MDedge Neurology

Researchers have published one of the first studies to characterize the association between the consumption of legal cannabis and subsequent pharmacologic and neurobehavioral outcomes, with somewhat surprising results.

The study showed that, although cannabis consumption did not affect most short-term neurobehavioral measures, it delayed recall memory and impaired balance.

The investigation also showed that users of much more potent cannabis concentrates actually demonstrated similar or lower levels of subjective drug intoxication and short-term impairment than did their counterparts who used lower-potency forms of the cannabis flower.

“It does not appear that the potency being used matters that much,” senior investigator Kent E. Hutchison, PhD, said in an interview. “People seem to be titrating to a certain level of intoxication or a certain level of feeling high. And for some people that requires a lot of drug, and for other people not as much.”

“As a first study, this was very useful in the sense that nobody really knew the effects of high-potency cannabis products,” added Dr. Hutchison, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Colorado Boulder.

The study was published online June 10 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Widespread availability, little research

Recreational cannabis is now legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia, while medical cannabis is legal in 33. However, despite growing popularity of cannabis, there is little research on its potential health and biobehavioral risks, largely because of federal restrictions on cannabis research.

Cannabis users typically consume various forms of the cannabis flower, which can boast concentrations of the psychoactive cannabinoid delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of up to 30%. However, use of concentrated forms of cannabis – which are made by extracting plant cannabinoids into a different form – is increasing.

Such formulations can boast THC concentrations as high as 90%. Nevertheless, data regarding the relative risks of these higher-strength products are limited.

Previous research has shown a variety of negative short-term and long-term neurobehavioral effects associated with cannabis use, including harmful cognitive and motor effects. Extended exposure to THC may also negatively affect brain regions that are associated with the control of coordinated movement, and create brain-activation deficits in motor control regions that persist well beyond the effects of short-term intoxication.

Despite such findings, Dr. Hutchison said the existing literature on the subject does not yield a real-world view of current cannabis use because it tends to focus on low-THC products that are increasingly less common in today’s legal market.

Given such shortcomings, the investigators wanted to address persistent questions surrounding the neurobehavioral effects of legal cannabis flower products (16% or 24% THC) and cannabis concentrate products (70% or 90% THC). In doing so, they examined three primary topics:

• The association between short-term use of these products and THC plasma levels; subjective intoxication; and mood, cognitive performance, and balance
• Differences in such associations between users of cannabis flower and concentrate products
• Potential variations in these associations by THC potency

High- versus low-potency varieties

The study included 133 individuals (aged 21-70 years), who were designated as either cannabis flower users or cannabis concentrate users. Participants had all used cannabis at least four times in the previous month with no adverse reaction and were not receiving treatment for a psychotic disorder or bipolar disorder.

Participants were randomly assigned to consume either higher-potency or lower-potency products that had been purchased from a local dispensary. Flower users were randomized to purchase 3 g of either a 16% THC or 24% THC product, while concentrate users were randomized to purchase 1g of either 70% THC or 90% THC.

Participants completed a series of four assessments, one at baseline and three others at a mobile laboratory. The mobile laboratory assessments occurred before, immediately after, and one hour after participants had all consumed their cannabis ad libitum.

Of the original cohort of 133 participants, 55 flower cannabis users (mean age, 28.8 years; 46% women) and 66 concentrate cannabis users (mean age, 28.3 years; 45% women) complied with the study’s instructions and had complete data.

The study’s primary outcome measures included plasma cannabinoids, subjective drug intoxication and mood, and neurobehavioral outcomes such as attention, memory, inhibitory control, and balance.

Mixed results

With respect to cannabis concentrations, results showed that users of concentrate exhibited higher levels of both plasma THC and the active metabolite of THC (11-hydroxy-delta⁹-THC) across all points than did their counterparts who used cannabis flower products.

Specifically, mean plasma THC levels were 1,016 ± 1,380 mcg/ml in concentrate users and 455±503 mcg/mL in flower users after ad libitum cannabis consumption. Nevertheless, self-reported levels of intoxication were no different between users of cannabis flower or concentrate products.

Although results also showed that most neurobehavioral measures were not altered by short-term cannabis consumption, there were some notable exceptions. There was a negative linear effect with delayed verbal recall errors, suggesting poorer performance after cannabis use (F_{1, 203} = 32.31; P < .001).

On the other hand, investigators found a positive linear effect with inhibitory control and working memory, which actually suggests better performance after cannabis use. This finding, the researchers note, may be the result of a practice effect. Cannabis flower users performed better across all inhibitory control assessments.

The researchers also tested participants’ balance with their eyes open and closed. In the eyes-open condition, they found a trend toward impaired balance after cannabis use, though this normalized within an hour. When subjects closed their eyes, however, researchers observed a significant short-term increase in sway after cannabis use, which fell back to pre-use levels one hour after use (F_{1, 203} = 18.88; P < .001).

Of note, outcomes did not differ between groups according to the type of cannabis product consumed or its relative potency.

The study yielded several surprising findings, beginning with self-reported intoxication levels, which were not statistically significant between different cannabis flower and concentrate users, despite significantly different plasma THC levels between the two groups.

Dr. Hutchison explained that this may be the result of greater THC tolerance among concentrate users, THC saturation of cannabinoid receptors, or interindividual differences among users with respect to cannabis metabolism or sensitivity.

“I thought for sure that high-potency users would be much more compromised,” he said. “I guess it just goes to show we have a lot to learn about how these things work.”

Additionally, there were virtually no significant changes in acute performance after cannabis use, with the exception of delayed verbal recall. In fact, the most marked change observed in the study was the effect of cannabis on balance immediately after drug use, though these changes seemed to abate within an hour.

Nevertheless, the study highlights several potential public health implications of cannabis consumption, Dr. Hutchison added. “What happens when people with high blood concentrations decide to quit?” he asked. “Do they have trouble quitting? Do they have withdrawal symptoms?”

The long-term effects of cannabis use is another important question that still needs to be answered, he added.

Finally, Dr. Hutchison noted that, although the study showed little difference between users of cannabis flower and concentrates, study participants were all experienced users.

“There is certainly the potential for harm when a naive person uses cannabis concentrate,” he said. “Suddenly they have way more THC than they thought they were going to get, and that’s where a lot of people get into trouble with cannabis.”

Pitfalls and hurdles

In an accompanying editorial, Margaret Haney, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that cannabis’ awkward position as simultaneously legal and illegal, medical and recreational, has hampered researchers’ ability to study its effects as comprehensively as they would otherwise like.

“With a federally illegal drug legalized in individual states, scientists constrained, and federal agencies somewhat silent, clinicians have none of the data that guide their decisions for other medications (eg, which indication, product, cannabinoid ratio, dose, or route of administration; what risks for individual patients [eg, pregnant, adolescent, psychiatric?]),” Dr. Haney wrote.

These pitfalls are compounded by the significant regulatory hurdles.

“The FDA is appropriately cautious about what it allows scientists to test in patients, and none of the products available in dispensaries or online have undergone the safety and manufacturing procedures needed for FDA approval,” she continued. “How then to conduct the studies so needed?”

Yet as Haney noted, giving cannabinoid researchers a Schedule I exemption may help address many of the barriers facing these scientists. Such a move, she said, would increase the number of randomized controlled trials being performed, “and thereby begin to breach the divide between the use of these products and empirical evidence.”

Dr. Hutchison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Haney disclosed funding from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and from the Thompson Family Foundation Initiative. The study was funded by the NIH and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

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

Researchers have published one of the first studies to characterize the association between the consumption of legal cannabis and subsequent pharmacologic and neurobehavioral outcomes, with somewhat surprising results.

The study showed that, although cannabis consumption did not affect most short-term neurobehavioral measures, it delayed recall memory and impaired balance.

The investigation also showed that users of much more potent cannabis concentrates actually demonstrated similar or lower levels of subjective drug intoxication and short-term impairment than did their counterparts who used lower-potency forms of the cannabis flower.

“It does not appear that the potency being used matters that much,” senior investigator Kent E. Hutchison, PhD, said in an interview. “People seem to be titrating to a certain level of intoxication or a certain level of feeling high. And for some people that requires a lot of drug, and for other people not as much.”

“As a first study, this was very useful in the sense that nobody really knew the effects of high-potency cannabis products,” added Dr. Hutchison, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Colorado Boulder.

The study was published online June 10 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Widespread availability, little research

Recreational cannabis is now legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia, while medical cannabis is legal in 33. However, despite growing popularity of cannabis, there is little research on its potential health and biobehavioral risks, largely because of federal restrictions on cannabis research.

Cannabis users typically consume various forms of the cannabis flower, which can boast concentrations of the psychoactive cannabinoid delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of up to 30%. However, use of concentrated forms of cannabis – which are made by extracting plant cannabinoids into a different form – is increasing.

Such formulations can boast THC concentrations as high as 90%. Nevertheless, data regarding the relative risks of these higher-strength products are limited.

Previous research has shown a variety of negative short-term and long-term neurobehavioral effects associated with cannabis use, including harmful cognitive and motor effects. Extended exposure to THC may also negatively affect brain regions that are associated with the control of coordinated movement, and create brain-activation deficits in motor control regions that persist well beyond the effects of short-term intoxication.

Despite such findings, Dr. Hutchison said the existing literature on the subject does not yield a real-world view of current cannabis use because it tends to focus on low-THC products that are increasingly less common in today’s legal market.

Given such shortcomings, the investigators wanted to address persistent questions surrounding the neurobehavioral effects of legal cannabis flower products (16% or 24% THC) and cannabis concentrate products (70% or 90% THC). In doing so, they examined three primary topics:

• The association between short-term use of these products and THC plasma levels; subjective intoxication; and mood, cognitive performance, and balance
• Differences in such associations between users of cannabis flower and concentrate products
• Potential variations in these associations by THC potency

High- versus low-potency varieties

The study included 133 individuals (aged 21-70 years), who were designated as either cannabis flower users or cannabis concentrate users. Participants had all used cannabis at least four times in the previous month with no adverse reaction and were not receiving treatment for a psychotic disorder or bipolar disorder.

Participants were randomly assigned to consume either higher-potency or lower-potency products that had been purchased from a local dispensary. Flower users were randomized to purchase 3 g of either a 16% THC or 24% THC product, while concentrate users were randomized to purchase 1g of either 70% THC or 90% THC.

Participants completed a series of four assessments, one at baseline and three others at a mobile laboratory. The mobile laboratory assessments occurred before, immediately after, and one hour after participants had all consumed their cannabis ad libitum.

Of the original cohort of 133 participants, 55 flower cannabis users (mean age, 28.8 years; 46% women) and 66 concentrate cannabis users (mean age, 28.3 years; 45% women) complied with the study’s instructions and had complete data.

The study’s primary outcome measures included plasma cannabinoids, subjective drug intoxication and mood, and neurobehavioral outcomes such as attention, memory, inhibitory control, and balance.

Mixed results

With respect to cannabis concentrations, results showed that users of concentrate exhibited higher levels of both plasma THC and the active metabolite of THC (11-hydroxy-delta⁹-THC) across all points than did their counterparts who used cannabis flower products.

Specifically, mean plasma THC levels were 1,016 ± 1,380 mcg/ml in concentrate users and 455±503 mcg/mL in flower users after ad libitum cannabis consumption. Nevertheless, self-reported levels of intoxication were no different between users of cannabis flower or concentrate products.

Although results also showed that most neurobehavioral measures were not altered by short-term cannabis consumption, there were some notable exceptions. There was a negative linear effect with delayed verbal recall errors, suggesting poorer performance after cannabis use (F_{1, 203} = 32.31; P < .001).

On the other hand, investigators found a positive linear effect with inhibitory control and working memory, which actually suggests better performance after cannabis use. This finding, the researchers note, may be the result of a practice effect. Cannabis flower users performed better across all inhibitory control assessments.

The researchers also tested participants’ balance with their eyes open and closed. In the eyes-open condition, they found a trend toward impaired balance after cannabis use, though this normalized within an hour. When subjects closed their eyes, however, researchers observed a significant short-term increase in sway after cannabis use, which fell back to pre-use levels one hour after use (F_{1, 203} = 18.88; P < .001).

Of note, outcomes did not differ between groups according to the type of cannabis product consumed or its relative potency.

The study yielded several surprising findings, beginning with self-reported intoxication levels, which were not statistically significant between different cannabis flower and concentrate users, despite significantly different plasma THC levels between the two groups.

Dr. Hutchison explained that this may be the result of greater THC tolerance among concentrate users, THC saturation of cannabinoid receptors, or interindividual differences among users with respect to cannabis metabolism or sensitivity.

“I thought for sure that high-potency users would be much more compromised,” he said. “I guess it just goes to show we have a lot to learn about how these things work.”

Additionally, there were virtually no significant changes in acute performance after cannabis use, with the exception of delayed verbal recall. In fact, the most marked change observed in the study was the effect of cannabis on balance immediately after drug use, though these changes seemed to abate within an hour.

Nevertheless, the study highlights several potential public health implications of cannabis consumption, Dr. Hutchison added. “What happens when people with high blood concentrations decide to quit?” he asked. “Do they have trouble quitting? Do they have withdrawal symptoms?”

The long-term effects of cannabis use is another important question that still needs to be answered, he added.

Finally, Dr. Hutchison noted that, although the study showed little difference between users of cannabis flower and concentrates, study participants were all experienced users.

“There is certainly the potential for harm when a naive person uses cannabis concentrate,” he said. “Suddenly they have way more THC than they thought they were going to get, and that’s where a lot of people get into trouble with cannabis.”

Pitfalls and hurdles

In an accompanying editorial, Margaret Haney, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that cannabis’ awkward position as simultaneously legal and illegal, medical and recreational, has hampered researchers’ ability to study its effects as comprehensively as they would otherwise like.

“With a federally illegal drug legalized in individual states, scientists constrained, and federal agencies somewhat silent, clinicians have none of the data that guide their decisions for other medications (eg, which indication, product, cannabinoid ratio, dose, or route of administration; what risks for individual patients [eg, pregnant, adolescent, psychiatric?]),” Dr. Haney wrote.

These pitfalls are compounded by the significant regulatory hurdles.

“The FDA is appropriately cautious about what it allows scientists to test in patients, and none of the products available in dispensaries or online have undergone the safety and manufacturing procedures needed for FDA approval,” she continued. “How then to conduct the studies so needed?”

Yet as Haney noted, giving cannabinoid researchers a Schedule I exemption may help address many of the barriers facing these scientists. Such a move, she said, would increase the number of randomized controlled trials being performed, “and thereby begin to breach the divide between the use of these products and empirical evidence.”

Dr. Hutchison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Haney disclosed funding from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and from the Thompson Family Foundation Initiative. The study was funded by the NIH and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

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

Researchers have published one of the first studies to characterize the association between the consumption of legal cannabis and subsequent pharmacologic and neurobehavioral outcomes, with somewhat surprising results.

The study showed that, although cannabis consumption did not affect most short-term neurobehavioral measures, it delayed recall memory and impaired balance.

The investigation also showed that users of much more potent cannabis concentrates actually demonstrated similar or lower levels of subjective drug intoxication and short-term impairment than did their counterparts who used lower-potency forms of the cannabis flower.

“It does not appear that the potency being used matters that much,” senior investigator Kent E. Hutchison, PhD, said in an interview. “People seem to be titrating to a certain level of intoxication or a certain level of feeling high. And for some people that requires a lot of drug, and for other people not as much.”

“As a first study, this was very useful in the sense that nobody really knew the effects of high-potency cannabis products,” added Dr. Hutchison, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Colorado Boulder.

The study was published online June 10 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Widespread availability, little research

Recreational cannabis is now legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia, while medical cannabis is legal in 33. However, despite growing popularity of cannabis, there is little research on its potential health and biobehavioral risks, largely because of federal restrictions on cannabis research.

Cannabis users typically consume various forms of the cannabis flower, which can boast concentrations of the psychoactive cannabinoid delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of up to 30%. However, use of concentrated forms of cannabis – which are made by extracting plant cannabinoids into a different form – is increasing.

Such formulations can boast THC concentrations as high as 90%. Nevertheless, data regarding the relative risks of these higher-strength products are limited.

Previous research has shown a variety of negative short-term and long-term neurobehavioral effects associated with cannabis use, including harmful cognitive and motor effects. Extended exposure to THC may also negatively affect brain regions that are associated with the control of coordinated movement, and create brain-activation deficits in motor control regions that persist well beyond the effects of short-term intoxication.

Despite such findings, Dr. Hutchison said the existing literature on the subject does not yield a real-world view of current cannabis use because it tends to focus on low-THC products that are increasingly less common in today’s legal market.

Given such shortcomings, the investigators wanted to address persistent questions surrounding the neurobehavioral effects of legal cannabis flower products (16% or 24% THC) and cannabis concentrate products (70% or 90% THC). In doing so, they examined three primary topics:

• The association between short-term use of these products and THC plasma levels; subjective intoxication; and mood, cognitive performance, and balance
• Differences in such associations between users of cannabis flower and concentrate products
• Potential variations in these associations by THC potency

High- versus low-potency varieties

The study included 133 individuals (aged 21-70 years), who were designated as either cannabis flower users or cannabis concentrate users. Participants had all used cannabis at least four times in the previous month with no adverse reaction and were not receiving treatment for a psychotic disorder or bipolar disorder.

Participants were randomly assigned to consume either higher-potency or lower-potency products that had been purchased from a local dispensary. Flower users were randomized to purchase 3 g of either a 16% THC or 24% THC product, while concentrate users were randomized to purchase 1g of either 70% THC or 90% THC.

Participants completed a series of four assessments, one at baseline and three others at a mobile laboratory. The mobile laboratory assessments occurred before, immediately after, and one hour after participants had all consumed their cannabis ad libitum.

Of the original cohort of 133 participants, 55 flower cannabis users (mean age, 28.8 years; 46% women) and 66 concentrate cannabis users (mean age, 28.3 years; 45% women) complied with the study’s instructions and had complete data.

The study’s primary outcome measures included plasma cannabinoids, subjective drug intoxication and mood, and neurobehavioral outcomes such as attention, memory, inhibitory control, and balance.

Mixed results

With respect to cannabis concentrations, results showed that users of concentrate exhibited higher levels of both plasma THC and the active metabolite of THC (11-hydroxy-delta⁹-THC) across all points than did their counterparts who used cannabis flower products.

Specifically, mean plasma THC levels were 1,016 ± 1,380 mcg/ml in concentrate users and 455±503 mcg/mL in flower users after ad libitum cannabis consumption. Nevertheless, self-reported levels of intoxication were no different between users of cannabis flower or concentrate products.

Although results also showed that most neurobehavioral measures were not altered by short-term cannabis consumption, there were some notable exceptions. There was a negative linear effect with delayed verbal recall errors, suggesting poorer performance after cannabis use (F_{1, 203} = 32.31; P < .001).

On the other hand, investigators found a positive linear effect with inhibitory control and working memory, which actually suggests better performance after cannabis use. This finding, the researchers note, may be the result of a practice effect. Cannabis flower users performed better across all inhibitory control assessments.

The researchers also tested participants’ balance with their eyes open and closed. In the eyes-open condition, they found a trend toward impaired balance after cannabis use, though this normalized within an hour. When subjects closed their eyes, however, researchers observed a significant short-term increase in sway after cannabis use, which fell back to pre-use levels one hour after use (F_{1, 203} = 18.88; P < .001).

Of note, outcomes did not differ between groups according to the type of cannabis product consumed or its relative potency.

The study yielded several surprising findings, beginning with self-reported intoxication levels, which were not statistically significant between different cannabis flower and concentrate users, despite significantly different plasma THC levels between the two groups.

Dr. Hutchison explained that this may be the result of greater THC tolerance among concentrate users, THC saturation of cannabinoid receptors, or interindividual differences among users with respect to cannabis metabolism or sensitivity.

“I thought for sure that high-potency users would be much more compromised,” he said. “I guess it just goes to show we have a lot to learn about how these things work.”

Additionally, there were virtually no significant changes in acute performance after cannabis use, with the exception of delayed verbal recall. In fact, the most marked change observed in the study was the effect of cannabis on balance immediately after drug use, though these changes seemed to abate within an hour.

Nevertheless, the study highlights several potential public health implications of cannabis consumption, Dr. Hutchison added. “What happens when people with high blood concentrations decide to quit?” he asked. “Do they have trouble quitting? Do they have withdrawal symptoms?”

The long-term effects of cannabis use is another important question that still needs to be answered, he added.

Finally, Dr. Hutchison noted that, although the study showed little difference between users of cannabis flower and concentrates, study participants were all experienced users.

“There is certainly the potential for harm when a naive person uses cannabis concentrate,” he said. “Suddenly they have way more THC than they thought they were going to get, and that’s where a lot of people get into trouble with cannabis.”

Pitfalls and hurdles

In an accompanying editorial, Margaret Haney, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that cannabis’ awkward position as simultaneously legal and illegal, medical and recreational, has hampered researchers’ ability to study its effects as comprehensively as they would otherwise like.

“With a federally illegal drug legalized in individual states, scientists constrained, and federal agencies somewhat silent, clinicians have none of the data that guide their decisions for other medications (eg, which indication, product, cannabinoid ratio, dose, or route of administration; what risks for individual patients [eg, pregnant, adolescent, psychiatric?]),” Dr. Haney wrote.

These pitfalls are compounded by the significant regulatory hurdles.

“The FDA is appropriately cautious about what it allows scientists to test in patients, and none of the products available in dispensaries or online have undergone the safety and manufacturing procedures needed for FDA approval,” she continued. “How then to conduct the studies so needed?”

Yet as Haney noted, giving cannabinoid researchers a Schedule I exemption may help address many of the barriers facing these scientists. Such a move, she said, would increase the number of randomized controlled trials being performed, “and thereby begin to breach the divide between the use of these products and empirical evidence.”

Dr. Hutchison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Haney disclosed funding from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and from the Thompson Family Foundation Initiative. The study was funded by the NIH and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

The number of Americans aged 60 years and older who report receiving shingles vaccination had risen steadily since 2008 and has leveled off during the past few years, new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics reveal.

The proportion of people in this age group who were vaccinated rose from 6.7% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2018, for example.

“The take-home message of our report is that, among adults aged 60 and over, shingles vaccination has increased since 2008. However, disparities in receipt of this vaccination still remain,” Emily Terlizzi, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The report was published online July 9 in NCHS Data Brief.
 

Similar rates for men and women

Rates of people who reported receiving at least one vaccination with Zostavax (Merck) or Shingrix (GlaxoSmithKline) varied by factors that included Hispanic origin, education, and family income. An unexpected finding was that rates did not vary significantly between men and women.

“One finding that I would say surprised me was that, although the percentage who had ever received a shingles vaccine among women aged 60 and over was higher than that among men in this age group, this difference was not statistically significant,” said Ms. Terlizzi, a health statistician in the Data Analysis and Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Health Interview Statistics, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, for example, 35.4% of women and 33.5% of men reported ever receiving a shingles vaccine.

The similarity of rates was less of a surprise to Len Horovitz, MD, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not affiliated with the report. “In my anecdotal experience, I don’t see a preponderance of one sex getting shingles more than another. It’s pretty evenly distributed,” he said in an interview.

Ms. Terlizzi and coauthor Lindsey I. Black, MPH, say their findings align with prior research. However, they noted: “Our report uses more recent data from a large, nationally representative data source to update these estimates and describe these disparities.” Data come from results of the annual National Health Interview Survey of households nationwide.
 

Multiple factors explain vaccination differences

Non-Hispanic White adults were more likely to report receiving the vaccine than were Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black survey respondents. Non-Hispanic White adults were about twice as likely to report vaccination – 38.6% – compared with 19.5% of Hispanic adults and 18.8% of non-Hispanic Black adults.

The disparity in vaccination by race was “disappointing news,” Kenneth E. Schmader, MD, said in an interview.

“The health disparity with regard to lower vaccination rates in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations is reported with other vaccines as well and points to the need for better efforts to vaccinate Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations,” added Dr. Schmader, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

On a positive note, “It was good to see increasing use of shingles vaccination over time, given how devastating zoster can be in older adults and the fact that the vaccines are effective,” said Dr. Schmader, who also serves on the working groups for the Herpes Zoster, Influenza and General Adult Immunization Guidelines for the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Self-reports of receiving vaccination increased in association with higher education and family income levels. For example, 39.9% of respondents who had more than a high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development) reported receiving the shingles vaccine. In contrast, only 21.2% of people with lower educational attainment reported receiving a vaccine.

In terms of income, 20.4% of poor adults reported being vaccinated, compared with 38.4% of adults who were not poor.

The investigators also evaluated the data by geographic region. They found that rates of vaccinations varied from 26.3% in the East South Central part of the United States (which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama) to 42.8% in the West North Central region (which includes the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Nebraska).
 

Clinical and research considerations

For most of the decade evaluated in the study, ACIP recommended vaccination against shingles for Americans aged 60 years and older. The current findings, therefore, do not account for ACIP’s expanding its recommendations in 2017 to include adults aged 50 years and older.

Zostavax is expected to be discontinued this year. It was the only shingles vaccine available before the approval of Shingrix in 2018. The shift to a single product could alter vaccination patterns further.

Ms. Terlizzi plans to continue monitoring trends to “see what changes occur in the next few years,” she said.
 

Compliance a concern

Data on vaccination rates for shingles are important given the large proportion of the population at risk, Dr. Horovitz said. “People over age 50 who have had chickenpox have a one third chance over their lifetimes to get shingles. That is a lot of people.”

Multiple factors could be contributing to the fact that vaccination rates have hovered around 34% in recent years, he said. “Whenever you see variations in vaccination rates, you have to think about cultural differences and questions about differences in access, accessibility, and attitudes. Attitudes toward vaccines vary widely – from people who don’t believe in vaccination to people who are eager to take vaccinations.

“I don’t know how to dissect all that out of these data,” he added.

Compliance with recommendations also contributes to vaccination rates, Dr. Horovitz said. The fact that in about 10% of people, a flulike syndrome develops the day after being vaccinated with Shingrix can cause some to postpone or rethink immunization, he added. In addition, Shingrix requires two shots. “People have to come back, and that always sets up an issue with recalling someone.”

Marketplace shortages of the Shingrix vaccine could also contribute to lower vaccination rates. However, Dr. Horovitz said that, in his practice, availability was only a problem during the first year after approval in 2017.

On a related note, manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced that a decrease in vaccination demand during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed the supply to catch up. Shingrix no longer qualifies for the CDC’s shortages list, according to a July 9 report.

Ms. Terlizzi, Dr. Horovitz, and Dr. Schmader have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of Americans aged 60 years and older who report receiving shingles vaccination had risen steadily since 2008 and has leveled off during the past few years, new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics reveal.

The proportion of people in this age group who were vaccinated rose from 6.7% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2018, for example.

“The take-home message of our report is that, among adults aged 60 and over, shingles vaccination has increased since 2008. However, disparities in receipt of this vaccination still remain,” Emily Terlizzi, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The report was published online July 9 in NCHS Data Brief.
 

Similar rates for men and women

Rates of people who reported receiving at least one vaccination with Zostavax (Merck) or Shingrix (GlaxoSmithKline) varied by factors that included Hispanic origin, education, and family income. An unexpected finding was that rates did not vary significantly between men and women.

“One finding that I would say surprised me was that, although the percentage who had ever received a shingles vaccine among women aged 60 and over was higher than that among men in this age group, this difference was not statistically significant,” said Ms. Terlizzi, a health statistician in the Data Analysis and Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Health Interview Statistics, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, for example, 35.4% of women and 33.5% of men reported ever receiving a shingles vaccine.

The similarity of rates was less of a surprise to Len Horovitz, MD, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not affiliated with the report. “In my anecdotal experience, I don’t see a preponderance of one sex getting shingles more than another. It’s pretty evenly distributed,” he said in an interview.

Ms. Terlizzi and coauthor Lindsey I. Black, MPH, say their findings align with prior research. However, they noted: “Our report uses more recent data from a large, nationally representative data source to update these estimates and describe these disparities.” Data come from results of the annual National Health Interview Survey of households nationwide.
 

Multiple factors explain vaccination differences

Non-Hispanic White adults were more likely to report receiving the vaccine than were Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black survey respondents. Non-Hispanic White adults were about twice as likely to report vaccination – 38.6% – compared with 19.5% of Hispanic adults and 18.8% of non-Hispanic Black adults.

The disparity in vaccination by race was “disappointing news,” Kenneth E. Schmader, MD, said in an interview.

“The health disparity with regard to lower vaccination rates in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations is reported with other vaccines as well and points to the need for better efforts to vaccinate Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations,” added Dr. Schmader, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

On a positive note, “It was good to see increasing use of shingles vaccination over time, given how devastating zoster can be in older adults and the fact that the vaccines are effective,” said Dr. Schmader, who also serves on the working groups for the Herpes Zoster, Influenza and General Adult Immunization Guidelines for the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Self-reports of receiving vaccination increased in association with higher education and family income levels. For example, 39.9% of respondents who had more than a high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development) reported receiving the shingles vaccine. In contrast, only 21.2% of people with lower educational attainment reported receiving a vaccine.

In terms of income, 20.4% of poor adults reported being vaccinated, compared with 38.4% of adults who were not poor.

The investigators also evaluated the data by geographic region. They found that rates of vaccinations varied from 26.3% in the East South Central part of the United States (which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama) to 42.8% in the West North Central region (which includes the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Nebraska).
 

Clinical and research considerations

For most of the decade evaluated in the study, ACIP recommended vaccination against shingles for Americans aged 60 years and older. The current findings, therefore, do not account for ACIP’s expanding its recommendations in 2017 to include adults aged 50 years and older.

Zostavax is expected to be discontinued this year. It was the only shingles vaccine available before the approval of Shingrix in 2018. The shift to a single product could alter vaccination patterns further.

Ms. Terlizzi plans to continue monitoring trends to “see what changes occur in the next few years,” she said.
 

Compliance a concern

Data on vaccination rates for shingles are important given the large proportion of the population at risk, Dr. Horovitz said. “People over age 50 who have had chickenpox have a one third chance over their lifetimes to get shingles. That is a lot of people.”

Multiple factors could be contributing to the fact that vaccination rates have hovered around 34% in recent years, he said. “Whenever you see variations in vaccination rates, you have to think about cultural differences and questions about differences in access, accessibility, and attitudes. Attitudes toward vaccines vary widely – from people who don’t believe in vaccination to people who are eager to take vaccinations.

“I don’t know how to dissect all that out of these data,” he added.

Compliance with recommendations also contributes to vaccination rates, Dr. Horovitz said. The fact that in about 10% of people, a flulike syndrome develops the day after being vaccinated with Shingrix can cause some to postpone or rethink immunization, he added. In addition, Shingrix requires two shots. “People have to come back, and that always sets up an issue with recalling someone.”

Marketplace shortages of the Shingrix vaccine could also contribute to lower vaccination rates. However, Dr. Horovitz said that, in his practice, availability was only a problem during the first year after approval in 2017.

On a related note, manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced that a decrease in vaccination demand during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed the supply to catch up. Shingrix no longer qualifies for the CDC’s shortages list, according to a July 9 report.

Ms. Terlizzi, Dr. Horovitz, and Dr. Schmader have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of Americans aged 60 years and older who report receiving shingles vaccination had risen steadily since 2008 and has leveled off during the past few years, new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics reveal.

The proportion of people in this age group who were vaccinated rose from 6.7% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2018, for example.

“The take-home message of our report is that, among adults aged 60 and over, shingles vaccination has increased since 2008. However, disparities in receipt of this vaccination still remain,” Emily Terlizzi, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The report was published online July 9 in NCHS Data Brief.
 

Similar rates for men and women

Rates of people who reported receiving at least one vaccination with Zostavax (Merck) or Shingrix (GlaxoSmithKline) varied by factors that included Hispanic origin, education, and family income. An unexpected finding was that rates did not vary significantly between men and women.

“One finding that I would say surprised me was that, although the percentage who had ever received a shingles vaccine among women aged 60 and over was higher than that among men in this age group, this difference was not statistically significant,” said Ms. Terlizzi, a health statistician in the Data Analysis and Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Health Interview Statistics, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, for example, 35.4% of women and 33.5% of men reported ever receiving a shingles vaccine.

The similarity of rates was less of a surprise to Len Horovitz, MD, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not affiliated with the report. “In my anecdotal experience, I don’t see a preponderance of one sex getting shingles more than another. It’s pretty evenly distributed,” he said in an interview.

Ms. Terlizzi and coauthor Lindsey I. Black, MPH, say their findings align with prior research. However, they noted: “Our report uses more recent data from a large, nationally representative data source to update these estimates and describe these disparities.” Data come from results of the annual National Health Interview Survey of households nationwide.
 

Multiple factors explain vaccination differences

Non-Hispanic White adults were more likely to report receiving the vaccine than were Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black survey respondents. Non-Hispanic White adults were about twice as likely to report vaccination – 38.6% – compared with 19.5% of Hispanic adults and 18.8% of non-Hispanic Black adults.

The disparity in vaccination by race was “disappointing news,” Kenneth E. Schmader, MD, said in an interview.

“The health disparity with regard to lower vaccination rates in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations is reported with other vaccines as well and points to the need for better efforts to vaccinate Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations,” added Dr. Schmader, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

On a positive note, “It was good to see increasing use of shingles vaccination over time, given how devastating zoster can be in older adults and the fact that the vaccines are effective,” said Dr. Schmader, who also serves on the working groups for the Herpes Zoster, Influenza and General Adult Immunization Guidelines for the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Self-reports of receiving vaccination increased in association with higher education and family income levels. For example, 39.9% of respondents who had more than a high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development) reported receiving the shingles vaccine. In contrast, only 21.2% of people with lower educational attainment reported receiving a vaccine.

In terms of income, 20.4% of poor adults reported being vaccinated, compared with 38.4% of adults who were not poor.

The investigators also evaluated the data by geographic region. They found that rates of vaccinations varied from 26.3% in the East South Central part of the United States (which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama) to 42.8% in the West North Central region (which includes the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Nebraska).
 

Clinical and research considerations

For most of the decade evaluated in the study, ACIP recommended vaccination against shingles for Americans aged 60 years and older. The current findings, therefore, do not account for ACIP’s expanding its recommendations in 2017 to include adults aged 50 years and older.

Zostavax is expected to be discontinued this year. It was the only shingles vaccine available before the approval of Shingrix in 2018. The shift to a single product could alter vaccination patterns further.

Ms. Terlizzi plans to continue monitoring trends to “see what changes occur in the next few years,” she said.
 

Compliance a concern

Data on vaccination rates for shingles are important given the large proportion of the population at risk, Dr. Horovitz said. “People over age 50 who have had chickenpox have a one third chance over their lifetimes to get shingles. That is a lot of people.”

Multiple factors could be contributing to the fact that vaccination rates have hovered around 34% in recent years, he said. “Whenever you see variations in vaccination rates, you have to think about cultural differences and questions about differences in access, accessibility, and attitudes. Attitudes toward vaccines vary widely – from people who don’t believe in vaccination to people who are eager to take vaccinations.

“I don’t know how to dissect all that out of these data,” he added.

Compliance with recommendations also contributes to vaccination rates, Dr. Horovitz said. The fact that in about 10% of people, a flulike syndrome develops the day after being vaccinated with Shingrix can cause some to postpone or rethink immunization, he added. In addition, Shingrix requires two shots. “People have to come back, and that always sets up an issue with recalling someone.”

Marketplace shortages of the Shingrix vaccine could also contribute to lower vaccination rates. However, Dr. Horovitz said that, in his practice, availability was only a problem during the first year after approval in 2017.

On a related note, manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced that a decrease in vaccination demand during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed the supply to catch up. Shingrix no longer qualifies for the CDC’s shortages list, according to a July 9 report.

Ms. Terlizzi, Dr. Horovitz, and Dr. Schmader have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved expanded use of Dysport to treat upper- and lower-limb spasticity – including that caused by cerebral palsy – for patients as young as 2 years and older, according to manufacturer Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals.

When Dysport (abobotulinumtoxinA) initially was approved for treating pediatric lower limb spasticity by the FDA in 2016, Ipsen was granted Orphan Drug exclusivity for children whose lower-limb spasticity was caused by cerebral palsy. In 2019, Dysport was approved by the FDA for treating of upper-limb spasticity in children 2 years older. But if that spasticity was caused by cerebral palsy, Dysport could be used to treat it only through Orphan Drug exclusivity granted to another manufacturer, according to an Ipsen press release.

“The proactive step to resolve the uncertainty created by the previous CP [cerebral palsy] carve out enables us as physicians to prescribe consistent therapy for pediatric patients experiencing both upper- and lower-limb spasticity,” Sarah Helen Evans, MD, division chief of rehabilitation medicine in the department of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in the press release.

The most common adverse effects among children with lower-limb spasticity treated with Dysport were nasopharyngitis, cough, and pyrexia. Among children with upper-limb spasticity, the most common effects associated with Dysport treatment were upper respiratory tract infection and pharyngitis.

The press release also included a warning of the distant spread of the botulinum toxin from the area of injection hours to weeks afterward, causing symptoms including blurred vision, generalized muscle weakness, and swallowing and breathing difficulties that can be life threatening; there have been reports of death.

Suspected adverse effects can be reported to the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved expanded use of Dysport to treat upper- and lower-limb spasticity – including that caused by cerebral palsy – for patients as young as 2 years and older, according to manufacturer Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals.

When Dysport (abobotulinumtoxinA) initially was approved for treating pediatric lower limb spasticity by the FDA in 2016, Ipsen was granted Orphan Drug exclusivity for children whose lower-limb spasticity was caused by cerebral palsy. In 2019, Dysport was approved by the FDA for treating of upper-limb spasticity in children 2 years older. But if that spasticity was caused by cerebral palsy, Dysport could be used to treat it only through Orphan Drug exclusivity granted to another manufacturer, according to an Ipsen press release.

“The proactive step to resolve the uncertainty created by the previous CP [cerebral palsy] carve out enables us as physicians to prescribe consistent therapy for pediatric patients experiencing both upper- and lower-limb spasticity,” Sarah Helen Evans, MD, division chief of rehabilitation medicine in the department of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in the press release.

The most common adverse effects among children with lower-limb spasticity treated with Dysport were nasopharyngitis, cough, and pyrexia. Among children with upper-limb spasticity, the most common effects associated with Dysport treatment were upper respiratory tract infection and pharyngitis.

The press release also included a warning of the distant spread of the botulinum toxin from the area of injection hours to weeks afterward, causing symptoms including blurred vision, generalized muscle weakness, and swallowing and breathing difficulties that can be life threatening; there have been reports of death.

Suspected adverse effects can be reported to the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved expanded use of Dysport to treat upper- and lower-limb spasticity – including that caused by cerebral palsy – for patients as young as 2 years and older, according to manufacturer Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals.

When Dysport (abobotulinumtoxinA) initially was approved for treating pediatric lower limb spasticity by the FDA in 2016, Ipsen was granted Orphan Drug exclusivity for children whose lower-limb spasticity was caused by cerebral palsy. In 2019, Dysport was approved by the FDA for treating of upper-limb spasticity in children 2 years older. But if that spasticity was caused by cerebral palsy, Dysport could be used to treat it only through Orphan Drug exclusivity granted to another manufacturer, according to an Ipsen press release.

“The proactive step to resolve the uncertainty created by the previous CP [cerebral palsy] carve out enables us as physicians to prescribe consistent therapy for pediatric patients experiencing both upper- and lower-limb spasticity,” Sarah Helen Evans, MD, division chief of rehabilitation medicine in the department of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in the press release.

The most common adverse effects among children with lower-limb spasticity treated with Dysport were nasopharyngitis, cough, and pyrexia. Among children with upper-limb spasticity, the most common effects associated with Dysport treatment were upper respiratory tract infection and pharyngitis.

The press release also included a warning of the distant spread of the botulinum toxin from the area of injection hours to weeks afterward, causing symptoms including blurred vision, generalized muscle weakness, and swallowing and breathing difficulties that can be life threatening; there have been reports of death.

Suspected adverse effects can be reported to the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.

The efficacy of the influenza vaccine when given to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is similar to that in healthy controls, Jackie Nguyen reported at the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine published cohort studies including 417 MS patients and more than 500 healthy controls, all of whom received inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine.

The impetus for this project was a recognition that the great majority of the research on the impact of influenza vaccine in patients with MS has focused on safety and MS relapse rates. In contrast, the nine studies included in the meta-analysis contained data on influenza vaccine efficacy as reflected in the ability to mount an adequate immune response. This was defined in standard fashion either by seroconversion, which required at least a fourfold increase in antibody titers following vaccination, or seroprotection, with a postvaccination antihemagglutination immunoglobulin G titer of at least 40. The analysis included patients with MS irrespective of disease duration or severity or treatment regimen, noted Ms. Nguyen, a third-year medical student at Nova Southeastern University College of Allopathic Medicine in Davie, Fla.

The researchers found that there was no significant difference between patients with MS and healthy controls in the rates of an adequate immune response for influenza H1N1, H3N2, or influenza B virus. “The vaccine should thus continue to be recommended for MS patients, as the data shows it to be efficacious,” she said.

Her conclusion is consistent with guidance provided in the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline update on immunization in MS, highlighted elsewhere at CMSC 2020 in a presentation by Marijean Buhse, PhD, of Stony Brook University in New York.

The guideline, updated for the first time in 17 years, states that all MS patients should be advised to receive influenza vaccine annually: “With known risks of exacerbation and other morbidity with influenza infection and no identified risks of exacerbation with influenza vaccines, benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios. The exception involves the relatively few MS patients having a specific contraindication to the influenza vaccine, such as a previous severe reaction, noted Dr. Buhse, who wasn’t involved in developing the evidence-based guidelines.

The available evidence indicates that some but not all disease-modifying therapies for MS reduce the effectiveness of vaccination against influenza.

According to the guideline, “it is possible” that persons with MS being treated with glatiramer acetate have a reduced likelihood of seroprotection from influenza vaccine, a conclusion the guidelines committee drew with “low confidence in the evidence.” Further, the guideline states that “it is probable” MS patients on fingolimod have a lower likelihood of obtaining seroprotection from influenza vaccine than patients not on the drug, with moderate confidence in the evidence. Also, it is deemed probable that patients with MS who are taking mitoxantrone have a reduced likelihood of response to influenza vaccination, compared with healthy controls. But it is probable that patients with MS who are receiving interferon-beta have no diminution in the likelihood of seroprotection. According to the guideline, there is insufficient evidence to say whether patients with MS who are on natalizumab, teriflunomide, or methotrexate have a diminished response to influenza vaccination.

Dr. Buhse noted that rituximab is off-label therapy for MS, so there are no data available regarding the likelihood of seroprotection in response to influenza vaccination in that setting. However, rituximab profoundly decreases the immunogenicity of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It is therefore recommended that inactivated influenza vaccine be given to patients with MS at least 2 weeks prior to starting rituximab or 6 months after the last dose in order to optimize the humoral results. Ms. Nguyen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation. Dr. Buhse reported having received honoraria from Genzyme and Biogen.

[email protected]

The efficacy of the influenza vaccine when given to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is similar to that in healthy controls, Jackie Nguyen reported at the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine published cohort studies including 417 MS patients and more than 500 healthy controls, all of whom received inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine.

The impetus for this project was a recognition that the great majority of the research on the impact of influenza vaccine in patients with MS has focused on safety and MS relapse rates. In contrast, the nine studies included in the meta-analysis contained data on influenza vaccine efficacy as reflected in the ability to mount an adequate immune response. This was defined in standard fashion either by seroconversion, which required at least a fourfold increase in antibody titers following vaccination, or seroprotection, with a postvaccination antihemagglutination immunoglobulin G titer of at least 40. The analysis included patients with MS irrespective of disease duration or severity or treatment regimen, noted Ms. Nguyen, a third-year medical student at Nova Southeastern University College of Allopathic Medicine in Davie, Fla.

The researchers found that there was no significant difference between patients with MS and healthy controls in the rates of an adequate immune response for influenza H1N1, H3N2, or influenza B virus. “The vaccine should thus continue to be recommended for MS patients, as the data shows it to be efficacious,” she said.

Her conclusion is consistent with guidance provided in the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline update on immunization in MS, highlighted elsewhere at CMSC 2020 in a presentation by Marijean Buhse, PhD, of Stony Brook University in New York.

The guideline, updated for the first time in 17 years, states that all MS patients should be advised to receive influenza vaccine annually: “With known risks of exacerbation and other morbidity with influenza infection and no identified risks of exacerbation with influenza vaccines, benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios. The exception involves the relatively few MS patients having a specific contraindication to the influenza vaccine, such as a previous severe reaction, noted Dr. Buhse, who wasn’t involved in developing the evidence-based guidelines.

The available evidence indicates that some but not all disease-modifying therapies for MS reduce the effectiveness of vaccination against influenza.

According to the guideline, “it is possible” that persons with MS being treated with glatiramer acetate have a reduced likelihood of seroprotection from influenza vaccine, a conclusion the guidelines committee drew with “low confidence in the evidence.” Further, the guideline states that “it is probable” MS patients on fingolimod have a lower likelihood of obtaining seroprotection from influenza vaccine than patients not on the drug, with moderate confidence in the evidence. Also, it is deemed probable that patients with MS who are taking mitoxantrone have a reduced likelihood of response to influenza vaccination, compared with healthy controls. But it is probable that patients with MS who are receiving interferon-beta have no diminution in the likelihood of seroprotection. According to the guideline, there is insufficient evidence to say whether patients with MS who are on natalizumab, teriflunomide, or methotrexate have a diminished response to influenza vaccination.

Dr. Buhse noted that rituximab is off-label therapy for MS, so there are no data available regarding the likelihood of seroprotection in response to influenza vaccination in that setting. However, rituximab profoundly decreases the immunogenicity of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It is therefore recommended that inactivated influenza vaccine be given to patients with MS at least 2 weeks prior to starting rituximab or 6 months after the last dose in order to optimize the humoral results. Ms. Nguyen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation. Dr. Buhse reported having received honoraria from Genzyme and Biogen.

[email protected]

The efficacy of the influenza vaccine when given to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is similar to that in healthy controls, Jackie Nguyen reported at the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine published cohort studies including 417 MS patients and more than 500 healthy controls, all of whom received inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine.

The impetus for this project was a recognition that the great majority of the research on the impact of influenza vaccine in patients with MS has focused on safety and MS relapse rates. In contrast, the nine studies included in the meta-analysis contained data on influenza vaccine efficacy as reflected in the ability to mount an adequate immune response. This was defined in standard fashion either by seroconversion, which required at least a fourfold increase in antibody titers following vaccination, or seroprotection, with a postvaccination antihemagglutination immunoglobulin G titer of at least 40. The analysis included patients with MS irrespective of disease duration or severity or treatment regimen, noted Ms. Nguyen, a third-year medical student at Nova Southeastern University College of Allopathic Medicine in Davie, Fla.

The researchers found that there was no significant difference between patients with MS and healthy controls in the rates of an adequate immune response for influenza H1N1, H3N2, or influenza B virus. “The vaccine should thus continue to be recommended for MS patients, as the data shows it to be efficacious,” she said.

Her conclusion is consistent with guidance provided in the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline update on immunization in MS, highlighted elsewhere at CMSC 2020 in a presentation by Marijean Buhse, PhD, of Stony Brook University in New York.

The guideline, updated for the first time in 17 years, states that all MS patients should be advised to receive influenza vaccine annually: “With known risks of exacerbation and other morbidity with influenza infection and no identified risks of exacerbation with influenza vaccines, benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios. The exception involves the relatively few MS patients having a specific contraindication to the influenza vaccine, such as a previous severe reaction, noted Dr. Buhse, who wasn’t involved in developing the evidence-based guidelines.

The available evidence indicates that some but not all disease-modifying therapies for MS reduce the effectiveness of vaccination against influenza.

According to the guideline, “it is possible” that persons with MS being treated with glatiramer acetate have a reduced likelihood of seroprotection from influenza vaccine, a conclusion the guidelines committee drew with “low confidence in the evidence.” Further, the guideline states that “it is probable” MS patients on fingolimod have a lower likelihood of obtaining seroprotection from influenza vaccine than patients not on the drug, with moderate confidence in the evidence. Also, it is deemed probable that patients with MS who are taking mitoxantrone have a reduced likelihood of response to influenza vaccination, compared with healthy controls. But it is probable that patients with MS who are receiving interferon-beta have no diminution in the likelihood of seroprotection. According to the guideline, there is insufficient evidence to say whether patients with MS who are on natalizumab, teriflunomide, or methotrexate have a diminished response to influenza vaccination.

Dr. Buhse noted that rituximab is off-label therapy for MS, so there are no data available regarding the likelihood of seroprotection in response to influenza vaccination in that setting. However, rituximab profoundly decreases the immunogenicity of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It is therefore recommended that inactivated influenza vaccine be given to patients with MS at least 2 weeks prior to starting rituximab or 6 months after the last dose in order to optimize the humoral results. Ms. Nguyen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation. Dr. Buhse reported having received honoraria from Genzyme and Biogen.

[email protected]

What do you do now?

Your waiting room is filled with mask-wearing individuals, except for one person. Your staff offers a mask to this person, citing your office policy of requiring masks for all persons in order to prevent asymptomatic COVID-19 spread, and the patient refuses to put it on.

What can you/should you/must you do? Are you required to see a patient who refuses to wear a mask? If you ask the patient to leave without being seen, can you be accused of patient abandonment? If you allow the patient to stay, could you be liable for negligence for exposing others to a deadly illness?

The rules on mask-wearing, while initially downright confusing, have inexorably come to a rough consensus. By governors’ orders, masks are now mandatory in most states, though when and where they are required varies. For example, effective July 7, the governor of Washington has ordered that a business not allow a customer to enter without a face covering.

So far, there are no cases or court decisions to guide us about whether it is negligence to allow an unmasked patient to commingle in a medical practice. Nor do we have case law to help us determine whether patient abandonment would apply if a patient is sent home without being seen.

We can apply the legal principles and cases from other situations to this one, however, to tell us what constitutes negligence or patient abandonment. The practical questions, legally, are who might sue and on what basis?

Who might sue?

Someone who is injured in a public place may sue the owner for negligence if the owner knew or should have known of a danger and didn’t do anything about it. For example, individuals have sued grocery stores successfully after they slipped on a banana peel and fell. If, say, the banana peel was black, that indicates that it had been there for a while, and judges have found that the store management should have known about it and removed it.

Compare the banana peel scenario with the scenario where most news outlets and health departments are telling people, every day, to wear masks while in indoor public spaces, yet owners of a medical practice or facility allow individuals who are not wearing masks to sit in their waiting room. If an individual who was also in the waiting room with the unmasked individual develops COVID-19 2 days later, the ill individual may sue the medical practice for negligence for not removing the unmasked individual.

What about the individual’s responsibility to move away from the person not wearing a mask? That is the aspect of this scenario that attorneys and experts could argue about, for days, in a court case. But to go back to the banana peel case, one could argue that a customer in a grocery store should be looking out for banana peels on the floor and avoid them, yet courts have assigned liability to grocery stores when customers slip and fall.

Let’s review the four elements of negligence which a plaintiff would need to prove:

• Duty: Obligation of one person to another
• Breach: Improper act or omission, in the context of proper behavior to avoid imposing undue risks of harm to other persons and their property
• Damage
• Causation: That the act or omission caused the harm

Those who run medical offices and facilities have a duty to provide reasonably safe public spaces. Unmasked individuals are a risk to others nearby, so the “breach” element is satisfied if a practice fails to impose safety measures. Causation could be proven, or at least inferred, if contact tracing of an individual with COVID-19 showed that the only contact likely to have exposed the ill individual to the virus was an unmasked individual in a medical practice’s waiting room, especially if the unmasked individual was COVID-19 positive before, during, or shortly after the visit to the practice.

What about patient abandonment?

“Patient abandonment” is the legal term for terminating the physician-patient relationship in such a manner that the patient is denied necessary medical care. It is a form of negligence.

Refusing to see a patient unless the patient wears a mask is not denying care, in this attorney’s view, but rather establishing reasonable conditions for getting care. The patient simply needs to put on a mask.

What about the patient who refuses to wear a mask for medical reasons? There are exceptions in most of the governors’ orders for individuals with medical conditions that preclude covering nose and mouth with a mask. A medical office is the perfect place to test an individual’s ability or inability to breathe well while wearing a mask. “Put the mask on and we’ll see how you do” is a reasonable response. Monitor the patient visually and apply a pulse oximeter with mask off and mask on.

One physician recently wrote about measuring her own oxygen levels while wearing four different masks for 5 minutes each, with no change in breathing.

Editor’s note: Read more about mask exemptions in a Medscape interview with pulmonologist Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association.

What are some practical tips?

Assuming that a patient is not in acute distress, options in this scenario include:

• Send the patient home and offer a return visit if masked or when the pandemic is over.
• Offer a telehealth visit, with the patient at home.

What if the unmasked person is not a patient but the companion of a patient? What if the individual refusing to wear a mask is an employee? In neither of these two hypotheticals is there a basis for legal action against a practice whose policy requires that everyone wear masks on the premises.

A companion who arrives without a mask should leave the office. An employee who refuses to mask up could be sent home. If the employee has a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, then the practice may need to make reasonable accommodations so that the employee works in a room alone if unable to work from home.

Those who manage medical practices should check the websites of the state health department and medical societies at least weekly, to see whether the agencies have issued guidance. For example, the Texas Medical Association has issued limited guidance.

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

What do you do now?

Your waiting room is filled with mask-wearing individuals, except for one person. Your staff offers a mask to this person, citing your office policy of requiring masks for all persons in order to prevent asymptomatic COVID-19 spread, and the patient refuses to put it on.

What can you/should you/must you do? Are you required to see a patient who refuses to wear a mask? If you ask the patient to leave without being seen, can you be accused of patient abandonment? If you allow the patient to stay, could you be liable for negligence for exposing others to a deadly illness?

The rules on mask-wearing, while initially downright confusing, have inexorably come to a rough consensus. By governors’ orders, masks are now mandatory in most states, though when and where they are required varies. For example, effective July 7, the governor of Washington has ordered that a business not allow a customer to enter without a face covering.

So far, there are no cases or court decisions to guide us about whether it is negligence to allow an unmasked patient to commingle in a medical practice. Nor do we have case law to help us determine whether patient abandonment would apply if a patient is sent home without being seen.

We can apply the legal principles and cases from other situations to this one, however, to tell us what constitutes negligence or patient abandonment. The practical questions, legally, are who might sue and on what basis?

Who might sue?

Someone who is injured in a public place may sue the owner for negligence if the owner knew or should have known of a danger and didn’t do anything about it. For example, individuals have sued grocery stores successfully after they slipped on a banana peel and fell. If, say, the banana peel was black, that indicates that it had been there for a while, and judges have found that the store management should have known about it and removed it.

Compare the banana peel scenario with the scenario where most news outlets and health departments are telling people, every day, to wear masks while in indoor public spaces, yet owners of a medical practice or facility allow individuals who are not wearing masks to sit in their waiting room. If an individual who was also in the waiting room with the unmasked individual develops COVID-19 2 days later, the ill individual may sue the medical practice for negligence for not removing the unmasked individual.

What about the individual’s responsibility to move away from the person not wearing a mask? That is the aspect of this scenario that attorneys and experts could argue about, for days, in a court case. But to go back to the banana peel case, one could argue that a customer in a grocery store should be looking out for banana peels on the floor and avoid them, yet courts have assigned liability to grocery stores when customers slip and fall.

Let’s review the four elements of negligence which a plaintiff would need to prove:

• Duty: Obligation of one person to another
• Breach: Improper act or omission, in the context of proper behavior to avoid imposing undue risks of harm to other persons and their property
• Damage
• Causation: That the act or omission caused the harm

Those who run medical offices and facilities have a duty to provide reasonably safe public spaces. Unmasked individuals are a risk to others nearby, so the “breach” element is satisfied if a practice fails to impose safety measures. Causation could be proven, or at least inferred, if contact tracing of an individual with COVID-19 showed that the only contact likely to have exposed the ill individual to the virus was an unmasked individual in a medical practice’s waiting room, especially if the unmasked individual was COVID-19 positive before, during, or shortly after the visit to the practice.

What about patient abandonment?

“Patient abandonment” is the legal term for terminating the physician-patient relationship in such a manner that the patient is denied necessary medical care. It is a form of negligence.

Refusing to see a patient unless the patient wears a mask is not denying care, in this attorney’s view, but rather establishing reasonable conditions for getting care. The patient simply needs to put on a mask.

What about the patient who refuses to wear a mask for medical reasons? There are exceptions in most of the governors’ orders for individuals with medical conditions that preclude covering nose and mouth with a mask. A medical office is the perfect place to test an individual’s ability or inability to breathe well while wearing a mask. “Put the mask on and we’ll see how you do” is a reasonable response. Monitor the patient visually and apply a pulse oximeter with mask off and mask on.

One physician recently wrote about measuring her own oxygen levels while wearing four different masks for 5 minutes each, with no change in breathing.

Editor’s note: Read more about mask exemptions in a Medscape interview with pulmonologist Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association.

What are some practical tips?

Assuming that a patient is not in acute distress, options in this scenario include:

• Send the patient home and offer a return visit if masked or when the pandemic is over.
• Offer a telehealth visit, with the patient at home.

What if the unmasked person is not a patient but the companion of a patient? What if the individual refusing to wear a mask is an employee? In neither of these two hypotheticals is there a basis for legal action against a practice whose policy requires that everyone wear masks on the premises.

A companion who arrives without a mask should leave the office. An employee who refuses to mask up could be sent home. If the employee has a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, then the practice may need to make reasonable accommodations so that the employee works in a room alone if unable to work from home.

Those who manage medical practices should check the websites of the state health department and medical societies at least weekly, to see whether the agencies have issued guidance. For example, the Texas Medical Association has issued limited guidance.

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

What do you do now?

Your waiting room is filled with mask-wearing individuals, except for one person. Your staff offers a mask to this person, citing your office policy of requiring masks for all persons in order to prevent asymptomatic COVID-19 spread, and the patient refuses to put it on.

What can you/should you/must you do? Are you required to see a patient who refuses to wear a mask? If you ask the patient to leave without being seen, can you be accused of patient abandonment? If you allow the patient to stay, could you be liable for negligence for exposing others to a deadly illness?

The rules on mask-wearing, while initially downright confusing, have inexorably come to a rough consensus. By governors’ orders, masks are now mandatory in most states, though when and where they are required varies. For example, effective July 7, the governor of Washington has ordered that a business not allow a customer to enter without a face covering.

So far, there are no cases or court decisions to guide us about whether it is negligence to allow an unmasked patient to commingle in a medical practice. Nor do we have case law to help us determine whether patient abandonment would apply if a patient is sent home without being seen.

We can apply the legal principles and cases from other situations to this one, however, to tell us what constitutes negligence or patient abandonment. The practical questions, legally, are who might sue and on what basis?

Who might sue?

Someone who is injured in a public place may sue the owner for negligence if the owner knew or should have known of a danger and didn’t do anything about it. For example, individuals have sued grocery stores successfully after they slipped on a banana peel and fell. If, say, the banana peel was black, that indicates that it had been there for a while, and judges have found that the store management should have known about it and removed it.

Compare the banana peel scenario with the scenario where most news outlets and health departments are telling people, every day, to wear masks while in indoor public spaces, yet owners of a medical practice or facility allow individuals who are not wearing masks to sit in their waiting room. If an individual who was also in the waiting room with the unmasked individual develops COVID-19 2 days later, the ill individual may sue the medical practice for negligence for not removing the unmasked individual.

What about the individual’s responsibility to move away from the person not wearing a mask? That is the aspect of this scenario that attorneys and experts could argue about, for days, in a court case. But to go back to the banana peel case, one could argue that a customer in a grocery store should be looking out for banana peels on the floor and avoid them, yet courts have assigned liability to grocery stores when customers slip and fall.

Let’s review the four elements of negligence which a plaintiff would need to prove:

• Duty: Obligation of one person to another
• Breach: Improper act or omission, in the context of proper behavior to avoid imposing undue risks of harm to other persons and their property
• Damage
• Causation: That the act or omission caused the harm

Those who run medical offices and facilities have a duty to provide reasonably safe public spaces. Unmasked individuals are a risk to others nearby, so the “breach” element is satisfied if a practice fails to impose safety measures. Causation could be proven, or at least inferred, if contact tracing of an individual with COVID-19 showed that the only contact likely to have exposed the ill individual to the virus was an unmasked individual in a medical practice’s waiting room, especially if the unmasked individual was COVID-19 positive before, during, or shortly after the visit to the practice.

What about patient abandonment?

“Patient abandonment” is the legal term for terminating the physician-patient relationship in such a manner that the patient is denied necessary medical care. It is a form of negligence.

Refusing to see a patient unless the patient wears a mask is not denying care, in this attorney’s view, but rather establishing reasonable conditions for getting care. The patient simply needs to put on a mask.

What about the patient who refuses to wear a mask for medical reasons? There are exceptions in most of the governors’ orders for individuals with medical conditions that preclude covering nose and mouth with a mask. A medical office is the perfect place to test an individual’s ability or inability to breathe well while wearing a mask. “Put the mask on and we’ll see how you do” is a reasonable response. Monitor the patient visually and apply a pulse oximeter with mask off and mask on.

One physician recently wrote about measuring her own oxygen levels while wearing four different masks for 5 minutes each, with no change in breathing.

Editor’s note: Read more about mask exemptions in a Medscape interview with pulmonologist Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association.

What are some practical tips?

Assuming that a patient is not in acute distress, options in this scenario include:

• Send the patient home and offer a return visit if masked or when the pandemic is over.
• Offer a telehealth visit, with the patient at home.

What if the unmasked person is not a patient but the companion of a patient? What if the individual refusing to wear a mask is an employee? In neither of these two hypotheticals is there a basis for legal action against a practice whose policy requires that everyone wear masks on the premises.

A companion who arrives without a mask should leave the office. An employee who refuses to mask up could be sent home. If the employee has a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, then the practice may need to make reasonable accommodations so that the employee works in a room alone if unable to work from home.

Those who manage medical practices should check the websites of the state health department and medical societies at least weekly, to see whether the agencies have issued guidance. For example, the Texas Medical Association has issued limited guidance.

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

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

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

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

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

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

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

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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