Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Tackling the COVID-19 crisis will require psychiatrists to muster the courage to lead, establish trust, and ultimately provide psychiatric care with competence, honesty, and compassion, said Patrice A. Harris, MD, an Atlanta-based psychiatrist who is president of the American Medical Association.

Leaders in psychiatry are uniquely positioned to combat a wave of disease misinformation, address inequities in care, and meet the logistical challenges of safely meeting patient needs as the outbreak continues, Dr. Harris said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting, which was held as a virtual live event.

“I believe you, we, are more than a match for this moment – a moment that requires our leadership and requires us to hold other leaders accountable as we fight this pandemic,” she said in remarks to online attendees.
 

Using trust to fight myths

Misinformation about COVID-19 has been “spreading rapidly, even intentionally, due to fear or political agendas,” said Dr. Harris, who became the 174th president of the AMA in June 2019.

“I spent the first 2 weeks in this pandemic dispelling the myth that African Americans could not become infected with COVID-19,” she said. Others believe the coronavirus crisis is a new way to force vaccinations on people who don’t want them, added Dr. Harris.

Myths, rumors, and conspiracy theories lead to “more illness and death,” she said, at a time when most Americans say they’ve lost trust in the federal government and even in other American citizens.

“Fortunately, people still trust us – their doctors,” she added. “We fight for science, we call out quackery and snake oil when we see it, [and] we are willing to counter the propaganda of the antiscience voice.”

Physicians are ranked among the most trusted professions because they are committed to seeing, acknowledging, and sharing patients’ human experience, “and of course, I believe we do that as psychiatrists more than most,” Dr. Harris said.
 

Fighting COVID-19 at the AMA level

During the pandemic, the AMA has advocated for adequate testing and supplies, adequate insurance coverage, and changes to current procedural technology (CPT) codes to streamline novel coronavirus testing. The AMA has also developed a free COVID-19 resource center on the JAMA Network website, Dr. Harris said, as well as guidance on protecting medical students responding to the pandemic.

The safety of health care clinicians remains a central issue for the AMA at a time when masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) remain in short supply.

In a recent letter to Vice President Mike Pence, who is leading the White House’s coronavirus task force, AMA Executive Vice President and CEO James L. Madara, MD, urged the Trump administration to undertake a Manhattan Project–like effort to expand capacity for needed supplies.

“We will continue to call on the White House, and APA has as well, to make sure these needs are met,” Dr. Harris said.
 

COVID-19 and inequities in care

Because the pandemic has had dramatic effects on African American communities across the United States, AMA Chief Health Equity Officer Aletha Maybank, MD, has made recent media appearances to highlight care inequities and what can be done about them.

Meanwhile, the AMA and other physician associations have urged the Trump Administration to collect, analyze, and make available COVID-19 data by race and ethnicity: “We can’t fix a problem until we identify a problem,” Dr. Harris said in her address to the APA.
 

Relying on science

In a virtual address hosted by the National Press Club earlier in April, Dr. Harris made an appeal for “relying on the science and evidence” to inform COVID-19–related decisions.

Elected officials need to “affirm science, evidence, and fact in their words and actions,” while media need to be vigilant in citing credible sources and challenging those who “chose to trade in misinformation,” she said in that address.

Speaking at the APA virtual meeting, Dr. Harris spoke of an “assault on science for several years” that inspired the National Press Club address. “We wanted to remind the public of its responsibility to focus on science and the evidence, for us to turn the tide against COVID-19,” she explained.
 

Physician care and self-care

While the AMA urges social distancing, Dr. Harris used the term “physical distancing” in her APA address. Physical distancing emphasizes the need for stay-at-home and shelter-in-place restrictions, while recognizing the need for maintaining meaningful social interactions, she explained.

Social media use represents one “opportunity” to bridge that gap when physical proximity is not an option, she added.

Dr. Harris also stressed the need for physicians to “take time out and practice self-care” to ensure that they are recharged and able to provide optimal patient care.

“We need to be there for others, but we have to put our own masks on first,” she said.

Dr. Harris reported no financial relationships with commercial interests.

SOURCE: Harris PA. APA 2020 Virtual Meeting.

Tackling the COVID-19 crisis will require psychiatrists to muster the courage to lead, establish trust, and ultimately provide psychiatric care with competence, honesty, and compassion, said Patrice A. Harris, MD, an Atlanta-based psychiatrist who is president of the American Medical Association.

Leaders in psychiatry are uniquely positioned to combat a wave of disease misinformation, address inequities in care, and meet the logistical challenges of safely meeting patient needs as the outbreak continues, Dr. Harris said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting, which was held as a virtual live event.

“I believe you, we, are more than a match for this moment – a moment that requires our leadership and requires us to hold other leaders accountable as we fight this pandemic,” she said in remarks to online attendees.
 

Using trust to fight myths

Misinformation about COVID-19 has been “spreading rapidly, even intentionally, due to fear or political agendas,” said Dr. Harris, who became the 174th president of the AMA in June 2019.

“I spent the first 2 weeks in this pandemic dispelling the myth that African Americans could not become infected with COVID-19,” she said. Others believe the coronavirus crisis is a new way to force vaccinations on people who don’t want them, added Dr. Harris.

Myths, rumors, and conspiracy theories lead to “more illness and death,” she said, at a time when most Americans say they’ve lost trust in the federal government and even in other American citizens.

“Fortunately, people still trust us – their doctors,” she added. “We fight for science, we call out quackery and snake oil when we see it, [and] we are willing to counter the propaganda of the antiscience voice.”

Physicians are ranked among the most trusted professions because they are committed to seeing, acknowledging, and sharing patients’ human experience, “and of course, I believe we do that as psychiatrists more than most,” Dr. Harris said.
 

Fighting COVID-19 at the AMA level

During the pandemic, the AMA has advocated for adequate testing and supplies, adequate insurance coverage, and changes to current procedural technology (CPT) codes to streamline novel coronavirus testing. The AMA has also developed a free COVID-19 resource center on the JAMA Network website, Dr. Harris said, as well as guidance on protecting medical students responding to the pandemic.

The safety of health care clinicians remains a central issue for the AMA at a time when masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) remain in short supply.

In a recent letter to Vice President Mike Pence, who is leading the White House’s coronavirus task force, AMA Executive Vice President and CEO James L. Madara, MD, urged the Trump administration to undertake a Manhattan Project–like effort to expand capacity for needed supplies.

“We will continue to call on the White House, and APA has as well, to make sure these needs are met,” Dr. Harris said.
 

COVID-19 and inequities in care

Because the pandemic has had dramatic effects on African American communities across the United States, AMA Chief Health Equity Officer Aletha Maybank, MD, has made recent media appearances to highlight care inequities and what can be done about them.

Meanwhile, the AMA and other physician associations have urged the Trump Administration to collect, analyze, and make available COVID-19 data by race and ethnicity: “We can’t fix a problem until we identify a problem,” Dr. Harris said in her address to the APA.
 

Relying on science

In a virtual address hosted by the National Press Club earlier in April, Dr. Harris made an appeal for “relying on the science and evidence” to inform COVID-19–related decisions.

Elected officials need to “affirm science, evidence, and fact in their words and actions,” while media need to be vigilant in citing credible sources and challenging those who “chose to trade in misinformation,” she said in that address.

Speaking at the APA virtual meeting, Dr. Harris spoke of an “assault on science for several years” that inspired the National Press Club address. “We wanted to remind the public of its responsibility to focus on science and the evidence, for us to turn the tide against COVID-19,” she explained.
 

Physician care and self-care

While the AMA urges social distancing, Dr. Harris used the term “physical distancing” in her APA address. Physical distancing emphasizes the need for stay-at-home and shelter-in-place restrictions, while recognizing the need for maintaining meaningful social interactions, she explained.

Social media use represents one “opportunity” to bridge that gap when physical proximity is not an option, she added.

Dr. Harris also stressed the need for physicians to “take time out and practice self-care” to ensure that they are recharged and able to provide optimal patient care.

“We need to be there for others, but we have to put our own masks on first,” she said.

Dr. Harris reported no financial relationships with commercial interests.

SOURCE: Harris PA. APA 2020 Virtual Meeting.

Tackling the COVID-19 crisis will require psychiatrists to muster the courage to lead, establish trust, and ultimately provide psychiatric care with competence, honesty, and compassion, said Patrice A. Harris, MD, an Atlanta-based psychiatrist who is president of the American Medical Association.

Leaders in psychiatry are uniquely positioned to combat a wave of disease misinformation, address inequities in care, and meet the logistical challenges of safely meeting patient needs as the outbreak continues, Dr. Harris said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting, which was held as a virtual live event.

“I believe you, we, are more than a match for this moment – a moment that requires our leadership and requires us to hold other leaders accountable as we fight this pandemic,” she said in remarks to online attendees.
 

Using trust to fight myths

Misinformation about COVID-19 has been “spreading rapidly, even intentionally, due to fear or political agendas,” said Dr. Harris, who became the 174th president of the AMA in June 2019.

“I spent the first 2 weeks in this pandemic dispelling the myth that African Americans could not become infected with COVID-19,” she said. Others believe the coronavirus crisis is a new way to force vaccinations on people who don’t want them, added Dr. Harris.

Myths, rumors, and conspiracy theories lead to “more illness and death,” she said, at a time when most Americans say they’ve lost trust in the federal government and even in other American citizens.

“Fortunately, people still trust us – their doctors,” she added. “We fight for science, we call out quackery and snake oil when we see it, [and] we are willing to counter the propaganda of the antiscience voice.”

Physicians are ranked among the most trusted professions because they are committed to seeing, acknowledging, and sharing patients’ human experience, “and of course, I believe we do that as psychiatrists more than most,” Dr. Harris said.
 

Fighting COVID-19 at the AMA level

During the pandemic, the AMA has advocated for adequate testing and supplies, adequate insurance coverage, and changes to current procedural technology (CPT) codes to streamline novel coronavirus testing. The AMA has also developed a free COVID-19 resource center on the JAMA Network website, Dr. Harris said, as well as guidance on protecting medical students responding to the pandemic.

The safety of health care clinicians remains a central issue for the AMA at a time when masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) remain in short supply.

In a recent letter to Vice President Mike Pence, who is leading the White House’s coronavirus task force, AMA Executive Vice President and CEO James L. Madara, MD, urged the Trump administration to undertake a Manhattan Project–like effort to expand capacity for needed supplies.

“We will continue to call on the White House, and APA has as well, to make sure these needs are met,” Dr. Harris said.
 

COVID-19 and inequities in care

Because the pandemic has had dramatic effects on African American communities across the United States, AMA Chief Health Equity Officer Aletha Maybank, MD, has made recent media appearances to highlight care inequities and what can be done about them.

Meanwhile, the AMA and other physician associations have urged the Trump Administration to collect, analyze, and make available COVID-19 data by race and ethnicity: “We can’t fix a problem until we identify a problem,” Dr. Harris said in her address to the APA.
 

Relying on science

In a virtual address hosted by the National Press Club earlier in April, Dr. Harris made an appeal for “relying on the science and evidence” to inform COVID-19–related decisions.

Elected officials need to “affirm science, evidence, and fact in their words and actions,” while media need to be vigilant in citing credible sources and challenging those who “chose to trade in misinformation,” she said in that address.

Speaking at the APA virtual meeting, Dr. Harris spoke of an “assault on science for several years” that inspired the National Press Club address. “We wanted to remind the public of its responsibility to focus on science and the evidence, for us to turn the tide against COVID-19,” she explained.
 

Physician care and self-care

While the AMA urges social distancing, Dr. Harris used the term “physical distancing” in her APA address. Physical distancing emphasizes the need for stay-at-home and shelter-in-place restrictions, while recognizing the need for maintaining meaningful social interactions, she explained.

Social media use represents one “opportunity” to bridge that gap when physical proximity is not an option, she added.

Dr. Harris also stressed the need for physicians to “take time out and practice self-care” to ensure that they are recharged and able to provide optimal patient care.

“We need to be there for others, but we have to put our own masks on first,” she said.

Dr. Harris reported no financial relationships with commercial interests.

SOURCE: Harris PA. APA 2020 Virtual Meeting.

There has been a massive decline in outpatient office visits as patients have stayed home – likely deferring needed care – because of COVID-19, new research shows.

The number of visits to ambulatory practices dropped by a whopping 60% in mid-March, and continues to be down by at least 50% since early February, according to new data compiled and analyzed by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company.

Phreesia – which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments – has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states; in a typical year, Phreesia tracks 50 million outpatient visits.

The report was published online April 23 by the Commonwealth Fund.

The company captured data on visits from February 1 through April 16. The decline was greatest in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, where, at the steepest end of the decline in late March, visits were down 66%.

They have rebounded slightly since then but are still down 64%. Practices in the mountain states had the smallest decline, but visits were down by 45% as of April 16.

Many practices have attempted to reach out to patients through telemedicine. As of April 16, about 30% of all visits tracked by Phreesia were provided via telemedicine – by phone or through video. That’s a monumental increase from mid-February, when zero visits were conducted virtually.

However, the Harvard researchers found that telemedicine visits barely made up for the huge decline in office visits.
 

Decline by specialty

Not surprisingly, declining visits have been steeper in procedure-oriented specialties.

Overall visits – including telemedicine – to ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists had declined by 79% and 75%, respectively, as of the week of April 5. Dermatology saw a 73% decline. Surgery, pulmonology, urology, orthopedics, cardiology, and gastroenterology all experienced declines ranging from 61% to 66%.

Primary care offices, oncology, endocrinology, and obstetrics/gynecology all fared slightly better, with visits down by half. Behavioral health experienced the lowest rate of decline (30%).

School-aged children were skipping care most often. The study showed a 71% drop in visits in 7- to 17-year-olds, and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans over age 65 also stayed away from their doctors. Only half of those aged 18 to 64 reduced their physician visits.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There has been a massive decline in outpatient office visits as patients have stayed home – likely deferring needed care – because of COVID-19, new research shows.

The number of visits to ambulatory practices dropped by a whopping 60% in mid-March, and continues to be down by at least 50% since early February, according to new data compiled and analyzed by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company.

Phreesia – which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments – has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states; in a typical year, Phreesia tracks 50 million outpatient visits.

The report was published online April 23 by the Commonwealth Fund.

The company captured data on visits from February 1 through April 16. The decline was greatest in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, where, at the steepest end of the decline in late March, visits were down 66%.

They have rebounded slightly since then but are still down 64%. Practices in the mountain states had the smallest decline, but visits were down by 45% as of April 16.

Many practices have attempted to reach out to patients through telemedicine. As of April 16, about 30% of all visits tracked by Phreesia were provided via telemedicine – by phone or through video. That’s a monumental increase from mid-February, when zero visits were conducted virtually.

However, the Harvard researchers found that telemedicine visits barely made up for the huge decline in office visits.
 

Decline by specialty

Not surprisingly, declining visits have been steeper in procedure-oriented specialties.

Overall visits – including telemedicine – to ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists had declined by 79% and 75%, respectively, as of the week of April 5. Dermatology saw a 73% decline. Surgery, pulmonology, urology, orthopedics, cardiology, and gastroenterology all experienced declines ranging from 61% to 66%.

Primary care offices, oncology, endocrinology, and obstetrics/gynecology all fared slightly better, with visits down by half. Behavioral health experienced the lowest rate of decline (30%).

School-aged children were skipping care most often. The study showed a 71% drop in visits in 7- to 17-year-olds, and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans over age 65 also stayed away from their doctors. Only half of those aged 18 to 64 reduced their physician visits.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There has been a massive decline in outpatient office visits as patients have stayed home – likely deferring needed care – because of COVID-19, new research shows.

The number of visits to ambulatory practices dropped by a whopping 60% in mid-March, and continues to be down by at least 50% since early February, according to new data compiled and analyzed by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company.

Phreesia – which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments – has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states; in a typical year, Phreesia tracks 50 million outpatient visits.

The report was published online April 23 by the Commonwealth Fund.

The company captured data on visits from February 1 through April 16. The decline was greatest in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, where, at the steepest end of the decline in late March, visits were down 66%.

They have rebounded slightly since then but are still down 64%. Practices in the mountain states had the smallest decline, but visits were down by 45% as of April 16.

Many practices have attempted to reach out to patients through telemedicine. As of April 16, about 30% of all visits tracked by Phreesia were provided via telemedicine – by phone or through video. That’s a monumental increase from mid-February, when zero visits were conducted virtually.

However, the Harvard researchers found that telemedicine visits barely made up for the huge decline in office visits.
 

Decline by specialty

Not surprisingly, declining visits have been steeper in procedure-oriented specialties.

Overall visits – including telemedicine – to ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists had declined by 79% and 75%, respectively, as of the week of April 5. Dermatology saw a 73% decline. Surgery, pulmonology, urology, orthopedics, cardiology, and gastroenterology all experienced declines ranging from 61% to 66%.

Primary care offices, oncology, endocrinology, and obstetrics/gynecology all fared slightly better, with visits down by half. Behavioral health experienced the lowest rate of decline (30%).

School-aged children were skipping care most often. The study showed a 71% drop in visits in 7- to 17-year-olds, and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans over age 65 also stayed away from their doctors. Only half of those aged 18 to 64 reduced their physician visits.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.

“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
 

Care of COVID-free patients

For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.

“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.

Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.

The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
 

Trials halted or slowed

Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.

“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.

“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.

The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.

“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.

Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
 

Lessons from the front lines

Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.

Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.

Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.

“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.

The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.

“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
 

A view from Washington state

Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.

Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.

“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.

Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
 

ASCO resources

Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.

“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
 

Care of COVID-free patients

For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.

“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.

Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.

The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
 

Trials halted or slowed

Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.

“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.

“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.

The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.

“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.

Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
 

Lessons from the front lines

Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.

Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.

Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.

“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.

The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.

“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
 

A view from Washington state

Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.

Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.

“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.

Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
 

ASCO resources

Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.

“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
 

Care of COVID-free patients

For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.

“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.

Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.

The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
 

Trials halted or slowed

Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.

“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.

“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.

The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.

“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.

Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
 

Lessons from the front lines

Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.

Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.

Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.

“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.

The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.

“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
 

A view from Washington state

Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.

Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.

“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.

Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
 

ASCO resources

Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.

Many questions on the care of patients with regard to COVID-19 have been coming up in clinic lately. We periodically try to answer some of the most common and important ones, including the following:

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Question

How should patients on immunosuppressive therapy be advised during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Answer

In general, those patients who have not tested positive, have not been exposed, and are asymptomatic should continue their medications as prescribed.

The American College of Rheumatology issued a statement on April 14, recommending that stable patients continue their medications. Those with known exposure but without confirmed infection may continue hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and NSAIDs.

Immunosuppressants, non–IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily. Anti-malarial therapies (hydroxycholoroquine and chloroquine) may be continued and IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances.¹

The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that the discussion of continuation of biologics be based on a case-by-case basis, citing insufficient evidence to recommend against discontinuation at this time in those patients who have not tested positive. In patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 it is recommended that biologic therapy be suspended until symptoms have resolved.²

Question

Should I continue preventive services during peak COVID-19?

Answer

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends delaying all elective ambulatory provider visits. In general, preventative services, such as adult immunizations, lipid screening, and cancer screenings, should be delayed. Additionally, the CDC recommends reaching out to patients who are at high risk for complications from respiratory diseases to ensure medication adherence and provide resources if these patients become ill. Facilities can reduce transmission of COVID-19 by triaging and assessing patients through virtual visits through phone calls, video conferences, text-monitoring systems, and other telemedicine tools. Physicians should try to provide routine and chronic care through virtual visits when possible over in-person visits.³

Question

Should I continue to vaccinate my pediatric population during peak COVID-19?

Answer

Practices that schedule separate well visits and sick visits in different sessions or locations can continue to provide well child visits. A practice could, for example, schedule well visits in the morning and sick visits in the afternoon if a single facility is used. These practices should prioritize newborn care and vaccinations of children, especially for those under the age of 24 months.⁴

Question

Can physicians use telehealth (phone only or audiovisual) to conduct visits with Medicare patients even if they are new patients?

Answer

Effective March 1 through the duration of the pandemic, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as an in-office visit. On March 30th, the Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services announced new policies for physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines were updated on April 9.

Audio-only visits are now permitted and the limit on the number of these kinds of visits allowed per month has been waived. Controlled substances can be prescribed via telehealth; however, complying with each state’s individual laws is still required.

Use of any two-way, audiovisual device is permitted. The level of service billed for visits with both audio and visual components is the same as an in-office visit. Telemedicine can be used for both new and existing patients.⁵

A list of services that may be rendered via telehealth are available on the CMS website.⁶


It will be important to regularly check the references given, as information on some of these topics is updated frequently.
 

Dr. Chuong is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency, Dr. Flanagan is a third-year resident, and Dr. Matthews is an intern, all at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

References

1. ACR issues COVID-19 treatment guidance for rheumatic disease patients.

2. American Academy of Dermatology: Guidance on the use of biologic agents during COVID-19 outbreak.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Actions to take in response to community transmission of COVID-19.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maintaining childhood immunizations during COVID19 pandemic.

5. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. COVID-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) billing.

6. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. List of telehealth services.
 

Many questions on the care of patients with regard to COVID-19 have been coming up in clinic lately. We periodically try to answer some of the most common and important ones, including the following:

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Question

How should patients on immunosuppressive therapy be advised during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Answer

In general, those patients who have not tested positive, have not been exposed, and are asymptomatic should continue their medications as prescribed.

The American College of Rheumatology issued a statement on April 14, recommending that stable patients continue their medications. Those with known exposure but without confirmed infection may continue hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and NSAIDs.

Immunosuppressants, non–IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily. Anti-malarial therapies (hydroxycholoroquine and chloroquine) may be continued and IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances.¹

The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that the discussion of continuation of biologics be based on a case-by-case basis, citing insufficient evidence to recommend against discontinuation at this time in those patients who have not tested positive. In patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 it is recommended that biologic therapy be suspended until symptoms have resolved.²

Question

Should I continue preventive services during peak COVID-19?

Answer

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends delaying all elective ambulatory provider visits. In general, preventative services, such as adult immunizations, lipid screening, and cancer screenings, should be delayed. Additionally, the CDC recommends reaching out to patients who are at high risk for complications from respiratory diseases to ensure medication adherence and provide resources if these patients become ill. Facilities can reduce transmission of COVID-19 by triaging and assessing patients through virtual visits through phone calls, video conferences, text-monitoring systems, and other telemedicine tools. Physicians should try to provide routine and chronic care through virtual visits when possible over in-person visits.³

Question

Should I continue to vaccinate my pediatric population during peak COVID-19?

Answer

Practices that schedule separate well visits and sick visits in different sessions or locations can continue to provide well child visits. A practice could, for example, schedule well visits in the morning and sick visits in the afternoon if a single facility is used. These practices should prioritize newborn care and vaccinations of children, especially for those under the age of 24 months.⁴

Question

Can physicians use telehealth (phone only or audiovisual) to conduct visits with Medicare patients even if they are new patients?

Answer

Effective March 1 through the duration of the pandemic, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as an in-office visit. On March 30th, the Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services announced new policies for physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines were updated on April 9.

Audio-only visits are now permitted and the limit on the number of these kinds of visits allowed per month has been waived. Controlled substances can be prescribed via telehealth; however, complying with each state’s individual laws is still required.

Use of any two-way, audiovisual device is permitted. The level of service billed for visits with both audio and visual components is the same as an in-office visit. Telemedicine can be used for both new and existing patients.⁵

A list of services that may be rendered via telehealth are available on the CMS website.⁶


It will be important to regularly check the references given, as information on some of these topics is updated frequently.
 

Dr. Chuong is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency, Dr. Flanagan is a third-year resident, and Dr. Matthews is an intern, all at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

References

1. ACR issues COVID-19 treatment guidance for rheumatic disease patients.

2. American Academy of Dermatology: Guidance on the use of biologic agents during COVID-19 outbreak.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Actions to take in response to community transmission of COVID-19.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maintaining childhood immunizations during COVID19 pandemic.

5. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. COVID-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) billing.

6. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. List of telehealth services.
 

Many questions on the care of patients with regard to COVID-19 have been coming up in clinic lately. We periodically try to answer some of the most common and important ones, including the following:

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Question

How should patients on immunosuppressive therapy be advised during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Answer

In general, those patients who have not tested positive, have not been exposed, and are asymptomatic should continue their medications as prescribed.

The American College of Rheumatology issued a statement on April 14, recommending that stable patients continue their medications. Those with known exposure but without confirmed infection may continue hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and NSAIDs.

Immunosuppressants, non–IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily. Anti-malarial therapies (hydroxycholoroquine and chloroquine) may be continued and IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances.¹

The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that the discussion of continuation of biologics be based on a case-by-case basis, citing insufficient evidence to recommend against discontinuation at this time in those patients who have not tested positive. In patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 it is recommended that biologic therapy be suspended until symptoms have resolved.²

Question

Should I continue preventive services during peak COVID-19?

Answer

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends delaying all elective ambulatory provider visits. In general, preventative services, such as adult immunizations, lipid screening, and cancer screenings, should be delayed. Additionally, the CDC recommends reaching out to patients who are at high risk for complications from respiratory diseases to ensure medication adherence and provide resources if these patients become ill. Facilities can reduce transmission of COVID-19 by triaging and assessing patients through virtual visits through phone calls, video conferences, text-monitoring systems, and other telemedicine tools. Physicians should try to provide routine and chronic care through virtual visits when possible over in-person visits.³

Question

Should I continue to vaccinate my pediatric population during peak COVID-19?

Answer

Practices that schedule separate well visits and sick visits in different sessions or locations can continue to provide well child visits. A practice could, for example, schedule well visits in the morning and sick visits in the afternoon if a single facility is used. These practices should prioritize newborn care and vaccinations of children, especially for those under the age of 24 months.⁴

Question

Can physicians use telehealth (phone only or audiovisual) to conduct visits with Medicare patients even if they are new patients?

Answer

Effective March 1 through the duration of the pandemic, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as an in-office visit. On March 30th, the Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services announced new policies for physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines were updated on April 9.

Audio-only visits are now permitted and the limit on the number of these kinds of visits allowed per month has been waived. Controlled substances can be prescribed via telehealth; however, complying with each state’s individual laws is still required.

Use of any two-way, audiovisual device is permitted. The level of service billed for visits with both audio and visual components is the same as an in-office visit. Telemedicine can be used for both new and existing patients.⁵

A list of services that may be rendered via telehealth are available on the CMS website.⁶


It will be important to regularly check the references given, as information on some of these topics is updated frequently.
 

Dr. Chuong is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency, Dr. Flanagan is a third-year resident, and Dr. Matthews is an intern, all at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

References

1. ACR issues COVID-19 treatment guidance for rheumatic disease patients.

2. American Academy of Dermatology: Guidance on the use of biologic agents during COVID-19 outbreak.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Actions to take in response to community transmission of COVID-19.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maintaining childhood immunizations during COVID19 pandemic.

5. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. COVID-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) billing.

6. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. List of telehealth services.
 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”

In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.

“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.

The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.

The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.

The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”

In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.

“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.

The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.

The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.

The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”

In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.

“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.

The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.

The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.

The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

[email protected]

Frontline health care workers are facing escalating challenges with rapidly spreading coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.¹ Hospitalists will often deal with various manifestations of acute cardiac injury, controversial withholding of ACE inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), arrhythmic toxicities from such drug therapies as hydroxychloroquine.

Presentation and cardiac risks from COVID-19

Patients with COVID-19 often have presented with noncardiac symptoms, usually a febrile illness associated with cough or shortness of breath. Recent reports from Italy and New York have suggested patients also can present with isolated cardiac involvement without any other symptoms that can portend a grim prognosis.² Cardiac effects include myocarditis, acute coronary syndrome, malignant arrhythmias ultimately cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest.³

The mortality rate correlates with older age, preexisting health conditions, and availability of medical resources. A recent meta-analysis including 53,000 COVID-19 patients found the most common comorbidities were hypertension (19%), diabetes (8 %) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) (3%).⁴ Half of the cases died from respiratory failure and one-third have died from concomitant respiratory and heart failure. Acute heart failure alone accounted for about 7% of cases.⁵

Overall mortality rate can be better understood with the largest case series to-date of COVID-19 in mainland China published by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The overall case-fatality rate was 2.3% (1,023 deaths among 44,672 confirmed cases), but the mortality reached 10.5% in patients with underlying CVD.⁶

Acute cardiac injuries in COVID-19

Acute cardiac injury (ACI) is defined as troponin elevation above the 99th percentile of the upper reference limit.⁷ A practical description of ACI in COVID-19 patients should also include broader definition with new abnormalities in ECG since not all patients with acute cardiac effects have developed troponin elevation.³ More recent reports showed up to 28% of hospitalized patients had a myocardial injury.³

It is not uncommon to see a patient with COVID-19 myocarditis as a mimicker of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The mechanism of ACI is unknown, though several hypotheses have been proposed based on case series and retrospective reviews. These include direct viral invasion into myocardial cells leading to myocarditis, oxygen demand-supply mismatch, acute coronary syndrome from plaque rupture, stress, or cytokine-mediated cardiomyopathy.³ The exact incidence of true MI from occlusive coronary disease in the COVID-19 population is yet unknown.

In some cases, troponin elevation may be a late manifestation of COVID-19. As coronavirus disease progressed slowly, a rapid rise of troponin was noted when patients developed acute respiratory failure after 10 days of illness. Among nonsurvivors, a steady rise in troponin was observed from day 4 through day 22.⁸

ACI is associated with ICU admission and mortality. Both troponin and BNP levels increased significantly during the course of hospitalization in those who ultimately died, but no such changes were evident in survivors.³ ACI was higher in nonsurvivors (59%) than in survivors (1%).⁸ ACI was higher in ICU patients (22%), compared with non-ICU patients (2%).⁹ Patients with CVD were more likely to exhibit elevation of troponin levels (54%), compared with patients without CVD (13%).³

Higher troponin levels and the presence of CVD are directly proportional to severe disease and death. Patients with elevated troponin developed more frequent complications including acute respiratory distress syndrome, malignant arrhythmias including ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, acute coagulopathy, and acute kidney injury.^3,8 Death was markedly higher in patients with elevated troponin, compared with normal levels: 60% versus 9%. Only 8% with no CVD and normal troponin died, whereas 69% of people with underlying CVD and elevated troponin died.³

The median duration from illness onset to death was 23 (8-41) days in the group with elevated troponin. Patients with CVD and escalation of troponin levels had the shortest survival of 1-5 days. The dynamic rise of cardiac biomarkers and increased incidence of malignant arrhythmias during the course of illness shows that myocardial injury played a greater role in the fatal outcome of COVID-19 than the presence of preexisting CVD itself.³

Management of acute cardiac issues in COVID-19

There are no established therapeutic options with randomized, clinical trials specific to the management of COVID-19 patients at this point. Standard supportive care and individualized treatment plan based on existing guidelines is probably the best approach. Disposition of cases and cardiac testing should be tailored, based on local protocols, availability of resources and expertise.¹⁰

There seems to be a consensus that baseline troponin levels should be obtained in all admitted patients. Repeat troponin levels can be obtained based on the severity of illness, for example, daily troponin checks are reasonable in ICU patients and every-other-day troponin testing may be reasonable in general inpatients. Routine troponin testing in minimally symptomatic or asymptomatic patients will likely not change any outcome.^3,11,12

Daily ECG is reasonable in severe COVID-19. However, routine transthoracic ECGs are not reasonable, unless it will change further treatment plans. Transthoracic electrocardiograms (TTE) are reasonable in patients with significant troponin elevation, a decline in central venous oxygen saturation, new heart failure, shock, new persistent arrhythmias, or significant new ECG changes.¹²

Limited TTEs for a focused exam enough to answer the clinical question should be ordered to minimize the risk of viral exposure to the sonographers. Transesophageal echo will rarely be needed, and its use should be minimized to reduce direct contact exposure and because of anesthesia risks.¹³ Routine stress testing should not be ordered in active COVID-19 and should be deferred for outpatient evaluation, if clinically indicated, once the patient recovers from the infection.¹²

Myocarditis and pericarditis are potential manifestations of acute cardiac injury. Recent case reports have suggested evidence of myocarditis confirmed with cardiac MRI.¹¹ Because of high fatality rates with cardiac involvement and no proven therapies yet, the role of routine advanced cardiac imaging such as cardiac CT, cardiac MRI, or cardiac biopsy is unclear.

Myocarditis can likely be caused either by the virus itself, or the body’s immune and inflammatory response (cytokine storm) to the virus.^2,3 The use of anti-inflammatory drugs like colchicine, ibuprofen, steroids, or statins is not yet established.^10,12 Drugs like remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and anti-interleukin-6 agents have been invariably used with some anecdotal success and randomized clinical trials for some of these drugs are presently undergoing.

Physicians may encounter situations to call a STEMI code or not in COVID-19 patients.^2,11 Patients may have substernal pain, diffuse or regional ST elevations in ECG and reduced left ventricular dysfunction with regional wall motion abnormalities on ECG. These findings may be casued by myocarditis, acute type 1 MI, or stress-induced cardiomyopathy. Clinicians should make their judgment based on the overall pretest probability for type 1 MI, incorporating risk factor profiles and the presence of typical symptoms.

Treatment practice for questionable STEMI cases will likely vary across the country as we are learning more about the virus. Cath lab operators are at risk for COVID-19 infection through direct contact with patients. Few cardiologists were admitted after COVID-19 infections in the ICU at a New York hospital after they were involved in a acute MI case in a cath lab.¹⁴ Based on the Chinese experience, some have suggested the idea of lytic therapy first with follow-up cardiac CT to assess the recanalization of perfusion status, but at this point, this strategy remains controversial in the United States. In addition, if the patient has myocarditis instead, there will be a risk for pericardial effusion and hemorrhagic complications with lytic therapy.

Case examples

1. A 70-year-old male presents with fevers, chest pain, cough, shortness of breath. He has a history of metabolic syndrome and 30 pack-years of smoking. His ECG showed 1.5 mm ST elevation in inferior leads with reciprocal ST depressions in lateral leads, and his initial troponin is 2. Echocardiogram showed reduced left ventricle ejection fraction of 32% and inferior wall hypokinesis. He is suspected COVID-19 and his PCR result is pending. How would you manage this patient?

This patient presented with febrile illness and, but he had a very high pretest probability for obstructive coronary artery disease based on his age, male sex, and multiple risk factors. He may have a viral syndrome and it is a stressful situation for him. This may have precipitated plaque rupture causing acute MI.

Activating the STEMI pathway for emergent left heart catheterization is likely appropriate in this case. Coronary angiogram in this patient showed a 100% occluded mid-right coronary artery with a fresh thrombus. Delaying cardiac cath would have possibly led to malignant arrhythmias and death from ischemic injury. We need to be cognizant patients can die from non–COVID-related emergencies also.

2. An 18-year-old healthy male presents with cough and chest pain and has bilateral lung infiltrates. ECG showed anterolateral 2 mm ST elevations and no reciprocal ST changes. Stat TTE showed anterior wall hypokinesis and LV function 30% and his initial troponin are 0.6 (normal is < .05). The nasopharyngeal swab is sent out and his COVID result is pending. How would you manage this patient?

A young patient with no cardiovascular risk factors has a very low pretest probability for obstructive coronary disease and the likelihood of having a true ischemic MI is low even though he has significant new ST elevations. Especially with presumed COVID-19 and risk of virus exposure to the cath lab personnel, it will be prudent to manage this patient with supportive therapy including beta-blockers, ACEIs, etc. Repeat echo in 7 days before discharge showed improved LVEF 45%.
 

Controversy on ACEI/ARB

The SARS-CoV-2 virus enters via cell-entry receptor namely angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). SARS-CoV-2 is thought to have a higher affinity for ACE2 than other SARS-viruses.¹⁵

ACE2 is expressed in the heart, lungs, vasculature, and kidneys. ACEI and ARBs in animal models increase the expression of ACE2,¹⁶ though this has not been confirmed in human studies. This has led to the hypothesis that ACEI and ARBs might worsen myocarditis or precipitate the acute coronary syndrome. It has also been hypothesized that the upregulation of ACE2 is therapeutic in COVID-19 and that ARBs might be protective during infection.¹⁷

The increased ACE2 expression induced by ACEI or ARB would aggravate lung injury of patients with COVID-19. However, a previous study showed a beneficial effect of ACEI/ARB in patients admitted with viral pneumonia, as it significantly reduced the pulmonary inflammatory response and cytokine release caused by virus infection.¹⁸

Therefore, this remains an area of investigation and it is unclear how these medications affect patients with COVID-19. In a recent review, with a limited number of patients, the mortality of those treated with or without the use of ACEI/ARB did not show a significant difference in the outcome.³

Both American and European cardiology societies recommend against routine discontinuation of ACEI and ARBs in patients with COVID-19 because of risks of uncontrolled hypertension and heart failure, stroke, or heart attack.¹⁹ However, it will be reasonable to hold off in inpatients in cases of acute kidney injury, hypotension, shock, etc.¹²

Cardiac concern about hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an antimalarial drug shown to have in vitro (but not yet in vivo) activity against diverse RNA viruses, including SARS-CoV-1.²⁰ An expert consensus group from China suggests that chloroquine improved lung imaging and shortened disease course.²¹ HCQ was found to be more potent than chloroquine in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.²²

Based on limited in vitro and anecdotal clinical data from other countries, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently authorized emergency use of chloroquine and HCQ in hopes of slowing the progression of the disease when a clinical trial is not available, or participation is not feasible for use of these drugs in hospitalized patients. However, with no clear benefit, there is a concern for possible risks with cardiac toxicity.

HCQ is known to cause cardiomyopathy in a dose-dependent manner over several years. Given the anticipated short duration in COVID-19, it is not an expected risk. QT-segment prolongation and torsades de pointes, especially if administered in combination with azithromycin, is possible even in short term use.²³

Given above, frequent ECG monitoring is indicated for patients being treated with chloroquine or HCQ. All other QT-prolonging drugs should be discontinued. Continuous telemetry monitoring while under treatment is reasonable. HCQ should not be started if baseline QTc is > 500 msec and it should be stopped if the patient develops ventricular arrhythmias.¹²
 

Dr. Subedi is a noninvasive cardiologist for Wellspan Health System in Franklin and Cumberland counties in south central Pennsylvania. He is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa. He is an active member of the critical care committee at Wellspan Chambersburg (Pa.) Hospital. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro Hospitals, all in Pennsylvania. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Areti is currently working as a hospitalist at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and is a member of the Wellspan pharmacy and therapeutics committee. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.

Key points

• Acute cardiac injury or myocarditis is common among patients infected with COVID-19. Often, COVID myocarditis can mimic acute MI or stress cardiomyopathy and will present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. On the other hand, isolated cardiac involvement can occur, even without symptoms and signs of interstitial pneumonia.
• A most important indicator of worse prediction is the degree of myocardial injury, regardless of preexisting conditions or underlying cardiovascular disease.
• Early recognition of cardiac involvement will be helpful in targeting more aggressive supportive therapies. Commonly available clinical tools like bloodwork, ECG, or echocardiogram should be adequate to diagnose carditis in most cases.
• Advanced cardiac imaging tests or cardiac biopsy are of uncertain benefits. Meticulous evaluation is needed for possible ischemic changes before taking the patient to the cardiac cath lab in order to reduce unnecessary virus exposure to the operators.
• ACEI/ARB should be continued in most cases in COVID patients based on cardiology societies’ recommendations.
• With the widespread use of antimalarial drugs like chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, frequent ECG and continuous telemetry monitoring is reasonable to rule out ventricular arrhythmias like torsades.
• There is no specific treatment to date for acute cardiac injuries. Since there are no specific guidelines and information about the virus is rapidly changing, it will be prudent to follow common-sense approaches outlined by institutions like the Brigham and Women’s Hospital COVID-19 Critical Care clinical guidelines, which incorporate new clinical information on a daily basis ().

References

1. Rothan HA and Byrareddy SN. The epidemiology and pathogenesis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. J Autoimmun. 2020 May;109:102433. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102433.

2. Kolata G. A heart attack? No, it was the coronavirus. New York Times 2020 Mar 27.

3. Guo T et al. Cardiovascular implications of fatal outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1017.

4. Zhao X et al. Incidence, clinical characteristics and prognostic factor of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. MedRxIV. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.17.20037572.

5. Ruan Q et al. Clinical predictors of mortality due to COVID-19 based on an analysis of data of 150 patients from Wuhan, China. Intensive Care Med. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05991-x.

6. Wu Z and McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: Summary of a report of 72,314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648.

7. Thygesen K et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct;72:2231-64.

8. Zhou F et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-62.

9. Wang D et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020 Feb 7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1585.

10. CDC: Therapeutic options for patients with COVID-19. Updated April 13, 2020.

11. Inciardi RM et al. Cardiac involvement in a patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1096.

12. Brigham and Women’s Hospital COVID-19 Critical Care Clinical Guidelines.

13. American Society of Echocardiography Statement on COVID-19. 2020 Apr 1.

14. A cardiologist in Brooklyn infected with COVID-19. @jigneshpatelMD. 2020 Mar 20.

15. Paules CI et al. Coronavirus infections – more than just the common cold. JAMA. 2020 Jan 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0757.

16. Zheng YY et al. COVID-19 and the cardiovascular system. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2020 May;17(5):259-60.

17. Gurwitz D. Angiotensin receptor blockers as tentative SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics. Drug Dev Res. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/ddr.21656.

18. Henry C et al. Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and statins on viral pneumonia. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2018 Oct 26;31(4):419-23.

19. HFSA/ACC/AHA statement addresses concerns re: Using RAAS antagonists in COVID-19. 2020 Mar 17.

20. Touret F and de Lamballerie X. Of chloroquine and COVID-19. Antiviral Res. 2020 May;177:104762. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104762.

21. Expert consensus on chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia. Chinese journal of tuberculosis and respiratory diseases. 2020 Mar 12;43(3):185-8.

22. Yao X et al. In vitro antiviral activity and projection of optimized dosing design of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa237.

23. Devaux CA et al. New insights on the antiviral effects of chloroquine against coronavirus: What to expect for COVID-19? Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 12:105938. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105938.

Frontline health care workers are facing escalating challenges with rapidly spreading coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.¹ Hospitalists will often deal with various manifestations of acute cardiac injury, controversial withholding of ACE inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), arrhythmic toxicities from such drug therapies as hydroxychloroquine.

Presentation and cardiac risks from COVID-19

Patients with COVID-19 often have presented with noncardiac symptoms, usually a febrile illness associated with cough or shortness of breath. Recent reports from Italy and New York have suggested patients also can present with isolated cardiac involvement without any other symptoms that can portend a grim prognosis.² Cardiac effects include myocarditis, acute coronary syndrome, malignant arrhythmias ultimately cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest.³

The mortality rate correlates with older age, preexisting health conditions, and availability of medical resources. A recent meta-analysis including 53,000 COVID-19 patients found the most common comorbidities were hypertension (19%), diabetes (8 %) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) (3%).⁴ Half of the cases died from respiratory failure and one-third have died from concomitant respiratory and heart failure. Acute heart failure alone accounted for about 7% of cases.⁵

Overall mortality rate can be better understood with the largest case series to-date of COVID-19 in mainland China published by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The overall case-fatality rate was 2.3% (1,023 deaths among 44,672 confirmed cases), but the mortality reached 10.5% in patients with underlying CVD.⁶

Acute cardiac injuries in COVID-19

Acute cardiac injury (ACI) is defined as troponin elevation above the 99th percentile of the upper reference limit.⁷ A practical description of ACI in COVID-19 patients should also include broader definition with new abnormalities in ECG since not all patients with acute cardiac effects have developed troponin elevation.³ More recent reports showed up to 28% of hospitalized patients had a myocardial injury.³

It is not uncommon to see a patient with COVID-19 myocarditis as a mimicker of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The mechanism of ACI is unknown, though several hypotheses have been proposed based on case series and retrospective reviews. These include direct viral invasion into myocardial cells leading to myocarditis, oxygen demand-supply mismatch, acute coronary syndrome from plaque rupture, stress, or cytokine-mediated cardiomyopathy.³ The exact incidence of true MI from occlusive coronary disease in the COVID-19 population is yet unknown.

In some cases, troponin elevation may be a late manifestation of COVID-19. As coronavirus disease progressed slowly, a rapid rise of troponin was noted when patients developed acute respiratory failure after 10 days of illness. Among nonsurvivors, a steady rise in troponin was observed from day 4 through day 22.⁸

ACI is associated with ICU admission and mortality. Both troponin and BNP levels increased significantly during the course of hospitalization in those who ultimately died, but no such changes were evident in survivors.³ ACI was higher in nonsurvivors (59%) than in survivors (1%).⁸ ACI was higher in ICU patients (22%), compared with non-ICU patients (2%).⁹ Patients with CVD were more likely to exhibit elevation of troponin levels (54%), compared with patients without CVD (13%).³

Higher troponin levels and the presence of CVD are directly proportional to severe disease and death. Patients with elevated troponin developed more frequent complications including acute respiratory distress syndrome, malignant arrhythmias including ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, acute coagulopathy, and acute kidney injury.^3,8 Death was markedly higher in patients with elevated troponin, compared with normal levels: 60% versus 9%. Only 8% with no CVD and normal troponin died, whereas 69% of people with underlying CVD and elevated troponin died.³

The median duration from illness onset to death was 23 (8-41) days in the group with elevated troponin. Patients with CVD and escalation of troponin levels had the shortest survival of 1-5 days. The dynamic rise of cardiac biomarkers and increased incidence of malignant arrhythmias during the course of illness shows that myocardial injury played a greater role in the fatal outcome of COVID-19 than the presence of preexisting CVD itself.³

Management of acute cardiac issues in COVID-19

There are no established therapeutic options with randomized, clinical trials specific to the management of COVID-19 patients at this point. Standard supportive care and individualized treatment plan based on existing guidelines is probably the best approach. Disposition of cases and cardiac testing should be tailored, based on local protocols, availability of resources and expertise.¹⁰

There seems to be a consensus that baseline troponin levels should be obtained in all admitted patients. Repeat troponin levels can be obtained based on the severity of illness, for example, daily troponin checks are reasonable in ICU patients and every-other-day troponin testing may be reasonable in general inpatients. Routine troponin testing in minimally symptomatic or asymptomatic patients will likely not change any outcome.^3,11,12

Daily ECG is reasonable in severe COVID-19. However, routine transthoracic ECGs are not reasonable, unless it will change further treatment plans. Transthoracic electrocardiograms (TTE) are reasonable in patients with significant troponin elevation, a decline in central venous oxygen saturation, new heart failure, shock, new persistent arrhythmias, or significant new ECG changes.¹²

Limited TTEs for a focused exam enough to answer the clinical question should be ordered to minimize the risk of viral exposure to the sonographers. Transesophageal echo will rarely be needed, and its use should be minimized to reduce direct contact exposure and because of anesthesia risks.¹³ Routine stress testing should not be ordered in active COVID-19 and should be deferred for outpatient evaluation, if clinically indicated, once the patient recovers from the infection.¹²

Myocarditis and pericarditis are potential manifestations of acute cardiac injury. Recent case reports have suggested evidence of myocarditis confirmed with cardiac MRI.¹¹ Because of high fatality rates with cardiac involvement and no proven therapies yet, the role of routine advanced cardiac imaging such as cardiac CT, cardiac MRI, or cardiac biopsy is unclear.

Myocarditis can likely be caused either by the virus itself, or the body’s immune and inflammatory response (cytokine storm) to the virus.^2,3 The use of anti-inflammatory drugs like colchicine, ibuprofen, steroids, or statins is not yet established.^10,12 Drugs like remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and anti-interleukin-6 agents have been invariably used with some anecdotal success and randomized clinical trials for some of these drugs are presently undergoing.

Physicians may encounter situations to call a STEMI code or not in COVID-19 patients.^2,11 Patients may have substernal pain, diffuse or regional ST elevations in ECG and reduced left ventricular dysfunction with regional wall motion abnormalities on ECG. These findings may be casued by myocarditis, acute type 1 MI, or stress-induced cardiomyopathy. Clinicians should make their judgment based on the overall pretest probability for type 1 MI, incorporating risk factor profiles and the presence of typical symptoms.

Treatment practice for questionable STEMI cases will likely vary across the country as we are learning more about the virus. Cath lab operators are at risk for COVID-19 infection through direct contact with patients. Few cardiologists were admitted after COVID-19 infections in the ICU at a New York hospital after they were involved in a acute MI case in a cath lab.¹⁴ Based on the Chinese experience, some have suggested the idea of lytic therapy first with follow-up cardiac CT to assess the recanalization of perfusion status, but at this point, this strategy remains controversial in the United States. In addition, if the patient has myocarditis instead, there will be a risk for pericardial effusion and hemorrhagic complications with lytic therapy.

Case examples

1. A 70-year-old male presents with fevers, chest pain, cough, shortness of breath. He has a history of metabolic syndrome and 30 pack-years of smoking. His ECG showed 1.5 mm ST elevation in inferior leads with reciprocal ST depressions in lateral leads, and his initial troponin is 2. Echocardiogram showed reduced left ventricle ejection fraction of 32% and inferior wall hypokinesis. He is suspected COVID-19 and his PCR result is pending. How would you manage this patient?

This patient presented with febrile illness and, but he had a very high pretest probability for obstructive coronary artery disease based on his age, male sex, and multiple risk factors. He may have a viral syndrome and it is a stressful situation for him. This may have precipitated plaque rupture causing acute MI.

Activating the STEMI pathway for emergent left heart catheterization is likely appropriate in this case. Coronary angiogram in this patient showed a 100% occluded mid-right coronary artery with a fresh thrombus. Delaying cardiac cath would have possibly led to malignant arrhythmias and death from ischemic injury. We need to be cognizant patients can die from non–COVID-related emergencies also.

2. An 18-year-old healthy male presents with cough and chest pain and has bilateral lung infiltrates. ECG showed anterolateral 2 mm ST elevations and no reciprocal ST changes. Stat TTE showed anterior wall hypokinesis and LV function 30% and his initial troponin are 0.6 (normal is < .05). The nasopharyngeal swab is sent out and his COVID result is pending. How would you manage this patient?

A young patient with no cardiovascular risk factors has a very low pretest probability for obstructive coronary disease and the likelihood of having a true ischemic MI is low even though he has significant new ST elevations. Especially with presumed COVID-19 and risk of virus exposure to the cath lab personnel, it will be prudent to manage this patient with supportive therapy including beta-blockers, ACEIs, etc. Repeat echo in 7 days before discharge showed improved LVEF 45%.
 

Controversy on ACEI/ARB

The SARS-CoV-2 virus enters via cell-entry receptor namely angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). SARS-CoV-2 is thought to have a higher affinity for ACE2 than other SARS-viruses.¹⁵

ACE2 is expressed in the heart, lungs, vasculature, and kidneys. ACEI and ARBs in animal models increase the expression of ACE2,¹⁶ though this has not been confirmed in human studies. This has led to the hypothesis that ACEI and ARBs might worsen myocarditis or precipitate the acute coronary syndrome. It has also been hypothesized that the upregulation of ACE2 is therapeutic in COVID-19 and that ARBs might be protective during infection.¹⁷

The increased ACE2 expression induced by ACEI or ARB would aggravate lung injury of patients with COVID-19. However, a previous study showed a beneficial effect of ACEI/ARB in patients admitted with viral pneumonia, as it significantly reduced the pulmonary inflammatory response and cytokine release caused by virus infection.¹⁸

Therefore, this remains an area of investigation and it is unclear how these medications affect patients with COVID-19. In a recent review, with a limited number of patients, the mortality of those treated with or without the use of ACEI/ARB did not show a significant difference in the outcome.³

Both American and European cardiology societies recommend against routine discontinuation of ACEI and ARBs in patients with COVID-19 because of risks of uncontrolled hypertension and heart failure, stroke, or heart attack.¹⁹ However, it will be reasonable to hold off in inpatients in cases of acute kidney injury, hypotension, shock, etc.¹²

Cardiac concern about hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an antimalarial drug shown to have in vitro (but not yet in vivo) activity against diverse RNA viruses, including SARS-CoV-1.²⁰ An expert consensus group from China suggests that chloroquine improved lung imaging and shortened disease course.²¹ HCQ was found to be more potent than chloroquine in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.²²

Based on limited in vitro and anecdotal clinical data from other countries, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently authorized emergency use of chloroquine and HCQ in hopes of slowing the progression of the disease when a clinical trial is not available, or participation is not feasible for use of these drugs in hospitalized patients. However, with no clear benefit, there is a concern for possible risks with cardiac toxicity.

HCQ is known to cause cardiomyopathy in a dose-dependent manner over several years. Given the anticipated short duration in COVID-19, it is not an expected risk. QT-segment prolongation and torsades de pointes, especially if administered in combination with azithromycin, is possible even in short term use.²³

Given above, frequent ECG monitoring is indicated for patients being treated with chloroquine or HCQ. All other QT-prolonging drugs should be discontinued. Continuous telemetry monitoring while under treatment is reasonable. HCQ should not be started if baseline QTc is > 500 msec and it should be stopped if the patient develops ventricular arrhythmias.¹²
 

Dr. Subedi is a noninvasive cardiologist for Wellspan Health System in Franklin and Cumberland counties in south central Pennsylvania. He is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa. He is an active member of the critical care committee at Wellspan Chambersburg (Pa.) Hospital. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro Hospitals, all in Pennsylvania. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Areti is currently working as a hospitalist at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and is a member of the Wellspan pharmacy and therapeutics committee. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.

Key points

• Acute cardiac injury or myocarditis is common among patients infected with COVID-19. Often, COVID myocarditis can mimic acute MI or stress cardiomyopathy and will present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. On the other hand, isolated cardiac involvement can occur, even without symptoms and signs of interstitial pneumonia.
• A most important indicator of worse prediction is the degree of myocardial injury, regardless of preexisting conditions or underlying cardiovascular disease.
• Early recognition of cardiac involvement will be helpful in targeting more aggressive supportive therapies. Commonly available clinical tools like bloodwork, ECG, or echocardiogram should be adequate to diagnose carditis in most cases.
• Advanced cardiac imaging tests or cardiac biopsy are of uncertain benefits. Meticulous evaluation is needed for possible ischemic changes before taking the patient to the cardiac cath lab in order to reduce unnecessary virus exposure to the operators.
• ACEI/ARB should be continued in most cases in COVID patients based on cardiology societies’ recommendations.
• With the widespread use of antimalarial drugs like chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, frequent ECG and continuous telemetry monitoring is reasonable to rule out ventricular arrhythmias like torsades.
• There is no specific treatment to date for acute cardiac injuries. Since there are no specific guidelines and information about the virus is rapidly changing, it will be prudent to follow common-sense approaches outlined by institutions like the Brigham and Women’s Hospital COVID-19 Critical Care clinical guidelines, which incorporate new clinical information on a daily basis ().

References

1. Rothan HA and Byrareddy SN. The epidemiology and pathogenesis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. J Autoimmun. 2020 May;109:102433. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102433.

2. Kolata G. A heart attack? No, it was the coronavirus. New York Times 2020 Mar 27.

3. Guo T et al. Cardiovascular implications of fatal outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1017.

4. Zhao X et al. Incidence, clinical characteristics and prognostic factor of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. MedRxIV. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.17.20037572.

5. Ruan Q et al. Clinical predictors of mortality due to COVID-19 based on an analysis of data of 150 patients from Wuhan, China. Intensive Care Med. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05991-x.

6. Wu Z and McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: Summary of a report of 72,314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648.

7. Thygesen K et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct;72:2231-64.

8. Zhou F et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-62.

9. Wang D et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020 Feb 7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1585.

10. CDC: Therapeutic options for patients with COVID-19. Updated April 13, 2020.

11. Inciardi RM et al. Cardiac involvement in a patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1096.

12. Brigham and Women’s Hospital COVID-19 Critical Care Clinical Guidelines.

13. American Society of Echocardiography Statement on COVID-19. 2020 Apr 1.

14. A cardiologist in Brooklyn infected with COVID-19. @jigneshpatelMD. 2020 Mar 20.

15. Paules CI et al. Coronavirus infections – more than just the common cold. JAMA. 2020 Jan 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0757.

16. Zheng YY et al. COVID-19 and the cardiovascular system. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2020 May;17(5):259-60.

17. Gurwitz D. Angiotensin receptor blockers as tentative SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics. Drug Dev Res. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/ddr.21656.

18. Henry C et al. Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and statins on viral pneumonia. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2018 Oct 26;31(4):419-23.

19. HFSA/ACC/AHA statement addresses concerns re: Using RAAS antagonists in COVID-19. 2020 Mar 17.

20. Touret F and de Lamballerie X. Of chloroquine and COVID-19. Antiviral Res. 2020 May;177:104762. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104762.

21. Expert consensus on chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia. Chinese journal of tuberculosis and respiratory diseases. 2020 Mar 12;43(3):185-8.

22. Yao X et al. In vitro antiviral activity and projection of optimized dosing design of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa237.

23. Devaux CA et al. New insights on the antiviral effects of chloroquine against coronavirus: What to expect for COVID-19? Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 12:105938. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105938.

Frontline health care workers are facing escalating challenges with rapidly spreading coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.¹ Hospitalists will often deal with various manifestations of acute cardiac injury, controversial withholding of ACE inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), arrhythmic toxicities from such drug therapies as hydroxychloroquine.

Presentation and cardiac risks from COVID-19

Patients with COVID-19 often have presented with noncardiac symptoms, usually a febrile illness associated with cough or shortness of breath. Recent reports from Italy and New York have suggested patients also can present with isolated cardiac involvement without any other symptoms that can portend a grim prognosis.² Cardiac effects include myocarditis, acute coronary syndrome, malignant arrhythmias ultimately cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest.³

The mortality rate correlates with older age, preexisting health conditions, and availability of medical resources. A recent meta-analysis including 53,000 COVID-19 patients found the most common comorbidities were hypertension (19%), diabetes (8 %) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) (3%).⁴ Half of the cases died from respiratory failure and one-third have died from concomitant respiratory and heart failure. Acute heart failure alone accounted for about 7% of cases.⁵

Overall mortality rate can be better understood with the largest case series to-date of COVID-19 in mainland China published by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The overall case-fatality rate was 2.3% (1,023 deaths among 44,672 confirmed cases), but the mortality reached 10.5% in patients with underlying CVD.⁶

Acute cardiac injuries in COVID-19

Acute cardiac injury (ACI) is defined as troponin elevation above the 99th percentile of the upper reference limit.⁷ A practical description of ACI in COVID-19 patients should also include broader definition with new abnormalities in ECG since not all patients with acute cardiac effects have developed troponin elevation.³ More recent reports showed up to 28% of hospitalized patients had a myocardial injury.³

It is not uncommon to see a patient with COVID-19 myocarditis as a mimicker of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The mechanism of ACI is unknown, though several hypotheses have been proposed based on case series and retrospective reviews. These include direct viral invasion into myocardial cells leading to myocarditis, oxygen demand-supply mismatch, acute coronary syndrome from plaque rupture, stress, or cytokine-mediated cardiomyopathy.³ The exact incidence of true MI from occlusive coronary disease in the COVID-19 population is yet unknown.

In some cases, troponin elevation may be a late manifestation of COVID-19. As coronavirus disease progressed slowly, a rapid rise of troponin was noted when patients developed acute respiratory failure after 10 days of illness. Among nonsurvivors, a steady rise in troponin was observed from day 4 through day 22.⁸

ACI is associated with ICU admission and mortality. Both troponin and BNP levels increased significantly during the course of hospitalization in those who ultimately died, but no such changes were evident in survivors.³ ACI was higher in nonsurvivors (59%) than in survivors (1%).⁸ ACI was higher in ICU patients (22%), compared with non-ICU patients (2%).⁹ Patients with CVD were more likely to exhibit elevation of troponin levels (54%), compared with patients without CVD (13%).³

Higher troponin levels and the presence of CVD are directly proportional to severe disease and death. Patients with elevated troponin developed more frequent complications including acute respiratory distress syndrome, malignant arrhythmias including ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, acute coagulopathy, and acute kidney injury.^3,8 Death was markedly higher in patients with elevated troponin, compared with normal levels: 60% versus 9%. Only 8% with no CVD and normal troponin died, whereas 69% of people with underlying CVD and elevated troponin died.³

The median duration from illness onset to death was 23 (8-41) days in the group with elevated troponin. Patients with CVD and escalation of troponin levels had the shortest survival of 1-5 days. The dynamic rise of cardiac biomarkers and increased incidence of malignant arrhythmias during the course of illness shows that myocardial injury played a greater role in the fatal outcome of COVID-19 than the presence of preexisting CVD itself.³

Management of acute cardiac issues in COVID-19

There are no established therapeutic options with randomized, clinical trials specific to the management of COVID-19 patients at this point. Standard supportive care and individualized treatment plan based on existing guidelines is probably the best approach. Disposition of cases and cardiac testing should be tailored, based on local protocols, availability of resources and expertise.¹⁰

There seems to be a consensus that baseline troponin levels should be obtained in all admitted patients. Repeat troponin levels can be obtained based on the severity of illness, for example, daily troponin checks are reasonable in ICU patients and every-other-day troponin testing may be reasonable in general inpatients. Routine troponin testing in minimally symptomatic or asymptomatic patients will likely not change any outcome.^3,11,12

Daily ECG is reasonable in severe COVID-19. However, routine transthoracic ECGs are not reasonable, unless it will change further treatment plans. Transthoracic electrocardiograms (TTE) are reasonable in patients with significant troponin elevation, a decline in central venous oxygen saturation, new heart failure, shock, new persistent arrhythmias, or significant new ECG changes.¹²

Limited TTEs for a focused exam enough to answer the clinical question should be ordered to minimize the risk of viral exposure to the sonographers. Transesophageal echo will rarely be needed, and its use should be minimized to reduce direct contact exposure and because of anesthesia risks.¹³ Routine stress testing should not be ordered in active COVID-19 and should be deferred for outpatient evaluation, if clinically indicated, once the patient recovers from the infection.¹²

Myocarditis and pericarditis are potential manifestations of acute cardiac injury. Recent case reports have suggested evidence of myocarditis confirmed with cardiac MRI.¹¹ Because of high fatality rates with cardiac involvement and no proven therapies yet, the role of routine advanced cardiac imaging such as cardiac CT, cardiac MRI, or cardiac biopsy is unclear.

Myocarditis can likely be caused either by the virus itself, or the body’s immune and inflammatory response (cytokine storm) to the virus.^2,3 The use of anti-inflammatory drugs like colchicine, ibuprofen, steroids, or statins is not yet established.^10,12 Drugs like remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and anti-interleukin-6 agents have been invariably used with some anecdotal success and randomized clinical trials for some of these drugs are presently undergoing.

Physicians may encounter situations to call a STEMI code or not in COVID-19 patients.^2,11 Patients may have substernal pain, diffuse or regional ST elevations in ECG and reduced left ventricular dysfunction with regional wall motion abnormalities on ECG. These findings may be casued by myocarditis, acute type 1 MI, or stress-induced cardiomyopathy. Clinicians should make their judgment based on the overall pretest probability for type 1 MI, incorporating risk factor profiles and the presence of typical symptoms.

Treatment practice for questionable STEMI cases will likely vary across the country as we are learning more about the virus. Cath lab operators are at risk for COVID-19 infection through direct contact with patients. Few cardiologists were admitted after COVID-19 infections in the ICU at a New York hospital after they were involved in a acute MI case in a cath lab.¹⁴ Based on the Chinese experience, some have suggested the idea of lytic therapy first with follow-up cardiac CT to assess the recanalization of perfusion status, but at this point, this strategy remains controversial in the United States. In addition, if the patient has myocarditis instead, there will be a risk for pericardial effusion and hemorrhagic complications with lytic therapy.

Case examples

1. A 70-year-old male presents with fevers, chest pain, cough, shortness of breath. He has a history of metabolic syndrome and 30 pack-years of smoking. His ECG showed 1.5 mm ST elevation in inferior leads with reciprocal ST depressions in lateral leads, and his initial troponin is 2. Echocardiogram showed reduced left ventricle ejection fraction of 32% and inferior wall hypokinesis. He is suspected COVID-19 and his PCR result is pending. How would you manage this patient?

This patient presented with febrile illness and, but he had a very high pretest probability for obstructive coronary artery disease based on his age, male sex, and multiple risk factors. He may have a viral syndrome and it is a stressful situation for him. This may have precipitated plaque rupture causing acute MI.

Activating the STEMI pathway for emergent left heart catheterization is likely appropriate in this case. Coronary angiogram in this patient showed a 100% occluded mid-right coronary artery with a fresh thrombus. Delaying cardiac cath would have possibly led to malignant arrhythmias and death from ischemic injury. We need to be cognizant patients can die from non–COVID-related emergencies also.

2. An 18-year-old healthy male presents with cough and chest pain and has bilateral lung infiltrates. ECG showed anterolateral 2 mm ST elevations and no reciprocal ST changes. Stat TTE showed anterior wall hypokinesis and LV function 30% and his initial troponin are 0.6 (normal is < .05). The nasopharyngeal swab is sent out and his COVID result is pending. How would you manage this patient?

A young patient with no cardiovascular risk factors has a very low pretest probability for obstructive coronary disease and the likelihood of having a true ischemic MI is low even though he has significant new ST elevations. Especially with presumed COVID-19 and risk of virus exposure to the cath lab personnel, it will be prudent to manage this patient with supportive therapy including beta-blockers, ACEIs, etc. Repeat echo in 7 days before discharge showed improved LVEF 45%.
 

Controversy on ACEI/ARB

The SARS-CoV-2 virus enters via cell-entry receptor namely angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). SARS-CoV-2 is thought to have a higher affinity for ACE2 than other SARS-viruses.¹⁵

ACE2 is expressed in the heart, lungs, vasculature, and kidneys. ACEI and ARBs in animal models increase the expression of ACE2,¹⁶ though this has not been confirmed in human studies. This has led to the hypothesis that ACEI and ARBs might worsen myocarditis or precipitate the acute coronary syndrome. It has also been hypothesized that the upregulation of ACE2 is therapeutic in COVID-19 and that ARBs might be protective during infection.¹⁷

The increased ACE2 expression induced by ACEI or ARB would aggravate lung injury of patients with COVID-19. However, a previous study showed a beneficial effect of ACEI/ARB in patients admitted with viral pneumonia, as it significantly reduced the pulmonary inflammatory response and cytokine release caused by virus infection.¹⁸

Therefore, this remains an area of investigation and it is unclear how these medications affect patients with COVID-19. In a recent review, with a limited number of patients, the mortality of those treated with or without the use of ACEI/ARB did not show a significant difference in the outcome.³

Both American and European cardiology societies recommend against routine discontinuation of ACEI and ARBs in patients with COVID-19 because of risks of uncontrolled hypertension and heart failure, stroke, or heart attack.¹⁹ However, it will be reasonable to hold off in inpatients in cases of acute kidney injury, hypotension, shock, etc.¹²

Cardiac concern about hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an antimalarial drug shown to have in vitro (but not yet in vivo) activity against diverse RNA viruses, including SARS-CoV-1.²⁰ An expert consensus group from China suggests that chloroquine improved lung imaging and shortened disease course.²¹ HCQ was found to be more potent than chloroquine in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.²²

Based on limited in vitro and anecdotal clinical data from other countries, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently authorized emergency use of chloroquine and HCQ in hopes of slowing the progression of the disease when a clinical trial is not available, or participation is not feasible for use of these drugs in hospitalized patients. However, with no clear benefit, there is a concern for possible risks with cardiac toxicity.

HCQ is known to cause cardiomyopathy in a dose-dependent manner over several years. Given the anticipated short duration in COVID-19, it is not an expected risk. QT-segment prolongation and torsades de pointes, especially if administered in combination with azithromycin, is possible even in short term use.²³

Given above, frequent ECG monitoring is indicated for patients being treated with chloroquine or HCQ. All other QT-prolonging drugs should be discontinued. Continuous telemetry monitoring while under treatment is reasonable. HCQ should not be started if baseline QTc is > 500 msec and it should be stopped if the patient develops ventricular arrhythmias.¹²
 

Dr. Subedi is a noninvasive cardiologist for Wellspan Health System in Franklin and Cumberland counties in south central Pennsylvania. He is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa. He is an active member of the critical care committee at Wellspan Chambersburg (Pa.) Hospital. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro Hospitals, all in Pennsylvania. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Areti is currently working as a hospitalist at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and is a member of the Wellspan pharmacy and therapeutics committee. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.

Key points

• Acute cardiac injury or myocarditis is common among patients infected with COVID-19. Often, COVID myocarditis can mimic acute MI or stress cardiomyopathy and will present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. On the other hand, isolated cardiac involvement can occur, even without symptoms and signs of interstitial pneumonia.
• A most important indicator of worse prediction is the degree of myocardial injury, regardless of preexisting conditions or underlying cardiovascular disease.
• Early recognition of cardiac involvement will be helpful in targeting more aggressive supportive therapies. Commonly available clinical tools like bloodwork, ECG, or echocardiogram should be adequate to diagnose carditis in most cases.
• Advanced cardiac imaging tests or cardiac biopsy are of uncertain benefits. Meticulous evaluation is needed for possible ischemic changes before taking the patient to the cardiac cath lab in order to reduce unnecessary virus exposure to the operators.
• ACEI/ARB should be continued in most cases in COVID patients based on cardiology societies’ recommendations.
• With the widespread use of antimalarial drugs like chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, frequent ECG and continuous telemetry monitoring is reasonable to rule out ventricular arrhythmias like torsades.
• There is no specific treatment to date for acute cardiac injuries. Since there are no specific guidelines and information about the virus is rapidly changing, it will be prudent to follow common-sense approaches outlined by institutions like the Brigham and Women’s Hospital COVID-19 Critical Care clinical guidelines, which incorporate new clinical information on a daily basis ().

References

1. Rothan HA and Byrareddy SN. The epidemiology and pathogenesis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. J Autoimmun. 2020 May;109:102433. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102433.

2. Kolata G. A heart attack? No, it was the coronavirus. New York Times 2020 Mar 27.

3. Guo T et al. Cardiovascular implications of fatal outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1017.

4. Zhao X et al. Incidence, clinical characteristics and prognostic factor of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. MedRxIV. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.17.20037572.

5. Ruan Q et al. Clinical predictors of mortality due to COVID-19 based on an analysis of data of 150 patients from Wuhan, China. Intensive Care Med. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05991-x.

6. Wu Z and McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: Summary of a report of 72,314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648.

7. Thygesen K et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct;72:2231-64.

8. Zhou F et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-62.

9. Wang D et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020 Feb 7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1585.

10. CDC: Therapeutic options for patients with COVID-19. Updated April 13, 2020.

11. Inciardi RM et al. Cardiac involvement in a patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1096.

12. Brigham and Women’s Hospital COVID-19 Critical Care Clinical Guidelines.

13. American Society of Echocardiography Statement on COVID-19. 2020 Apr 1.

14. A cardiologist in Brooklyn infected with COVID-19. @jigneshpatelMD. 2020 Mar 20.

15. Paules CI et al. Coronavirus infections – more than just the common cold. JAMA. 2020 Jan 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0757.

16. Zheng YY et al. COVID-19 and the cardiovascular system. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2020 May;17(5):259-60.

17. Gurwitz D. Angiotensin receptor blockers as tentative SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics. Drug Dev Res. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/ddr.21656.

18. Henry C et al. Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and statins on viral pneumonia. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2018 Oct 26;31(4):419-23.

19. HFSA/ACC/AHA statement addresses concerns re: Using RAAS antagonists in COVID-19. 2020 Mar 17.

20. Touret F and de Lamballerie X. Of chloroquine and COVID-19. Antiviral Res. 2020 May;177:104762. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104762.

21. Expert consensus on chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia. Chinese journal of tuberculosis and respiratory diseases. 2020 Mar 12;43(3):185-8.

22. Yao X et al. In vitro antiviral activity and projection of optimized dosing design of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa237.

23. Devaux CA et al. New insights on the antiviral effects of chloroquine against coronavirus: What to expect for COVID-19? Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 12:105938. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105938.

In 1966 I was struggling with the decision of whether to become an art historian or go to medical school. I decided corporate ladder climbs and tenure chases were not for me. I wanted to be my own boss. I reckoned that medicine would offer me rock-solid job security and a comfortable income that I could adjust to my needs simply by working harder. In my Norman Rockwell–influenced view of the world, there would always be sick children. There would never be a quiet week or even a day when I would have to worry about not having an income.

Tomacco/iStock/Getty Images

So it was an idyllic existence for decades, tarnished only slightly when corporate entities began gobbling up owner-operator practices. But I never envisioned a pandemic that would turn the world – including its pediatricians – upside down. For the last several weeks as I pedal past my old office, I am dumbstruck by the empty parking lot. For the present I appear to be buffered by my retirement, but know that many of you are under serious financial pressure as a result of the pandemic.

We are all yearning to return to business as usual, but we know that it isn’t going to happen because everything has changed. The usual has yet to be defined. When you finally reopen your offices, you will be walking into a strange and eerie new normal. Initially you may struggle to make it feel like nothing has changed, but very quickly the full force of the postpandemic tsunami will hit us all broadside. In 2 years, the ship may still be rocking but what will clinical pediatrics look like in the late spring of 2022?

Will the patient mix have shifted even more toward behavioral and mental health complaints as a ripple effect of the pandemic’s emotional turmoil? Will more parents have begun to realize that they can manage minor complaints without an office visit? Will your waiting room have become a maze of plexiglass barriers to separate the sick from the well? Has the hospital invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a ventilation system in hopes of minimizing contagion in your exam rooms? Maybe you will have instituted an appointment schedule with sick visits in the morning and well checks in the afternoon. Or you may no longer have a waiting room because patients are queuing in their cars in the parking lot. Your support staff may be rollerskating around like carhops at a drive-in recording histories and taking vital signs.

Telemedicine will hopefully have gone mainstream with more robust guidelines for billing and quality control. Medical schools may be devoting more attention to teaching student how to assess remotely. Parents may now be equipped with a tool kit of remote sensors so that you can assess their child’s tympanic membranes, pulse rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure on your office computer screen.

Will the EHR finally have begun to emerge from its awkward and at times painful adolescence into an easily accessible and transportable nationwide data bank that includes immunization records for all ages? Patients may have been asked or ordered to allow their cell phones to be used as tracking devices for serious communicable diseases. How many vaccine-resistant people will have responded to the pandemic by deciding that immunizations are worth the minimal risks? I fear not many.

How many of your colleagues will have left pediatrics and heeded the call for more epidemiologists? Will you be required to take a CME course in ventilation management? The good news may be that to keep the pediatric workforce robust the government has decided to forgive your student loans.

None of these changes may have come to pass because we have notoriously short memories. But I am sure that we will all still bear the deep scars of this world changing event.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

In 1966 I was struggling with the decision of whether to become an art historian or go to medical school. I decided corporate ladder climbs and tenure chases were not for me. I wanted to be my own boss. I reckoned that medicine would offer me rock-solid job security and a comfortable income that I could adjust to my needs simply by working harder. In my Norman Rockwell–influenced view of the world, there would always be sick children. There would never be a quiet week or even a day when I would have to worry about not having an income.

Tomacco/iStock/Getty Images

So it was an idyllic existence for decades, tarnished only slightly when corporate entities began gobbling up owner-operator practices. But I never envisioned a pandemic that would turn the world – including its pediatricians – upside down. For the last several weeks as I pedal past my old office, I am dumbstruck by the empty parking lot. For the present I appear to be buffered by my retirement, but know that many of you are under serious financial pressure as a result of the pandemic.

We are all yearning to return to business as usual, but we know that it isn’t going to happen because everything has changed. The usual has yet to be defined. When you finally reopen your offices, you will be walking into a strange and eerie new normal. Initially you may struggle to make it feel like nothing has changed, but very quickly the full force of the postpandemic tsunami will hit us all broadside. In 2 years, the ship may still be rocking but what will clinical pediatrics look like in the late spring of 2022?

Will the patient mix have shifted even more toward behavioral and mental health complaints as a ripple effect of the pandemic’s emotional turmoil? Will more parents have begun to realize that they can manage minor complaints without an office visit? Will your waiting room have become a maze of plexiglass barriers to separate the sick from the well? Has the hospital invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a ventilation system in hopes of minimizing contagion in your exam rooms? Maybe you will have instituted an appointment schedule with sick visits in the morning and well checks in the afternoon. Or you may no longer have a waiting room because patients are queuing in their cars in the parking lot. Your support staff may be rollerskating around like carhops at a drive-in recording histories and taking vital signs.

Telemedicine will hopefully have gone mainstream with more robust guidelines for billing and quality control. Medical schools may be devoting more attention to teaching student how to assess remotely. Parents may now be equipped with a tool kit of remote sensors so that you can assess their child’s tympanic membranes, pulse rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure on your office computer screen.

Will the EHR finally have begun to emerge from its awkward and at times painful adolescence into an easily accessible and transportable nationwide data bank that includes immunization records for all ages? Patients may have been asked or ordered to allow their cell phones to be used as tracking devices for serious communicable diseases. How many vaccine-resistant people will have responded to the pandemic by deciding that immunizations are worth the minimal risks? I fear not many.

How many of your colleagues will have left pediatrics and heeded the call for more epidemiologists? Will you be required to take a CME course in ventilation management? The good news may be that to keep the pediatric workforce robust the government has decided to forgive your student loans.

None of these changes may have come to pass because we have notoriously short memories. But I am sure that we will all still bear the deep scars of this world changing event.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

In 1966 I was struggling with the decision of whether to become an art historian or go to medical school. I decided corporate ladder climbs and tenure chases were not for me. I wanted to be my own boss. I reckoned that medicine would offer me rock-solid job security and a comfortable income that I could adjust to my needs simply by working harder. In my Norman Rockwell–influenced view of the world, there would always be sick children. There would never be a quiet week or even a day when I would have to worry about not having an income.

Tomacco/iStock/Getty Images

So it was an idyllic existence for decades, tarnished only slightly when corporate entities began gobbling up owner-operator practices. But I never envisioned a pandemic that would turn the world – including its pediatricians – upside down. For the last several weeks as I pedal past my old office, I am dumbstruck by the empty parking lot. For the present I appear to be buffered by my retirement, but know that many of you are under serious financial pressure as a result of the pandemic.

We are all yearning to return to business as usual, but we know that it isn’t going to happen because everything has changed. The usual has yet to be defined. When you finally reopen your offices, you will be walking into a strange and eerie new normal. Initially you may struggle to make it feel like nothing has changed, but very quickly the full force of the postpandemic tsunami will hit us all broadside. In 2 years, the ship may still be rocking but what will clinical pediatrics look like in the late spring of 2022?

Will the patient mix have shifted even more toward behavioral and mental health complaints as a ripple effect of the pandemic’s emotional turmoil? Will more parents have begun to realize that they can manage minor complaints without an office visit? Will your waiting room have become a maze of plexiglass barriers to separate the sick from the well? Has the hospital invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a ventilation system in hopes of minimizing contagion in your exam rooms? Maybe you will have instituted an appointment schedule with sick visits in the morning and well checks in the afternoon. Or you may no longer have a waiting room because patients are queuing in their cars in the parking lot. Your support staff may be rollerskating around like carhops at a drive-in recording histories and taking vital signs.

Telemedicine will hopefully have gone mainstream with more robust guidelines for billing and quality control. Medical schools may be devoting more attention to teaching student how to assess remotely. Parents may now be equipped with a tool kit of remote sensors so that you can assess their child’s tympanic membranes, pulse rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure on your office computer screen.

Will the EHR finally have begun to emerge from its awkward and at times painful adolescence into an easily accessible and transportable nationwide data bank that includes immunization records for all ages? Patients may have been asked or ordered to allow their cell phones to be used as tracking devices for serious communicable diseases. How many vaccine-resistant people will have responded to the pandemic by deciding that immunizations are worth the minimal risks? I fear not many.

How many of your colleagues will have left pediatrics and heeded the call for more epidemiologists? Will you be required to take a CME course in ventilation management? The good news may be that to keep the pediatric workforce robust the government has decided to forgive your student loans.

None of these changes may have come to pass because we have notoriously short memories. But I am sure that we will all still bear the deep scars of this world changing event.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.

The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.

The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.

The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.

Additional studies

Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.

And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.

The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.

Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
 

New Wuhan study

The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.

Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.

Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).

Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.

The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.

Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).

Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).

The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.

The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.

But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”

They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.

However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.

This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.

But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
 

Experts cautiously optimistic

Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.

“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.

“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.

“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”

However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.

“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”

Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”

Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.

“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.

“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.

The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.

The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.

The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.

The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.

Additional studies

Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.

And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.

The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.

Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
 

New Wuhan study

The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.

Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.

Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).

Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.

The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.

Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).

Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).

The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.

The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.

But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”

They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.

However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.

This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.

But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
 

Experts cautiously optimistic

Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.

“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.

“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.

“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”

However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.

“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”

Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”

Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.

“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.

“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.

The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.

The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.

The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.

The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.

Additional studies

Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.

And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.

The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.

Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
 

New Wuhan study

The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.

Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.

Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).

Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.

The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.

Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).

Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).

The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.

The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.

But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”

They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.

However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.

This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.

But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
 

Experts cautiously optimistic

Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.

“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.

“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.

“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”

However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.

“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”

Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”

Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.

“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.

“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.

The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When patients with atrial fibrillation have an acute coronary syndrome event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention, their window of opportunity for benefiting from a triple antithrombotic regimen was, at best, about 30 days, according to a post hoc analysis of AUGUSTUS, a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.

Beyond 30 days out to 180 days, the incremental benefit from reduced ischemic events fell to essentially zero, giving it a clear back seat to the ongoing, increased bleeding risk from adding a third antithrombotic drug.

Patients randomized to receive aspirin in addition to an anticoagulant, either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel “for up to approximately 30 days” had a roughly similar decrease in severe ischemic events and increase in severe bleeding events, suggesting that even acutely the overall impact of adding aspirin on top of the other two antithrombotics was a wash, John H. Alexander, MD, said in a presentation of research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

Using aspirin as a third antithrombotic in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who have also recently had either an acute coronary syndrome event (ACS) or underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), “may be reasonable,” for selected patients, but is a decision that requires careful individualization, cautioned Dr. Alexander, professor of medicine and director of Cardiovascular Research at the Duke Clinical Research Institute of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“This is a superb secondary analysis looking at the time course of potential benefit and harm with aspirin, and they found that aspirin was beneficial only in the first 30 days. After 30 days, it’s startling and remarkable that the ischemic event curves were completely on top of each other,” commented Julia H. Indik, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Banner–University Medical Center Tuscon and designated discussant for the report. “This substudy will be essential for updating the guidelines,” she predicted. “When a treatment’s benefit equals its risks,” which happened when aspirin was part of the regimen during the first 30 days, “then it’s not even a class IIb recommendation; it’s class III,” the classification used by the ACC and collaborating groups to identify treatments where net benefit and net risk are similar and hence the treatment is considered not recommended.

A key element in the analysis Dr. Alexander presented was to define a spectrum of clinical events as representing broad, intermediate, or severe ischemic or bleeding events. The severe category for bleeding events included fatal, intracranial, and any bleed rated as major by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria, while the broad bleeding definition included all of these plus bleeds that directly resulted in hospitalization and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds. For ischemic events, the severe group consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke, while the broad category also tallied urgent revascularizations and cardiovascular hospitalizations.

“I believe the severe bleeds and severe ischemic events we identified are roughly equal in severity,” Dr. Alexander noted. “Where I think we need more analysis is which patients have more bleeding risk and which have more ischemia risk. We need a more tailored approach to identify patient subgroups, perhaps based on angiographic characteristics, or something else,” that modifies the trade-off that, on a population level, seems very evenly balanced.

Applying this approach to scoring the severity of adverse outcomes, Dr. Alexander reported that, during the first 30 days on treatment, patients on aspirin had a net absolute gain of 1.0% in severe bleeding events, compared with placebo, and a 3.4% gain in broad bleeds, while showing a 0.9% drop in severe ischemic events but no between-group difference in the rate of broadly defined ischemic events. During days 31-180, the addition of aspirin resulted in virtually no reductions in ischemic events regardless of whether they were severe, intermediate, or broad, but adding aspirin continued to produce an excess of bleeding episodes in all three categories. The results also appeared in an article published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046534).

“We did not see a time window when the ischemia risk was greater than the bleeding risk,” Dr. Alexander noted, and he also highlighted that the one option the analysis could not explore is never giving these patients any aspirin. “Patients received aspirin for some number of days before randomization,” a median of 6 days from the time of their ACS or PCI event until randomization, “so we don’t have great insight into whether no aspirin” is an reasonable option.

The AUGUSTUS trial randomized 4,614 patients with AFib and a recent ACS or PCI event at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding by the ISTH criteria during 6 months on treatment, while composites of death or hospitalization, and death plus ischemic events served as secondary outcomes. All patients received an antiplatelet P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% of patients receiving clopidogrel, and were randomized in a 2 x 2 factorial design to one of four regimens: either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist (such as warfarin), and to aspirin or placebo. The study’s primary findings showed that using apixaban instead of a vitamin K antagonist significantly reduced bleeding events as well as the rate of death or hospitalization, but the rate of death and ischemic events was similar in the two arms. The primary AUGUSTUS finding for the aspirin versus placebo randomization was that overall throughout the study ischemic events were balanced in the these two treatment arms while aspirin boosted bleeding (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

AUGUSTUS was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban. Dr. Alexander has been a consultant to and received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bayer, CryoLife, CSL Behring, Novo Nordisk, Portola, Quantum Genomics, XaTek, and Zafgen; and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, CryoLife, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, and XaTek. Dr. Indik had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alexander JH et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-08.

When patients with atrial fibrillation have an acute coronary syndrome event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention, their window of opportunity for benefiting from a triple antithrombotic regimen was, at best, about 30 days, according to a post hoc analysis of AUGUSTUS, a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.

Beyond 30 days out to 180 days, the incremental benefit from reduced ischemic events fell to essentially zero, giving it a clear back seat to the ongoing, increased bleeding risk from adding a third antithrombotic drug.

Patients randomized to receive aspirin in addition to an anticoagulant, either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel “for up to approximately 30 days” had a roughly similar decrease in severe ischemic events and increase in severe bleeding events, suggesting that even acutely the overall impact of adding aspirin on top of the other two antithrombotics was a wash, John H. Alexander, MD, said in a presentation of research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

Using aspirin as a third antithrombotic in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who have also recently had either an acute coronary syndrome event (ACS) or underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), “may be reasonable,” for selected patients, but is a decision that requires careful individualization, cautioned Dr. Alexander, professor of medicine and director of Cardiovascular Research at the Duke Clinical Research Institute of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“This is a superb secondary analysis looking at the time course of potential benefit and harm with aspirin, and they found that aspirin was beneficial only in the first 30 days. After 30 days, it’s startling and remarkable that the ischemic event curves were completely on top of each other,” commented Julia H. Indik, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Banner–University Medical Center Tuscon and designated discussant for the report. “This substudy will be essential for updating the guidelines,” she predicted. “When a treatment’s benefit equals its risks,” which happened when aspirin was part of the regimen during the first 30 days, “then it’s not even a class IIb recommendation; it’s class III,” the classification used by the ACC and collaborating groups to identify treatments where net benefit and net risk are similar and hence the treatment is considered not recommended.

A key element in the analysis Dr. Alexander presented was to define a spectrum of clinical events as representing broad, intermediate, or severe ischemic or bleeding events. The severe category for bleeding events included fatal, intracranial, and any bleed rated as major by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria, while the broad bleeding definition included all of these plus bleeds that directly resulted in hospitalization and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds. For ischemic events, the severe group consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke, while the broad category also tallied urgent revascularizations and cardiovascular hospitalizations.

“I believe the severe bleeds and severe ischemic events we identified are roughly equal in severity,” Dr. Alexander noted. “Where I think we need more analysis is which patients have more bleeding risk and which have more ischemia risk. We need a more tailored approach to identify patient subgroups, perhaps based on angiographic characteristics, or something else,” that modifies the trade-off that, on a population level, seems very evenly balanced.

Applying this approach to scoring the severity of adverse outcomes, Dr. Alexander reported that, during the first 30 days on treatment, patients on aspirin had a net absolute gain of 1.0% in severe bleeding events, compared with placebo, and a 3.4% gain in broad bleeds, while showing a 0.9% drop in severe ischemic events but no between-group difference in the rate of broadly defined ischemic events. During days 31-180, the addition of aspirin resulted in virtually no reductions in ischemic events regardless of whether they were severe, intermediate, or broad, but adding aspirin continued to produce an excess of bleeding episodes in all three categories. The results also appeared in an article published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046534).

“We did not see a time window when the ischemia risk was greater than the bleeding risk,” Dr. Alexander noted, and he also highlighted that the one option the analysis could not explore is never giving these patients any aspirin. “Patients received aspirin for some number of days before randomization,” a median of 6 days from the time of their ACS or PCI event until randomization, “so we don’t have great insight into whether no aspirin” is an reasonable option.

The AUGUSTUS trial randomized 4,614 patients with AFib and a recent ACS or PCI event at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding by the ISTH criteria during 6 months on treatment, while composites of death or hospitalization, and death plus ischemic events served as secondary outcomes. All patients received an antiplatelet P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% of patients receiving clopidogrel, and were randomized in a 2 x 2 factorial design to one of four regimens: either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist (such as warfarin), and to aspirin or placebo. The study’s primary findings showed that using apixaban instead of a vitamin K antagonist significantly reduced bleeding events as well as the rate of death or hospitalization, but the rate of death and ischemic events was similar in the two arms. The primary AUGUSTUS finding for the aspirin versus placebo randomization was that overall throughout the study ischemic events were balanced in the these two treatment arms while aspirin boosted bleeding (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

AUGUSTUS was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban. Dr. Alexander has been a consultant to and received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bayer, CryoLife, CSL Behring, Novo Nordisk, Portola, Quantum Genomics, XaTek, and Zafgen; and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, CryoLife, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, and XaTek. Dr. Indik had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alexander JH et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-08.

When patients with atrial fibrillation have an acute coronary syndrome event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention, their window of opportunity for benefiting from a triple antithrombotic regimen was, at best, about 30 days, according to a post hoc analysis of AUGUSTUS, a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.

Beyond 30 days out to 180 days, the incremental benefit from reduced ischemic events fell to essentially zero, giving it a clear back seat to the ongoing, increased bleeding risk from adding a third antithrombotic drug.

Patients randomized to receive aspirin in addition to an anticoagulant, either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel “for up to approximately 30 days” had a roughly similar decrease in severe ischemic events and increase in severe bleeding events, suggesting that even acutely the overall impact of adding aspirin on top of the other two antithrombotics was a wash, John H. Alexander, MD, said in a presentation of research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

Using aspirin as a third antithrombotic in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who have also recently had either an acute coronary syndrome event (ACS) or underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), “may be reasonable,” for selected patients, but is a decision that requires careful individualization, cautioned Dr. Alexander, professor of medicine and director of Cardiovascular Research at the Duke Clinical Research Institute of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“This is a superb secondary analysis looking at the time course of potential benefit and harm with aspirin, and they found that aspirin was beneficial only in the first 30 days. After 30 days, it’s startling and remarkable that the ischemic event curves were completely on top of each other,” commented Julia H. Indik, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Banner–University Medical Center Tuscon and designated discussant for the report. “This substudy will be essential for updating the guidelines,” she predicted. “When a treatment’s benefit equals its risks,” which happened when aspirin was part of the regimen during the first 30 days, “then it’s not even a class IIb recommendation; it’s class III,” the classification used by the ACC and collaborating groups to identify treatments where net benefit and net risk are similar and hence the treatment is considered not recommended.

A key element in the analysis Dr. Alexander presented was to define a spectrum of clinical events as representing broad, intermediate, or severe ischemic or bleeding events. The severe category for bleeding events included fatal, intracranial, and any bleed rated as major by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria, while the broad bleeding definition included all of these plus bleeds that directly resulted in hospitalization and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds. For ischemic events, the severe group consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke, while the broad category also tallied urgent revascularizations and cardiovascular hospitalizations.

“I believe the severe bleeds and severe ischemic events we identified are roughly equal in severity,” Dr. Alexander noted. “Where I think we need more analysis is which patients have more bleeding risk and which have more ischemia risk. We need a more tailored approach to identify patient subgroups, perhaps based on angiographic characteristics, or something else,” that modifies the trade-off that, on a population level, seems very evenly balanced.

Applying this approach to scoring the severity of adverse outcomes, Dr. Alexander reported that, during the first 30 days on treatment, patients on aspirin had a net absolute gain of 1.0% in severe bleeding events, compared with placebo, and a 3.4% gain in broad bleeds, while showing a 0.9% drop in severe ischemic events but no between-group difference in the rate of broadly defined ischemic events. During days 31-180, the addition of aspirin resulted in virtually no reductions in ischemic events regardless of whether they were severe, intermediate, or broad, but adding aspirin continued to produce an excess of bleeding episodes in all three categories. The results also appeared in an article published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046534).

“We did not see a time window when the ischemia risk was greater than the bleeding risk,” Dr. Alexander noted, and he also highlighted that the one option the analysis could not explore is never giving these patients any aspirin. “Patients received aspirin for some number of days before randomization,” a median of 6 days from the time of their ACS or PCI event until randomization, “so we don’t have great insight into whether no aspirin” is an reasonable option.

The AUGUSTUS trial randomized 4,614 patients with AFib and a recent ACS or PCI event at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding by the ISTH criteria during 6 months on treatment, while composites of death or hospitalization, and death plus ischemic events served as secondary outcomes. All patients received an antiplatelet P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% of patients receiving clopidogrel, and were randomized in a 2 x 2 factorial design to one of four regimens: either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist (such as warfarin), and to aspirin or placebo. The study’s primary findings showed that using apixaban instead of a vitamin K antagonist significantly reduced bleeding events as well as the rate of death or hospitalization, but the rate of death and ischemic events was similar in the two arms. The primary AUGUSTUS finding for the aspirin versus placebo randomization was that overall throughout the study ischemic events were balanced in the these two treatment arms while aspirin boosted bleeding (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

AUGUSTUS was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban. Dr. Alexander has been a consultant to and received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bayer, CryoLife, CSL Behring, Novo Nordisk, Portola, Quantum Genomics, XaTek, and Zafgen; and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, CryoLife, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, and XaTek. Dr. Indik had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alexander JH et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-08.

Brant Oliver, PhD, MS, MPH, APRN-BC, is a health care improvement and implementation scientist, educator, and board-certified family and psychiatric nurse practitioner (FNP-BC, PMHNP-BC). Dr. Oliver's work focuses on applied health care improvement science research, with a focus on "3C" (complex, costly, and chronic) conditions including MS, IBD, CF, RA, and others; coproduction; learning health systems; and shared decision making. He is Associate Professor at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and also has been in clinical practice since 2003, working primarily as a certified MS specialist (MSCN) and a MS neurobehavioral nurse practitioner.  

Which patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly assessed in the care of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS)?

BRANT OLIVER, PhD: The current reality is that PROs are not being used routinely in MS clinical care in most settings. They are most commonly being used in research settings, either as part of clinical trials of new treatments, or in epidemiologic studies looking at the prevalence, incidence, and severity of certain symptoms or functional impairments in MS at the population level. A good example is the NARCOMS registry, which has been used to conduct  high-quality epidemiologic studies of MS-related symptoms using self-report questionnaires.

We are starting to see some use of MS PROs in select clinical settings. Oftentimes these are measures of highly prevalent comorbid conditions that have an impact on quality of life, treatment adherence (depression severity and anxiety), and self-efficacy, which is a measure of perceived coping ability related to self-management of a chronic illness. Also, measures of patient experience are being employed in hospital-based clinics, such as the CG-CAHPS satisfaction measures.

The PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) battery is a promising set of PRO measures that are being utilized across a number of conditions and that contain some MS-specific measures, such as the Fatigue MS measure. Fatigue is the most common and disabling symptom in MS, so having a good measure of fatigue is of critical importance. Having a sense of a patient’s experience with fatigue over time can also be very helpful from a clinical perspective. The PROMIS measure performs much better than its predecessor, the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS). Another strength of the PROMIS measures is that they tend to do well correlating with other conditions. In certain research and improvement settings, PROMIS can help us understand the burden a particular disease or population places on total health system resources. For example, is fatigue burden in MS similar in severity to that in another 3C condition, such as inflammatory bowel disease?

There are other PRO measures that have not been used in MS but which I think we will see used in the future. One of these is called Collaborate, which falls into the category of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). Collaborate measures the degree of shared decision-making that occurs in a clinical encounter, which becomes especially important as the complexity of disease-modifying treatment decisions increases as more disease-modifying therapies are introduced, each with their own profile of risks and benefits. I anticipate that the ability of clinics to facilitate effective shared decision-making will be of increasing interest to clinicians, patients, and also payers in the future.

What are some of the potential benefits of using PRO measures in terms of clinician/patient communication and clinical decision-making?

BRANT OLIVER, PhD: I think the most important benefit of measuring PROs is that it can make care more patient-centered. The big push for PROs in the first place was to incorporate more of the patient’s voice into their own care. Standard clinical measures, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or relapse rates, can be very precise and provide a good clinical picture of how the disease is behaving. But if we rely solely on that kind of information, we can lose sight of the person who is experiencing the disease.

PROs, be they just regular PROs (instruments that gather qualitative and/or quantitative patient-reported information) or PROMs (validated and standardized PRO measures) or PREMs (standardized and validated patient-reported experience measures), all aim to improve the ability to get a better story of the person who's experiencing the illness and how that condition affects them. We can also gain insight on what's most important to them regarding how their illness is managed, and what their experience of care is.

Sometimes the PRO picture and the clinical picture don't necessarily align. I'll tell a story about one a person, who's given me permission to share the story. She is an established professional, and her PRO measures concerning her quality of life, support from her workplace environment, and her ability to function in society are very high. She's very high functioning according to the PRO picture.  However,  her clinical measures suggest that she is significantly impaired. Her MRI burden is quite high, and her disability due to the MS, her EDSS (Expanded Disability Status Scale), is also quite high. So there are 2 very different stories provided by 2 different sets of data. The inclusion of PROs data, in connection with clinical data, can provide a more holistic view of this person, who is functioning well despite significant disease burden.

As a clinician working with patients with MS, this gives me much more to work with in trying to help people, not only treating the disease, but also trying to see where the person is most in need of help. A person could be very well controlled on MRI in terms of relapse rate, but have fatigue severity that is through the roof. If I weren't paying closer attention to that with a validated scale that measures fatigue severity over time, like the PROMIS Fatigue MS, I may not have a sense of how well treatment is helping that person's fatigue longitudinally, beyond what I can glean from the history and clinical examination.

PROs can also be helpful in terms of conditions that are harder to quantify. Depression is a significant cause of disability and a significant factor contributing to poor treatment adherence in MS. Also, the suicide rate in persons with MS is much higher than that in the general population. But there is no blood test for depression severity, and oftentimes a patient’s report on exam can be incomplete or misleading. Accompanying the mental status exam and the clinical evaluation with a validated depression severity measure (such as the PHQ9 [Patient Health Questionnaire-9], CES-D [Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale], or others) can help to determine whether treatments are having an initial effect, and this can also help with self-monitoring and treatment adherence.  

That brings us to the second area where PROs show real promise in MS care: the learning health system (LHS) approach, which uses feed forward information to either predict the needs of people before they come to the office or optimize decision-making at the point of care (as discussed in our review article published in JCOM).¹

PROs can play a significant role in the LHS approach in 2 ways. For example, if I have a good sense before a visit that the person has stable symptoms but is having a lot of trouble coping with MS, that may change how I allocate resources and focus the time at the visit to target the primary concern of the person before the visit even occurs. Over time I'd be able to monitor if those coping scores increase in response to the work we’re doing with the person.

The second part of this approach is a feedback mechanism. These measures can be aggregated at the population level and fed back to clinical MS centers to help clinicians who are trying to improve overall population health outcomes of people with MS to see how well they're doing on things like fatigue management, depression management, coping ability, and pain control, which can't be tested for with biologic methods. So in addition to looking at the MRI scan trends across the population and relapse rate annualized for the population over time, I'd also be able to see fatigue severity and depression severity at a clinic population level and assess the change in these severity levels over time, which I could then use to inform efforts to change how my system (clinic) provides MS care.

This capability of PROs could be of significant interest to payers, especially those who are looking to optimize the value of care that is being provided, given the high cost of MS care. MS treatments are very expensive, and MS care is multidisciplinary and requires a lot of resources. Payers, I think, will have an increasing interest in assessing the value of high-cost care. PROs could help to demonstrate that value, especially if they can help quantify that outcomes can be improved over time at the population level.

The third area where PROs are beneficial is population health research, especially in terms of the major improvement movements going on in the country, such as those advocated for by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement via the Triple Aim: improve population health outcomes, improve the experience of care, and minimize per capita cost. PROs can really help with the first 2 of those Triple Aim categories.

What are some of the factors that limit the use of PRO measures in MS research and clinical practice?

BRANT OLIVER, PhD: In our JCOM paper,¹ we outlined major barriers or constraints or challenges to implementing PRO measures. One is time and technology in clinical care. It's busy. It's fast. A PRO measure requires patients to complete a questionnaire. And to do that, you need some time and space during the clinical visit, or before the visit, to collect this data. In the absence of appropriate technology, this is done using paper-based methods, which can be challenging. Technology can help. Examples include smart phone app-based collection systems, tablet PCs, or an online mechanism. But there are barriers to technology, too. Is the technology good enough? Is the interface with the people using it working well? Do you have an equal amount of access to and understanding of the technology from the people across your population? Is it only being used by a certain subset that is wealthier and more educated, or maybe who has English as a first language? Such constraints can be overcome, but they’re present in any situation where you are gathering PRO data.

Software constraints also extend to the electronic health record (EHR) capability of the clinics. If you can collect PRO data, does the EHR have the capability to present that data in a useful way during a 20- or 30-minute clinical visit? In other words, does it improve the quality of the visit, or does it generate just one more distraction during the visit? Some approaches, such as feed forward dashboards, provide easy visual displays that can quickly and easily add information at the point of care and can get around this limitation. However, a lot of MS care centers in private practice settings may not have the informatics capability of a large academic center.

 Academic centers often have more EHR capability, but can also  move much slower in implementation than more nimble private practice or community clinics. With many competing demands, it can sometimes take months to build one of these surveys into an EHR, for a task that takes just a day or so. But because other departments are in the queue for these changes, implementation often takes longer than we would intuitively think.

A second barrier is the burden on the individuals themselves. As much as we feel that PROs can make a difference, and the growing literature suggests that they really can, this is counterbalanced with the burden they may place on the patient. For example, a person may arrive at a clinic visit already with a lot on their mind, and then they get a questionnaire to complete in the waiting room before their visit (or perhaps they get asked to do it at home before the visit). The patient, rather than perceiving this as beneficial, may instead perceive it as an extra task or stressor. Explaining the purpose of the PRO measures, encouraging their use, and then actually using the results meaningfully during the visit can substantially improve their perceived value.

It’s important to limit the total amount of PROs used. In research, as well as in clinical settings, too many measures can lead to too little data. It's similar to an overly complex treatment plan: the chance that a person will adhere to all of it decreases with each level of complexity added. This can lead to decreased engagement by patients, and gradually they'll move away from participating in the PROs in general. Research and clinical efforts around PROs strive to get to a parsimonious set of critical measures, which will minimize the burden, but maximize the potential benefit.

 A third challenge is interpretability. This gets into the psychometric properties of the PRO measures and setting appropriate clinical thresholds for what constitutes a “positive” or “actionable” result. What is a clinically significant level of fatigue severity on the PROMIS MS Fatigue? We know that the mean range of that instrument is somewhere between 50 and 60. Does that mean that scores above 60 suggest higher than average fatigue levels, or is it more complicated than that? In many cases, the instruments don't have extensive population level research for the populations in which they are used. Setting clinical thresholds can be difficult, and I suspect that this will be a major area of research in the coming years.

Another example is setting appropriate depression thresholds. We know that on the CES-D, for example, the positive threshold for active depression in a patient with MS may be different from that in a patient without MS, because fatigue is a contributing factor to the neurovegetative symptoms that are scored on the CES-D.

So even if we can incorporate PROs into general practice and minimize burden, we also have to pay attention to factors that limit their interpretability and employ them in a way whereby they provide clinically meaningful results that can help inform care. The good news is,  for many PROs, even with these limitations, this can be done.

Following directly from this is error risk. Many PRO measures were designed for large-sample epidemiologic research, not for a smaller sample clinical practice, which can lead to a higher error risk, especially when following single individuals over time. Adjustments in how these scales are interpreted are required in many cases.

The limitations of many of the respondents completing questionnaires needs to be taken into account. Fatigue and cognitive impairment are very common in MS. Respondents may be selecting answers that are not entirely accurate if they're getting fatigued while doing the surveys, or if they have a comprehension deficit or a short-term memory deficit.

            A final challenge is demonstrating, just like any treatment or assessment approach, that the benefit outweighs the burden. PRO measures that are fairly reliable, validated, and quick and easy to complete suddenly become quite valuable because their benefit far outweighs the potential constraints. I think as PROs and the ways of assessing them continue to develop, that will become a bigger issue. The question will be, okay, you can do this, but what is the value added by doing this? That added value could be demonstrated in terms of better clinical outcomes, reduced costs, reduced hospitalizations, better treatment adherence, and so on.

How do you see the use of patient-reported outcomes in MS care evolving over time?

BRANT OLIVER, PhD: I tend to be optimistic regarding PROs. I think they will become part of the new reality, especially in LHS-oriented models of care. As mentioned, LHSs use feed forward data to predict the needs of people or optimize shared decision-making. I think we're going to see more shared decision-making rather than less over time in complex chronic illnesses care.

In environments where there's an increasing focus on value for high-cost, such as complex chronic conditions like MS and inflammatory bowel disease, systems will have to justify the high cost of treatment. PROs will be a critical piece in making that value assessment, especially since that value assessment is coming from the voice of patients rather than only from clinicians or other stakeholders. Arguably, patients may be able to contribute the most to making the value proposition because it is their outcomes and their experiences that matter to payers. Because experience matters (and not just outcomes), I think we'll see more PREMs used over time, including in MS.

I also think over time we'll see studies working to optimize PROs in the clinical environment and for improvement and research. An early example of that is the MS Continuous Quality Improvement (MS-CQI) Collaborative. It is a prospective randomized multicenter study using patient-reported and clinical data in a LHS approach to study population health outcomes and the effect of quality improvement interventions on those outcomes. It's also optimizing how these PRO measures are actually used at the point of care. Studies like MS-CQI will help to better articulate how, when, and for what purpose PROs should best be used and also when they should be avoided.

I think over time the predictive analytics component of PROs will be emphasized. There is a big push in the MS field in developing biomarkers to help predict disease progression over time. From the predictive analytics or machine learning perspective, imagine a situation where PROs could be used to predict a person's trajectory over time: if they were more likely to be lost to follow-up, to be hospitalized, or to have a relapse in the next year or 2. Reliable PROs generating population health data  at scale can inform the development of risk and outcome predictive models.  

Dr. Oliver discloses that he has received research grant support (MS-CQI research study mentioned in interview). He is the principal investigator and developer of the MS-CQI study, which is grant funded by Biogen under a Sponsored Research Agreement.

Brant Oliver, PhD, MS, MPH, APRN-BC, is a health care improvement and implementation scientist, educator, and board-certified family and psychiatric nurse practitioner (FNP-BC, PMHNP-BC). Dr. Oliver's work focuses on applied health care improvement science research, with a focus on "3C" (complex, costly, and chronic) conditions including MS, IBD, CF, RA, and others; coproduction; learning health systems; and shared decision making. He is Associate Professor at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and also has been in clinical practice since 2003, working primarily as a certified MS specialist (MSCN) and a MS neurobehavioral nurse practitioner.  

Which patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly assessed in the care of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS)?

BRANT OLIVER, PhD: The current reality is that PROs are not being used routinely in MS clinical care in most settings. They are most commonly being used in research settings, either as part of clinical trials of new treatments, or in epidemiologic studies looking at the prevalence, incidence, and severity of certain symptoms or functional impairments in MS at the population level. A good example is the NARCOMS registry, which has been used to conduct  high-quality epidemiologic studies of MS-related symptoms using self-report questionnaires.

We are starting to see some use of MS PROs in select clinical settings. Oftentimes these are measures of highly prevalent comorbid conditions that have an impact on quality of life, treatment adherence (depression severity and anxiety), and self-efficacy, which is a measure of perceived coping ability related to self-management of a chronic illness. Also, measures of patient experience are being employed in hospital-based clinics, such as the CG-CAHPS satisfaction measures.

The PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) battery is a promising set of PRO measures that are being utilized across a number of conditions and that contain some MS-specific measures, such as the Fatigue MS measure. Fatigue is the most common and disabling symptom in MS, so having a good measure of fatigue is of critical importance. Having a sense of a patient’s experience with fatigue over time can also be very helpful from a clinical perspective. The PROMIS measure performs much better than its predecessor, the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS). Another strength of the PROMIS measures is that they tend to do well correlating with other conditions. In certain research and improvement settings, PROMIS can help us understand the burden a particular disease or population places on total health system resources. For example, is fatigue burden in MS similar in severity to that in another 3C condition, such as inflammatory bowel disease?

There are other PRO measures that have not been used in MS but which I think we will see used in the future. One of these is called Collaborate, which falls into the category of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). Collaborate measures the degree of shared decision-making that occurs in a clinical encounter, which becomes especially important as the complexity of disease-modifying treatment decisions increases as more disease-modifying therapies are introduced, each with their own profile of risks and benefits. I anticipate that the ability of clinics to facilitate effective shared decision-making will be of increasing interest to clinicians, patients, and also payers in the future.

What are some of the potential benefits of using PRO measures in terms of clinician/patient communication and clinical decision-making?

BRANT OLIVER, PhD: I think the most important benefit of measuring PROs is that it can make care more patient-centered. The big push for PROs in the first place was to incorporate more of the patient’s voice into their own care. Standard clinical measures, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or relapse rates, can be very precise and provide a good clinical picture of how the disease is behaving. But if we rely solely on that kind of information, we can lose sight of the person who is experiencing the disease.

PROs, be they just regular PROs (instruments that gather qualitative and/or quantitative patient-reported information) or PROMs (validated and standardized PRO measures) or PREMs (standardized and validated patient-reported experience measures), all aim to improve the ability to get a better story of the person who's experiencing the illness and how that condition affects them. We can also gain insight on what's most important to them regarding how their illness is managed, and what their experience of care is.

Sometimes the PRO picture and the clinical picture don't necessarily align. I'll tell a story about one a person, who's given me permission to share the story. She is an established professional, and her PRO measures concerning her quality of life, support from her workplace environment, and her ability to function in society are very high. She's very high functioning according to the PRO picture.  However,  her clinical measures suggest that she is significantly impaired. Her MRI burden is quite high, and her disability due to the MS, her EDSS (Expanded Disability Status Scale), is also quite high. So there are 2 very different stories provided by 2 different sets of data. The inclusion of PROs data, in connection with clinical data, can provide a more holistic view of this person, who is functioning well despite significant disease burden.

As a clinician working with patients with MS, this gives me much more to work with in trying to help people, not only treating the disease, but also trying to see where the person is most in need of help. A person could be very well controlled on MRI in terms of relapse rate, but have fatigue severity that is through the roof. If I weren't paying closer attention to that with a validated scale that measures fatigue severity over time, like the PROMIS Fatigue MS, I may not have a sense of how well treatment is helping that person's fatigue longitudinally, beyond what I can glean from the history and clinical examination.

PROs can also be helpful in terms of conditions that are harder to quantify. Depression is a significant cause of disability and a significant factor contributing to poor treatment adherence in MS. Also, the suicide rate in persons with MS is much higher than that in the general population. But there is no blood test for depression severity, and oftentimes a patient’s report on exam can be incomplete or misleading. Accompanying the mental status exam and the clinical evaluation with a validated depression severity measure (such as the PHQ9 [Patient Health Questionnaire-9], CES-D [Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale], or others) can help to determine whether treatments are having an initial effect, and this can also help with self-monitoring and treatment adherence.  

That brings us to the second area where PROs show real promise in MS care: the learning health system (LHS) approach, which uses feed forward information to either predict the needs of people before they come to the office or optimize decision-making at the point of care (as discussed in our review article published in JCOM).¹

PROs can play a significant role in the LHS approach in 2 ways. For example, if I have a good sense before a visit that the person has stable symptoms but is having a lot of trouble coping with MS, that may change how I allocate resources and focus the time at the visit to target the primary concern of the person before the visit even occurs. Over time I'd be able to monitor if those coping scores increase in response to the work we’re doing with the person.

The second part of this approach is a feedback mechanism. These measures can be aggregated at the population level and fed back to clinical MS centers to help clinicians who are trying to improve overall population health outcomes of people with MS to see how well they're doing on things like fatigue management, depression management, coping ability, and pain control, which can't be tested for with biologic methods. So in addition to looking at the MRI scan trends across the population and relapse rate annualized for the population over time, I'd also be able to see fatigue severity and depression severity at a clinic population level and assess the change in these severity levels over time, which I could then use to inform efforts to change how my system (clinic) provides MS care.

This capability of PROs could be of significant interest to payers, especially those who are looking to optimize the value of care that is being provided, given the high cost of MS care. MS treatments are very expensive, and MS care is multidisciplinary and requires a lot of resources. Payers, I think, will have an increasing interest in assessing the value of high-cost care. PROs could help to demonstrate that value, especially if they can help quantify that outcomes can be improved over time at the population level.

The third area where PROs are beneficial is population health research, especially in terms of the major improvement movements going on in the country, such as those advocated for by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement via the Triple Aim: improve population health outcomes, improve the experience of care, and minimize per capita cost. PROs can really help with the first 2 of those Triple Aim categories.

What are some of the factors that limit the use of PRO measures in MS research and clinical practice?

BRANT OLIVER, PhD: In our JCOM paper,¹ we outlined major barriers or constraints or challenges to implementing PRO measures. One is time and technology in clinical care. It's busy. It's fast. A PRO measure requires patients to complete a questionnaire. And to do that, you need some time and space during the clinical visit, or before the visit, to collect this data. In the absence of appropriate technology, this is done using paper-based methods, which can be challenging. Technology can help. Examples include smart phone app-based collection systems, tablet PCs, or an online mechanism. But there are barriers to technology, too. Is the technology good enough? Is the interface with the people using it working well? Do you have an equal amount of access to and understanding of the technology from the people across your population? Is it only being used by a certain subset that is wealthier and more educated, or maybe who has English as a first language? Such constraints can be overcome, but they’re present in any situation where you are gathering PRO data.

Software constraints also extend to the electronic health record (EHR) capability of the clinics. If you can collect PRO data, does the EHR have the capability to present that data in a useful way during a 20- or 30-minute clinical visit? In other words, does it improve the quality of the visit, or does it generate just one more distraction during the visit? Some approaches, such as feed forward dashboards, provide easy visual displays that can quickly and easily add information at the point of care and can get around this limitation. However, a lot of MS care centers in private practice settings may not have the informatics capability of a large academic center.

 Academic centers often have more EHR capability, but can also  move much slower in implementation than more nimble private practice or community clinics. With many competing demands, it can sometimes take months to build one of these surveys into an EHR, for a task that takes just a day or so. But because other departments are in the queue for these changes, implementation often takes longer than we would intuitively think.

A second barrier is the burden on the individuals themselves. As much as we feel that PROs can make a difference, and the growing literature suggests that they really can, this is counterbalanced with the burden they may place on the patient. For example, a person may arrive at a clinic visit already with a lot on their mind, and then they get a questionnaire to complete in the waiting room before their visit (or perhaps they get asked to do it at home before the visit). The patient, rather than perceiving this as beneficial, may instead perceive it as an extra task or stressor. Explaining the purpose of the PRO measures, encouraging their use, and then actually using the results meaningfully during the visit can substantially improve their perceived value.

It’s important to limit the total amount of PROs used. In research, as well as in clinical settings, too many measures can lead to too little data. It's similar to an overly complex treatment plan: the chance that a person will adhere to all of it decreases with each level of complexity added. This can lead to decreased engagement by patients, and gradually they'll move away from participating in the PROs in general. Research and clinical efforts around PROs strive to get to a parsimonious set of critical measures, which will minimize the burden, but maximize the potential benefit.

 A third challenge is interpretability. This gets into the psychometric properties of the PRO measures and setting appropriate clinical thresholds for what constitutes a “positive” or “actionable” result. What is a clinically significant level of fatigue severity on the PROMIS MS Fatigue? We know that the mean range of that instrument is somewhere between 50 and 60. Does that mean that scores above 60 suggest higher than average fatigue levels, or is it more complicated than that? In many cases, the instruments don't have extensive population level research for the populations in which they are used. Setting clinical thresholds can be difficult, and I suspect that this will be a major area of research in the coming years.

Another example is setting appropriate depression thresholds. We know that on the CES-D, for example, the positive threshold for active depression in a patient with MS may be different from that in a patient without MS, because fatigue is a contributing factor to the neurovegetative symptoms that are scored on the CES-D.

So even if we can incorporate PROs into general practice and minimize burden, we also have to pay attention to factors that limit their interpretability and employ them in a way whereby they provide clinically meaningful results that can help inform care. The good news is,  for many PROs, even with these limitations, this can be done.

Following directly from this is error risk. Many PRO measures were designed for large-sample epidemiologic research, not for a smaller sample clinical practice, which can lead to a higher error risk, especially when following single individuals over time. Adjustments in how these scales are interpreted are required in many cases.

The limitations of many of the respondents completing questionnaires needs to be taken into account. Fatigue and cognitive impairment are very common in MS. Respondents may be selecting answers that are not entirely accurate if they're getting fatigued while doing the surveys, or if they have a comprehension deficit or a short-term memory deficit.

            A final challenge is demonstrating, just like any treatment or assessment approach, that the benefit outweighs the burden. PRO measures that are fairly reliable, validated, and quick and easy to complete suddenly become quite valuable because their benefit far outweighs the potential constraints. I think as PROs and the ways of assessing them continue to develop, that will become a bigger issue. The question will be, okay, you can do this, but what is the value added by doing this? That added value could be demonstrated in terms of better clinical outcomes, reduced costs, reduced hospitalizations, better treatment adherence, and so on.

How do you see the use of patient-reported outcomes in MS care evolving over time?

BRANT OLIVER, PhD: I tend to be optimistic regarding PROs. I think they will become part of the new reality, especially in LHS-oriented models of care. As mentioned, LHSs use feed forward data to predict the needs of people or optimize shared decision-making. I think we're going to see more shared decision-making rather than less over time in complex chronic illnesses care.

In environments where there's an increasing focus on value for high-cost, such as complex chronic conditions like MS and inflammatory bowel disease, systems will have to justify the high cost of treatment. PROs will be a critical piece in making that value assessment, especially since that value assessment is coming from the voice of patients rather than only from clinicians or other stakeholders. Arguably, patients may be able to contribute the most to making the value proposition because it is their outcomes and their experiences that matter to payers. Because experience matters (and not just outcomes), I think we'll see more PREMs used over time, including in MS.

I also think over time we'll see studies working to optimize PROs in the clinical environment and for improvement and research. An early example of that is the MS Continuous Quality Improvement (MS-CQI) Collaborative. It is a prospective randomized multicenter study using patient-reported and clinical data in a LHS approach to study population health outcomes and the effect of quality improvement interventions on those outcomes. It's also optimizing how these PRO measures are actually used at the point of care. Studies like MS-CQI will help to better articulate how, when, and for what purpose PROs should best be used and also when they should be avoided.

I think over time the predictive analytics component of PROs will be emphasized. There is a big push in the MS field in developing biomarkers to help predict disease progression over time. From the predictive analytics or machine learning perspective, imagine a situation where PROs could be used to predict a person's trajectory over time: if they were more likely to be lost to follow-up, to be hospitalized, or to have a relapse in the next year or 2. Reliable PROs generating population health data  at scale can inform the development of risk and outcome predictive models.  

Dr. Oliver discloses that he has received research grant support (MS-CQI research study mentioned in interview). He is the principal investigator and developer of the MS-CQI study, which is grant funded by Biogen under a Sponsored Research Agreement.

Brant Oliver, PhD, MS, MPH, APRN-BC, is a health care improvement and implementation scientist, educator, and board-certified family and psychiatric nurse practitioner (FNP-BC, PMHNP-BC). Dr. Oliver's work focuses on applied health care improvement science research, with a focus on "3C" (complex, costly, and chronic) conditions including MS, IBD, CF, RA, and others; coproduction; learning health systems; and shared decision making. He is Associate Professor at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and also has been in clinical practice since 2003, working primarily as a certified MS specialist (MSCN) and a MS neurobehavioral nurse practitioner.  

Which patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly assessed in the care of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS)?

BRANT OLIVER, PhD: The current reality is that PROs are not being used routinely in MS clinical care in most settings. They are most commonly being used in research settings, either as part of clinical trials of new treatments, or in epidemiologic studies looking at the prevalence, incidence, and severity of certain symptoms or functional impairments in MS at the population level. A good example is the NARCOMS registry, which has been used to conduct  high-quality epidemiologic studies of MS-related symptoms using self-report questionnaires.

We are starting to see some use of MS PROs in select clinical settings. Oftentimes these are measures of highly prevalent comorbid conditions that have an impact on quality of life, treatment adherence (depression severity and anxiety), and self-efficacy, which is a measure of perceived coping ability related to self-management of a chronic illness. Also, measures of patient experience are being employed in hospital-based clinics, such as the CG-CAHPS satisfaction measures.

The PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) battery is a promising set of PRO measures that are being utilized across a number of conditions and that contain some MS-specific measures, such as the Fatigue MS measure. Fatigue is the most common and disabling symptom in MS, so having a good measure of fatigue is of critical importance. Having a sense of a patient’s experience with fatigue over time can also be very helpful from a clinical perspective. The PROMIS measure performs much better than its predecessor, the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS). Another strength of the PROMIS measures is that they tend to do well correlating with other conditions. In certain research and improvement settings, PROMIS can help us understand the burden a particular disease or population places on total health system resources. For example, is fatigue burden in MS similar in severity to that in another 3C condition, such as inflammatory bowel disease?

There are other PRO measures that have not been used in MS but which I think we will see used in the future. One of these is called Collaborate, which falls into the category of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). Collaborate measures the degree of shared decision-making that occurs in a clinical encounter, which becomes especially important as the complexity of disease-modifying treatment decisions increases as more disease-modifying therapies are introduced, each with their own profile of risks and benefits. I anticipate that the ability of clinics to facilitate effective shared decision-making will be of increasing interest to clinicians, patients, and also payers in the future.

What are some of the potential benefits of using PRO measures in terms of clinician/patient communication and clinical decision-making?

BRANT OLIVER, PhD: I think the most important benefit of measuring PROs is that it can make care more patient-centered. The big push for PROs in the first place was to incorporate more of the patient’s voice into their own care. Standard clinical measures, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or relapse rates, can be very precise and provide a good clinical picture of how the disease is behaving. But if we rely solely on that kind of information, we can lose sight of the person who is experiencing the disease.

PROs, be they just regular PROs (instruments that gather qualitative and/or quantitative patient-reported information) or PROMs (validated and standardized PRO measures) or PREMs (standardized and validated patient-reported experience measures), all aim to improve the ability to get a better story of the person who's experiencing the illness and how that condition affects them. We can also gain insight on what's most important to them regarding how their illness is managed, and what their experience of care is.

Sometimes the PRO picture and the clinical picture don't necessarily align. I'll tell a story about one a person, who's given me permission to share the story. She is an established professional, and her PRO measures concerning her quality of life, support from her workplace environment, and her ability to function in society are very high. She's very high functioning according to the PRO picture.  However,  her clinical measures suggest that she is significantly impaired. Her MRI burden is quite high, and her disability due to the MS, her EDSS (Expanded Disability Status Scale), is also quite high. So there are 2 very different stories provided by 2 different sets of data. The inclusion of PROs data, in connection with clinical data, can provide a more holistic view of this person, who is functioning well despite significant disease burden.

As a clinician working with patients with MS, this gives me much more to work with in trying to help people, not only treating the disease, but also trying to see where the person is most in need of help. A person could be very well controlled on MRI in terms of relapse rate, but have fatigue severity that is through the roof. If I weren't paying closer attention to that with a validated scale that measures fatigue severity over time, like the PROMIS Fatigue MS, I may not have a sense of how well treatment is helping that person's fatigue longitudinally, beyond what I can glean from the history and clinical examination.

PROs can also be helpful in terms of conditions that are harder to quantify. Depression is a significant cause of disability and a significant factor contributing to poor treatment adherence in MS. Also, the suicide rate in persons with MS is much higher than that in the general population. But there is no blood test for depression severity, and oftentimes a patient’s report on exam can be incomplete or misleading. Accompanying the mental status exam and the clinical evaluation with a validated depression severity measure (such as the PHQ9 [Patient Health Questionnaire-9], CES-D [Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale], or others) can help to determine whether treatments are having an initial effect, and this can also help with self-monitoring and treatment adherence.  

That brings us to the second area where PROs show real promise in MS care: the learning health system (LHS) approach, which uses feed forward information to either predict the needs of people before they come to the office or optimize decision-making at the point of care (as discussed in our review article published in JCOM).¹

PROs can play a significant role in the LHS approach in 2 ways. For example, if I have a good sense before a visit that the person has stable symptoms but is having a lot of trouble coping with MS, that may change how I allocate resources and focus the time at the visit to target the primary concern of the person before the visit even occurs. Over time I'd be able to monitor if those coping scores increase in response to the work we’re doing with the person.

The second part of this approach is a feedback mechanism. These measures can be aggregated at the population level and fed back to clinical MS centers to help clinicians who are trying to improve overall population health outcomes of people with MS to see how well they're doing on things like fatigue management, depression management, coping ability, and pain control, which can't be tested for with biologic methods. So in addition to looking at the MRI scan trends across the population and relapse rate annualized for the population over time, I'd also be able to see fatigue severity and depression severity at a clinic population level and assess the change in these severity levels over time, which I could then use to inform efforts to change how my system (clinic) provides MS care.

This capability of PROs could be of significant interest to payers, especially those who are looking to optimize the value of care that is being provided, given the high cost of MS care. MS treatments are very expensive, and MS care is multidisciplinary and requires a lot of resources. Payers, I think, will have an increasing interest in assessing the value of high-cost care. PROs could help to demonstrate that value, especially if they can help quantify that outcomes can be improved over time at the population level.

The third area where PROs are beneficial is population health research, especially in terms of the major improvement movements going on in the country, such as those advocated for by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement via the Triple Aim: improve population health outcomes, improve the experience of care, and minimize per capita cost. PROs can really help with the first 2 of those Triple Aim categories.

What are some of the factors that limit the use of PRO measures in MS research and clinical practice?

BRANT OLIVER, PhD: In our JCOM paper,¹ we outlined major barriers or constraints or challenges to implementing PRO measures. One is time and technology in clinical care. It's busy. It's fast. A PRO measure requires patients to complete a questionnaire. And to do that, you need some time and space during the clinical visit, or before the visit, to collect this data. In the absence of appropriate technology, this is done using paper-based methods, which can be challenging. Technology can help. Examples include smart phone app-based collection systems, tablet PCs, or an online mechanism. But there are barriers to technology, too. Is the technology good enough? Is the interface with the people using it working well? Do you have an equal amount of access to and understanding of the technology from the people across your population? Is it only being used by a certain subset that is wealthier and more educated, or maybe who has English as a first language? Such constraints can be overcome, but they’re present in any situation where you are gathering PRO data.

Software constraints also extend to the electronic health record (EHR) capability of the clinics. If you can collect PRO data, does the EHR have the capability to present that data in a useful way during a 20- or 30-minute clinical visit? In other words, does it improve the quality of the visit, or does it generate just one more distraction during the visit? Some approaches, such as feed forward dashboards, provide easy visual displays that can quickly and easily add information at the point of care and can get around this limitation. However, a lot of MS care centers in private practice settings may not have the informatics capability of a large academic center.

 Academic centers often have more EHR capability, but can also  move much slower in implementation than more nimble private practice or community clinics. With many competing demands, it can sometimes take months to build one of these surveys into an EHR, for a task that takes just a day or so. But because other departments are in the queue for these changes, implementation often takes longer than we would intuitively think.

A second barrier is the burden on the individuals themselves. As much as we feel that PROs can make a difference, and the growing literature suggests that they really can, this is counterbalanced with the burden they may place on the patient. For example, a person may arrive at a clinic visit already with a lot on their mind, and then they get a questionnaire to complete in the waiting room before their visit (or perhaps they get asked to do it at home before the visit). The patient, rather than perceiving this as beneficial, may instead perceive it as an extra task or stressor. Explaining the purpose of the PRO measures, encouraging their use, and then actually using the results meaningfully during the visit can substantially improve their perceived value.

It’s important to limit the total amount of PROs used. In research, as well as in clinical settings, too many measures can lead to too little data. It's similar to an overly complex treatment plan: the chance that a person will adhere to all of it decreases with each level of complexity added. This can lead to decreased engagement by patients, and gradually they'll move away from participating in the PROs in general. Research and clinical efforts around PROs strive to get to a parsimonious set of critical measures, which will minimize the burden, but maximize the potential benefit.

 A third challenge is interpretability. This gets into the psychometric properties of the PRO measures and setting appropriate clinical thresholds for what constitutes a “positive” or “actionable” result. What is a clinically significant level of fatigue severity on the PROMIS MS Fatigue? We know that the mean range of that instrument is somewhere between 50 and 60. Does that mean that scores above 60 suggest higher than average fatigue levels, or is it more complicated than that? In many cases, the instruments don't have extensive population level research for the populations in which they are used. Setting clinical thresholds can be difficult, and I suspect that this will be a major area of research in the coming years.

Another example is setting appropriate depression thresholds. We know that on the CES-D, for example, the positive threshold for active depression in a patient with MS may be different from that in a patient without MS, because fatigue is a contributing factor to the neurovegetative symptoms that are scored on the CES-D.

So even if we can incorporate PROs into general practice and minimize burden, we also have to pay attention to factors that limit their interpretability and employ them in a way whereby they provide clinically meaningful results that can help inform care. The good news is,  for many PROs, even with these limitations, this can be done.

Following directly from this is error risk. Many PRO measures were designed for large-sample epidemiologic research, not for a smaller sample clinical practice, which can lead to a higher error risk, especially when following single individuals over time. Adjustments in how these scales are interpreted are required in many cases.

The limitations of many of the respondents completing questionnaires needs to be taken into account. Fatigue and cognitive impairment are very common in MS. Respondents may be selecting answers that are not entirely accurate if they're getting fatigued while doing the surveys, or if they have a comprehension deficit or a short-term memory deficit.

            A final challenge is demonstrating, just like any treatment or assessment approach, that the benefit outweighs the burden. PRO measures that are fairly reliable, validated, and quick and easy to complete suddenly become quite valuable because their benefit far outweighs the potential constraints. I think as PROs and the ways of assessing them continue to develop, that will become a bigger issue. The question will be, okay, you can do this, but what is the value added by doing this? That added value could be demonstrated in terms of better clinical outcomes, reduced costs, reduced hospitalizations, better treatment adherence, and so on.

How do you see the use of patient-reported outcomes in MS care evolving over time?

BRANT OLIVER, PhD: I tend to be optimistic regarding PROs. I think they will become part of the new reality, especially in LHS-oriented models of care. As mentioned, LHSs use feed forward data to predict the needs of people or optimize shared decision-making. I think we're going to see more shared decision-making rather than less over time in complex chronic illnesses care.

In environments where there's an increasing focus on value for high-cost, such as complex chronic conditions like MS and inflammatory bowel disease, systems will have to justify the high cost of treatment. PROs will be a critical piece in making that value assessment, especially since that value assessment is coming from the voice of patients rather than only from clinicians or other stakeholders. Arguably, patients may be able to contribute the most to making the value proposition because it is their outcomes and their experiences that matter to payers. Because experience matters (and not just outcomes), I think we'll see more PREMs used over time, including in MS.

I also think over time we'll see studies working to optimize PROs in the clinical environment and for improvement and research. An early example of that is the MS Continuous Quality Improvement (MS-CQI) Collaborative. It is a prospective randomized multicenter study using patient-reported and clinical data in a LHS approach to study population health outcomes and the effect of quality improvement interventions on those outcomes. It's also optimizing how these PRO measures are actually used at the point of care. Studies like MS-CQI will help to better articulate how, when, and for what purpose PROs should best be used and also when they should be avoided.

I think over time the predictive analytics component of PROs will be emphasized. There is a big push in the MS field in developing biomarkers to help predict disease progression over time. From the predictive analytics or machine learning perspective, imagine a situation where PROs could be used to predict a person's trajectory over time: if they were more likely to be lost to follow-up, to be hospitalized, or to have a relapse in the next year or 2. Reliable PROs generating population health data  at scale can inform the development of risk and outcome predictive models.  

Dr. Oliver discloses that he has received research grant support (MS-CQI research study mentioned in interview). He is the principal investigator and developer of the MS-CQI study, which is grant funded by Biogen under a Sponsored Research Agreement.