanisms that are mentioned in reviews of obesity risk and heart disease are also mentioned in reviews of obesity and COVID-19.”

The study was funded by Roche-Genentech. Kass has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures of the authors are listed in the article.
 

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

All intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism is not the same, Victor F. Tapson, MD, declared at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The best current guidelines on the management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) recommend a risk stratification strategy that involves further subdivision of intermediate-risk PE into intermediate to low or intermediate to high risk. This additional classification is worthwhile because it has important treatment implications.

Patients with intermediate- to low-risk PE, along with those who have truly low-risk PE, require anticoagulation only. In contrast, patients with intermediate- to high-risk PE are at increased risk of decompensation. They have a much higher in-hospital mortality than those with intermediate- to low-risk PE. So hospitalists may want to consult their hospitals’ PE response team (PERT), if there is one, or whoever on staff is involved in helping make decisions about the appropriateness of more aggressive interventions, such as catheter-directed thrombolysis or catheter-directed clot extraction, said Dr. Tapson, director of the venous thromboembolism and pulmonary vascular disease research program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“We don’t have evidence of any real proven mortality difference yet in the intermediate-high risk PE group by being more aggressive. I think if the right patients were studied we could see a mortality difference. But one thing I’ve noted is that by being more aggressive – in a cautious manner, in selected patients – we clearly shorten the hospital stay by doing catheter-directed therapy in some of these folks. It saves money,” he observed.

Once the diagnosis of PE is confirmed, the first priority is to get anticoagulation started in all patients with an acceptable bleeding risk, since there is convincing evidence that anticoagulation reduces mortality in PE. The 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a direct-acting oral anticoagulant over warfarin on the basis of persuasive evidence of lower risk of major bleeding coupled with equal or better effectiveness in preventing recurrent PE.

Dr. Tapson said it’s worthwhile for hospitalists to take a close look at these European guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01647-2019).

“I think our Europeans friends did a really nice job with those guidelines. They’re great guidelines, better than many of the others out there. I think they’re very, very usable,” he said. “I took part in the ACCP [American College of Chest Physicians] guidelines for years. I think they’re very rigorous in terms of the evidence base, but because they’re so rigorous there’s just tons of 2C recommendations, which are basically suggestions. The ESC guidelines are more robust.”
 

Risk stratification

Once anticoagulation is on board, the next task is risk stratification to determine the need for more aggressive therapy. A high-risk PE is best defined hemodynamically as one causing a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg for at least 15 minutes. The term “high risk” is increasingly replacing “massive” PE, because the size of the clot doesn’t necessarily correlate with its hemodynamic impact.

An intermediate-risk PE is marked by a simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score of 1 or more, right ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography or CT angiography, or an elevated cardiac troponin level.

The sPESI is a validated, user-friendly tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%.

“All you really need to know about a patient’s sPESI score is: Is it more than zero?” he explained.

Indeed, patients with an sPESI score of 0 have a 30-day mortality of 1%. With a score of 1 or more, however, that risk jumps to 10.9%.

No scoring system is 100% accurate, though, and Dr. Tapson emphasized that clinician gestalt plays an important role in PE risk stratification. In terms of clinical indicators of risk, he pays special attention to heart rate.

“I think if I had to pick the one thing that drives my decision the most about whether someone needs more aggressive therapy than anticoagulation, it’s probably heart rate,” he said. “If the heart rate is 70, the patient is probably very stable. Of course, that might not hold up in a patient with conduction problems or who is on a beta blocker, but in general if I see someone who looks good, has a relatively small PE, and a low heart rate, it makes me feel much better. If the heart rate is 130 or 120, I’m much more concerned.”

Both the European guidelines and the PERT Consortium guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of acute PE (Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1177/1076029619853037), which Dr. Tapson coauthored, recommend substratifying intermediate-risk PE into intermediate to low or intermediate to high risk. It’s a straightforward matter: If a patient has either right ventricular dysfunction on imaging or an elevated cardiac troponin, that’s an intermediate- to low-risk PE warranting anticoagulation only. On the other hand, if both right ventricular dysfunction and an elevated troponin are present, the patient has an intermediate- to high-risk PE. Since this distinction translates to a difference in outcome, a consultation with PERT or an experienced PE interventionalist is in order for the intermediate- to high-risk PE, he said.

Dr. Tapson reported receiving research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, BiO2, EKOS/BTG, and Daiichi. He is also a consultant to Janssen and BiO2, and on speakers’ bureaus for EKOS/BTG and Janssen.

[email protected]

All intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism is not the same, Victor F. Tapson, MD, declared at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The best current guidelines on the management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) recommend a risk stratification strategy that involves further subdivision of intermediate-risk PE into intermediate to low or intermediate to high risk. This additional classification is worthwhile because it has important treatment implications.

Patients with intermediate- to low-risk PE, along with those who have truly low-risk PE, require anticoagulation only. In contrast, patients with intermediate- to high-risk PE are at increased risk of decompensation. They have a much higher in-hospital mortality than those with intermediate- to low-risk PE. So hospitalists may want to consult their hospitals’ PE response team (PERT), if there is one, or whoever on staff is involved in helping make decisions about the appropriateness of more aggressive interventions, such as catheter-directed thrombolysis or catheter-directed clot extraction, said Dr. Tapson, director of the venous thromboembolism and pulmonary vascular disease research program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“We don’t have evidence of any real proven mortality difference yet in the intermediate-high risk PE group by being more aggressive. I think if the right patients were studied we could see a mortality difference. But one thing I’ve noted is that by being more aggressive – in a cautious manner, in selected patients – we clearly shorten the hospital stay by doing catheter-directed therapy in some of these folks. It saves money,” he observed.

Once the diagnosis of PE is confirmed, the first priority is to get anticoagulation started in all patients with an acceptable bleeding risk, since there is convincing evidence that anticoagulation reduces mortality in PE. The 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a direct-acting oral anticoagulant over warfarin on the basis of persuasive evidence of lower risk of major bleeding coupled with equal or better effectiveness in preventing recurrent PE.

Dr. Tapson said it’s worthwhile for hospitalists to take a close look at these European guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01647-2019).

“I think our Europeans friends did a really nice job with those guidelines. They’re great guidelines, better than many of the others out there. I think they’re very, very usable,” he said. “I took part in the ACCP [American College of Chest Physicians] guidelines for years. I think they’re very rigorous in terms of the evidence base, but because they’re so rigorous there’s just tons of 2C recommendations, which are basically suggestions. The ESC guidelines are more robust.”
 

Risk stratification

Once anticoagulation is on board, the next task is risk stratification to determine the need for more aggressive therapy. A high-risk PE is best defined hemodynamically as one causing a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg for at least 15 minutes. The term “high risk” is increasingly replacing “massive” PE, because the size of the clot doesn’t necessarily correlate with its hemodynamic impact.

An intermediate-risk PE is marked by a simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score of 1 or more, right ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography or CT angiography, or an elevated cardiac troponin level.

The sPESI is a validated, user-friendly tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%.

“All you really need to know about a patient’s sPESI score is: Is it more than zero?” he explained.

Indeed, patients with an sPESI score of 0 have a 30-day mortality of 1%. With a score of 1 or more, however, that risk jumps to 10.9%.

No scoring system is 100% accurate, though, and Dr. Tapson emphasized that clinician gestalt plays an important role in PE risk stratification. In terms of clinical indicators of risk, he pays special attention to heart rate.

“I think if I had to pick the one thing that drives my decision the most about whether someone needs more aggressive therapy than anticoagulation, it’s probably heart rate,” he said. “If the heart rate is 70, the patient is probably very stable. Of course, that might not hold up in a patient with conduction problems or who is on a beta blocker, but in general if I see someone who looks good, has a relatively small PE, and a low heart rate, it makes me feel much better. If the heart rate is 130 or 120, I’m much more concerned.”

Both the European guidelines and the PERT Consortium guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of acute PE (Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1177/1076029619853037), which Dr. Tapson coauthored, recommend substratifying intermediate-risk PE into intermediate to low or intermediate to high risk. It’s a straightforward matter: If a patient has either right ventricular dysfunction on imaging or an elevated cardiac troponin, that’s an intermediate- to low-risk PE warranting anticoagulation only. On the other hand, if both right ventricular dysfunction and an elevated troponin are present, the patient has an intermediate- to high-risk PE. Since this distinction translates to a difference in outcome, a consultation with PERT or an experienced PE interventionalist is in order for the intermediate- to high-risk PE, he said.

Dr. Tapson reported receiving research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, BiO2, EKOS/BTG, and Daiichi. He is also a consultant to Janssen and BiO2, and on speakers’ bureaus for EKOS/BTG and Janssen.

[email protected]

All intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism is not the same, Victor F. Tapson, MD, declared at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The best current guidelines on the management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) recommend a risk stratification strategy that involves further subdivision of intermediate-risk PE into intermediate to low or intermediate to high risk. This additional classification is worthwhile because it has important treatment implications.

Patients with intermediate- to low-risk PE, along with those who have truly low-risk PE, require anticoagulation only. In contrast, patients with intermediate- to high-risk PE are at increased risk of decompensation. They have a much higher in-hospital mortality than those with intermediate- to low-risk PE. So hospitalists may want to consult their hospitals’ PE response team (PERT), if there is one, or whoever on staff is involved in helping make decisions about the appropriateness of more aggressive interventions, such as catheter-directed thrombolysis or catheter-directed clot extraction, said Dr. Tapson, director of the venous thromboembolism and pulmonary vascular disease research program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“We don’t have evidence of any real proven mortality difference yet in the intermediate-high risk PE group by being more aggressive. I think if the right patients were studied we could see a mortality difference. But one thing I’ve noted is that by being more aggressive – in a cautious manner, in selected patients – we clearly shorten the hospital stay by doing catheter-directed therapy in some of these folks. It saves money,” he observed.

Once the diagnosis of PE is confirmed, the first priority is to get anticoagulation started in all patients with an acceptable bleeding risk, since there is convincing evidence that anticoagulation reduces mortality in PE. The 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a direct-acting oral anticoagulant over warfarin on the basis of persuasive evidence of lower risk of major bleeding coupled with equal or better effectiveness in preventing recurrent PE.

Dr. Tapson said it’s worthwhile for hospitalists to take a close look at these European guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01647-2019).

“I think our Europeans friends did a really nice job with those guidelines. They’re great guidelines, better than many of the others out there. I think they’re very, very usable,” he said. “I took part in the ACCP [American College of Chest Physicians] guidelines for years. I think they’re very rigorous in terms of the evidence base, but because they’re so rigorous there’s just tons of 2C recommendations, which are basically suggestions. The ESC guidelines are more robust.”
 

Risk stratification

Once anticoagulation is on board, the next task is risk stratification to determine the need for more aggressive therapy. A high-risk PE is best defined hemodynamically as one causing a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg for at least 15 minutes. The term “high risk” is increasingly replacing “massive” PE, because the size of the clot doesn’t necessarily correlate with its hemodynamic impact.

An intermediate-risk PE is marked by a simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score of 1 or more, right ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography or CT angiography, or an elevated cardiac troponin level.

The sPESI is a validated, user-friendly tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%.

“All you really need to know about a patient’s sPESI score is: Is it more than zero?” he explained.

Indeed, patients with an sPESI score of 0 have a 30-day mortality of 1%. With a score of 1 or more, however, that risk jumps to 10.9%.

No scoring system is 100% accurate, though, and Dr. Tapson emphasized that clinician gestalt plays an important role in PE risk stratification. In terms of clinical indicators of risk, he pays special attention to heart rate.

“I think if I had to pick the one thing that drives my decision the most about whether someone needs more aggressive therapy than anticoagulation, it’s probably heart rate,” he said. “If the heart rate is 70, the patient is probably very stable. Of course, that might not hold up in a patient with conduction problems or who is on a beta blocker, but in general if I see someone who looks good, has a relatively small PE, and a low heart rate, it makes me feel much better. If the heart rate is 130 or 120, I’m much more concerned.”

Both the European guidelines and the PERT Consortium guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of acute PE (Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1177/1076029619853037), which Dr. Tapson coauthored, recommend substratifying intermediate-risk PE into intermediate to low or intermediate to high risk. It’s a straightforward matter: If a patient has either right ventricular dysfunction on imaging or an elevated cardiac troponin, that’s an intermediate- to low-risk PE warranting anticoagulation only. On the other hand, if both right ventricular dysfunction and an elevated troponin are present, the patient has an intermediate- to high-risk PE. Since this distinction translates to a difference in outcome, a consultation with PERT or an experienced PE interventionalist is in order for the intermediate- to high-risk PE, he said.

Dr. Tapson reported receiving research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, BiO2, EKOS/BTG, and Daiichi. He is also a consultant to Janssen and BiO2, and on speakers’ bureaus for EKOS/BTG and Janssen.

[email protected]

August was National Immunization Awareness Month. ... just in time to address the precipitous drop in immunization delivered during the early months of the pandemic.

FatCamera/Getty Images

In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported substantial reductions in vaccine doses ordered through the Vaccines for Children program after the declaration of national emergency because of COVID-19 on March 13. Approximately 2.5 million fewer doses of routine, noninfluenza vaccines were administered between Jan. 6 and April 2020, compared with a similar period last year (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 May 15;69[19]:591-3). Declines in immunization rates were echoed by states and municipalities across the United States. Last month, the health system in which I work reported 40,000 children behind on at least one vaccine.

We all know that, when immunization rates drop, outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases follow. In order to avert another public health crisis, we need action as well as awareness to catch up with childhood immunizations, and that is going to take more than a single month.
 

Identify patients who’ve missed vaccinations

Simply being open and ready to vaccinate is not enough. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urges providers to identify patients who have missed vaccines, and call them to schedule in-person visits. Proactively let parents know about strategies implemented in your office to ensure a safe environment.

Pediatricians are accustomed to an influx of patients in the summer, as parents make sure their children have all of the vaccines required for school attendance. As noted in a Washington Post article from Aug. 4, 2020, schools have traditionally served as a backstop for immunization rates. But as many school districts opt to take education online this fall, the implications for vaccine requirements are unclear. District of Columbia public schools continue to require immunization for virtual school attendance, but it is not clear how easily this can be enforced. To read about how other school districts have chosen to address – or not address – immunization requirements for school, visit the the Immunization Action Coalition’s Repository of Resources for Maintaining Immunization during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The repository links to international, national, and state-level policies and guidance and advocacy materials, including talking points, webinars, press releases, media articles from around the United States and social media posts, as well as telehealth resources.
 

Get some inspiration to talk about vaccination

Need a little inspiration for talking to parents about vaccines? Check out the CDC’s #HowIRecommend video series. These are short videos, most under a minute in length, that explain the importance of vaccination, how to effectively address questions from parents about vaccine safety, and how clinicians routinely recommend same day vaccination to their patients. These videos are part of the CDC’s National Immunization Awareness Month (NIAM) toolkit for communication with health care professionals. A companion toolkit for communicating with parents and patients contains sample social media messages with graphics, along with educational resources to share with parents.

The “Comprehensive Vaccine Education Program – From Training to Practice,” a free online program offered by the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, takes a deeper dive into strategies to combat vaccine misinformation and address vaccine hesitancy. Available modules cover vaccine fundamentals, vaccine safety, clinical manifestations of vaccine-preventable diseases, and communication skills that lead to more effective conversations with patients and parents. The curriculum also includes the newest edition of The Vaccine Handbook app, a comprehensive source of practical information for vaccine providers.
 

Educate young children about vaccines

Don’t leave young children out of the conversation. Vax-Force is a children’s book that explores how vaccination works inside the human body. Dr. Vaxson the pediatrician explains how trusted doctors and scientists made Vicky the Vaccine. Her mission is to tell Willy the White Blood Cell and his Antibuddies how to find and fight bad-guy germs like measles, tetanus, and polio. The book was written by Kelsey Rowe, MD, while she was a medical student at Saint Louis University School of Medicine. Dr. Rowe, now a pediatric resident, notes, “In a world where anti-vaccination rhetoric threatens the health of our global community, this book’s mission is to teach children and adults alike that getting vaccinations is a safe, effective, and even exciting thing to do.” The book is available for purchase at https://www.vax-force.com/, and a small part of every sale is donated to Unicef USA.
 

Consider vaccination advocacy in your communities

Vaccinate Your Family, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting people of all ages from vaccine-preventable diseases, suggests that health care providers need to take an active role in raising immunization rates, not just in their own practices, but in their communities. One way to do this is to submit an opinion piece or letter to the editor to a local newspaper describing why it’s important for parents to make sure their child’s immunizations are current. Those who have never written an opinion-editorial should look at the guidance developed by Voices for Vaccines.
 

How are we doing?

Early data suggest a rebound in immunization rates in May and June, but that is unlikely to close the gap created by disruptions in health care delivery earlier in the year. Collectively, we need to set ambitious goals. Are we just trying to reach prepandemic immunization levels? In Kentucky, where I practice, only 71% of kids aged 19-45 months had received all doses of seven routinely recommended vaccines (≥4 DTaP doses, ≥3 polio doses, ≥1 MMR dose, Hib full series, ≥3 HepB doses, ≥1 varicella dose, and ≥4 PCV doses) based on 2017 National Immunization Survey data. The Healthy People 2020 target goal is 80%. Only 55% of Kentucky girls aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of HPV vaccine, and rates in boys were even lower. Flu vaccine coverage in children 6 months to 17 years also was 55%. The status quo sets the bar too low. To see how your state is doing, check out the interactive map developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Are we attempting to avoid disaster or can we seize the opportunity to protect more children than ever from vaccine-preventable diseases? The latter would really be something to celebrate.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

August was National Immunization Awareness Month. ... just in time to address the precipitous drop in immunization delivered during the early months of the pandemic.

FatCamera/Getty Images

In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported substantial reductions in vaccine doses ordered through the Vaccines for Children program after the declaration of national emergency because of COVID-19 on March 13. Approximately 2.5 million fewer doses of routine, noninfluenza vaccines were administered between Jan. 6 and April 2020, compared with a similar period last year (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 May 15;69[19]:591-3). Declines in immunization rates were echoed by states and municipalities across the United States. Last month, the health system in which I work reported 40,000 children behind on at least one vaccine.

We all know that, when immunization rates drop, outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases follow. In order to avert another public health crisis, we need action as well as awareness to catch up with childhood immunizations, and that is going to take more than a single month.
 

Identify patients who’ve missed vaccinations

Simply being open and ready to vaccinate is not enough. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urges providers to identify patients who have missed vaccines, and call them to schedule in-person visits. Proactively let parents know about strategies implemented in your office to ensure a safe environment.

Pediatricians are accustomed to an influx of patients in the summer, as parents make sure their children have all of the vaccines required for school attendance. As noted in a Washington Post article from Aug. 4, 2020, schools have traditionally served as a backstop for immunization rates. But as many school districts opt to take education online this fall, the implications for vaccine requirements are unclear. District of Columbia public schools continue to require immunization for virtual school attendance, but it is not clear how easily this can be enforced. To read about how other school districts have chosen to address – or not address – immunization requirements for school, visit the the Immunization Action Coalition’s Repository of Resources for Maintaining Immunization during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The repository links to international, national, and state-level policies and guidance and advocacy materials, including talking points, webinars, press releases, media articles from around the United States and social media posts, as well as telehealth resources.
 

Get some inspiration to talk about vaccination

Need a little inspiration for talking to parents about vaccines? Check out the CDC’s #HowIRecommend video series. These are short videos, most under a minute in length, that explain the importance of vaccination, how to effectively address questions from parents about vaccine safety, and how clinicians routinely recommend same day vaccination to their patients. These videos are part of the CDC’s National Immunization Awareness Month (NIAM) toolkit for communication with health care professionals. A companion toolkit for communicating with parents and patients contains sample social media messages with graphics, along with educational resources to share with parents.

The “Comprehensive Vaccine Education Program – From Training to Practice,” a free online program offered by the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, takes a deeper dive into strategies to combat vaccine misinformation and address vaccine hesitancy. Available modules cover vaccine fundamentals, vaccine safety, clinical manifestations of vaccine-preventable diseases, and communication skills that lead to more effective conversations with patients and parents. The curriculum also includes the newest edition of The Vaccine Handbook app, a comprehensive source of practical information for vaccine providers.
 

Educate young children about vaccines

Don’t leave young children out of the conversation. Vax-Force is a children’s book that explores how vaccination works inside the human body. Dr. Vaxson the pediatrician explains how trusted doctors and scientists made Vicky the Vaccine. Her mission is to tell Willy the White Blood Cell and his Antibuddies how to find and fight bad-guy germs like measles, tetanus, and polio. The book was written by Kelsey Rowe, MD, while she was a medical student at Saint Louis University School of Medicine. Dr. Rowe, now a pediatric resident, notes, “In a world where anti-vaccination rhetoric threatens the health of our global community, this book’s mission is to teach children and adults alike that getting vaccinations is a safe, effective, and even exciting thing to do.” The book is available for purchase at https://www.vax-force.com/, and a small part of every sale is donated to Unicef USA.
 

Consider vaccination advocacy in your communities

Vaccinate Your Family, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting people of all ages from vaccine-preventable diseases, suggests that health care providers need to take an active role in raising immunization rates, not just in their own practices, but in their communities. One way to do this is to submit an opinion piece or letter to the editor to a local newspaper describing why it’s important for parents to make sure their child’s immunizations are current. Those who have never written an opinion-editorial should look at the guidance developed by Voices for Vaccines.
 

How are we doing?

Early data suggest a rebound in immunization rates in May and June, but that is unlikely to close the gap created by disruptions in health care delivery earlier in the year. Collectively, we need to set ambitious goals. Are we just trying to reach prepandemic immunization levels? In Kentucky, where I practice, only 71% of kids aged 19-45 months had received all doses of seven routinely recommended vaccines (≥4 DTaP doses, ≥3 polio doses, ≥1 MMR dose, Hib full series, ≥3 HepB doses, ≥1 varicella dose, and ≥4 PCV doses) based on 2017 National Immunization Survey data. The Healthy People 2020 target goal is 80%. Only 55% of Kentucky girls aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of HPV vaccine, and rates in boys were even lower. Flu vaccine coverage in children 6 months to 17 years also was 55%. The status quo sets the bar too low. To see how your state is doing, check out the interactive map developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Are we attempting to avoid disaster or can we seize the opportunity to protect more children than ever from vaccine-preventable diseases? The latter would really be something to celebrate.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

August was National Immunization Awareness Month. ... just in time to address the precipitous drop in immunization delivered during the early months of the pandemic.

FatCamera/Getty Images

In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported substantial reductions in vaccine doses ordered through the Vaccines for Children program after the declaration of national emergency because of COVID-19 on March 13. Approximately 2.5 million fewer doses of routine, noninfluenza vaccines were administered between Jan. 6 and April 2020, compared with a similar period last year (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 May 15;69[19]:591-3). Declines in immunization rates were echoed by states and municipalities across the United States. Last month, the health system in which I work reported 40,000 children behind on at least one vaccine.

We all know that, when immunization rates drop, outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases follow. In order to avert another public health crisis, we need action as well as awareness to catch up with childhood immunizations, and that is going to take more than a single month.
 

Identify patients who’ve missed vaccinations

Simply being open and ready to vaccinate is not enough. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urges providers to identify patients who have missed vaccines, and call them to schedule in-person visits. Proactively let parents know about strategies implemented in your office to ensure a safe environment.

Pediatricians are accustomed to an influx of patients in the summer, as parents make sure their children have all of the vaccines required for school attendance. As noted in a Washington Post article from Aug. 4, 2020, schools have traditionally served as a backstop for immunization rates. But as many school districts opt to take education online this fall, the implications for vaccine requirements are unclear. District of Columbia public schools continue to require immunization for virtual school attendance, but it is not clear how easily this can be enforced. To read about how other school districts have chosen to address – or not address – immunization requirements for school, visit the the Immunization Action Coalition’s Repository of Resources for Maintaining Immunization during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The repository links to international, national, and state-level policies and guidance and advocacy materials, including talking points, webinars, press releases, media articles from around the United States and social media posts, as well as telehealth resources.
 

Get some inspiration to talk about vaccination

Need a little inspiration for talking to parents about vaccines? Check out the CDC’s #HowIRecommend video series. These are short videos, most under a minute in length, that explain the importance of vaccination, how to effectively address questions from parents about vaccine safety, and how clinicians routinely recommend same day vaccination to their patients. These videos are part of the CDC’s National Immunization Awareness Month (NIAM) toolkit for communication with health care professionals. A companion toolkit for communicating with parents and patients contains sample social media messages with graphics, along with educational resources to share with parents.

The “Comprehensive Vaccine Education Program – From Training to Practice,” a free online program offered by the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, takes a deeper dive into strategies to combat vaccine misinformation and address vaccine hesitancy. Available modules cover vaccine fundamentals, vaccine safety, clinical manifestations of vaccine-preventable diseases, and communication skills that lead to more effective conversations with patients and parents. The curriculum also includes the newest edition of The Vaccine Handbook app, a comprehensive source of practical information for vaccine providers.
 

Educate young children about vaccines

Don’t leave young children out of the conversation. Vax-Force is a children’s book that explores how vaccination works inside the human body. Dr. Vaxson the pediatrician explains how trusted doctors and scientists made Vicky the Vaccine. Her mission is to tell Willy the White Blood Cell and his Antibuddies how to find and fight bad-guy germs like measles, tetanus, and polio. The book was written by Kelsey Rowe, MD, while she was a medical student at Saint Louis University School of Medicine. Dr. Rowe, now a pediatric resident, notes, “In a world where anti-vaccination rhetoric threatens the health of our global community, this book’s mission is to teach children and adults alike that getting vaccinations is a safe, effective, and even exciting thing to do.” The book is available for purchase at https://www.vax-force.com/, and a small part of every sale is donated to Unicef USA.
 

Consider vaccination advocacy in your communities

Vaccinate Your Family, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting people of all ages from vaccine-preventable diseases, suggests that health care providers need to take an active role in raising immunization rates, not just in their own practices, but in their communities. One way to do this is to submit an opinion piece or letter to the editor to a local newspaper describing why it’s important for parents to make sure their child’s immunizations are current. Those who have never written an opinion-editorial should look at the guidance developed by Voices for Vaccines.
 

How are we doing?

Early data suggest a rebound in immunization rates in May and June, but that is unlikely to close the gap created by disruptions in health care delivery earlier in the year. Collectively, we need to set ambitious goals. Are we just trying to reach prepandemic immunization levels? In Kentucky, where I practice, only 71% of kids aged 19-45 months had received all doses of seven routinely recommended vaccines (≥4 DTaP doses, ≥3 polio doses, ≥1 MMR dose, Hib full series, ≥3 HepB doses, ≥1 varicella dose, and ≥4 PCV doses) based on 2017 National Immunization Survey data. The Healthy People 2020 target goal is 80%. Only 55% of Kentucky girls aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of HPV vaccine, and rates in boys were even lower. Flu vaccine coverage in children 6 months to 17 years also was 55%. The status quo sets the bar too low. To see how your state is doing, check out the interactive map developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Are we attempting to avoid disaster or can we seize the opportunity to protect more children than ever from vaccine-preventable diseases? The latter would really be something to celebrate.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].