Ob.Gyn. News

The first data on myocardial injury linked with COVID-19 disease during the start of the pandemic in Wuhan, China serves as a “wake up call” for clinicians and the general public on what the United States and other Western countries can expect as the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads and case numbers mount: a potentially “daunting” toll of deaths as an infection with a tendency to be most severe in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease hits populations that include large numbers of such patients.

“A consistent picture emerges” from two reports on a total of 603 COVID-19 patients treated at two academic hospitals in Wuhan, which described “remarkably similar characteristics of patients who develop myocardial injury” associated with their infection. “Patients who develop myocardial injury with COVID-19 have clinical evidence of higher acuity, with a higher incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and more frequent need for assisted ventilation than those without myocardial injury, and the patients who are more prone to have myocardial injury are “older patients with preexisting cardiovascular complications and diabetes,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, and coauthors wrote in an editorial published online (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1105).

These new findings have special relevance to the United States and other Western countries because of their substantial numbers of elderly patients with cardiovascular diseases, said Dr. Bonow, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthors.

One of the two reports cited in the editorial reviewed 416 patients hospitalized at Renmin Hospital in Wuhan during the period of Jan. 20 to Feb. 10, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 disease, and found that 20% of the cohort had evidence of cardiac injury, defined as blood levels of the high-sensitivity troponin I cardiac biomarker above the 99th-percentile upper reference limit, regardless of new abnormalities in electrocardiography and echocardiography.

The analysis also showed that patients with myocardial injury had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate, 51%, compared with a 5% mortality rate among patients without myocardial injury, and among patients with myocardial injury those with elevated high-sensitivity troponin I had an even higher mortality rate (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0950).

A second review of 187 confirmed COVID-19 cases at Seventh Hospital in Wuhan during the period of Jan. 23 to Feb. 23, 2020, showed similar findings, with a 28% prevalence of myocardial injury at admission based on an elevated level of plasma troponin T (TnT), and 35% had cardiovascular disease (CVD) including hypertension, coronary heart disease, and cardiomyopathy. Elevated TnT levels and CVD at entry each linked with substantially increased mortality. The incidence of death among patients with elevated TnT and no underlying CVD was 38% compared with 8% among patients without elevated TnT or underlying CVD. Among patients admitted with underlying CVD those who also had an elevated TnT had a 69% death rate during hospitalization compared with a 13% rate in those without TnT elevation (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1017).

Dr. Bonow and coauthors noted that patients with chronic coronary artery disease have a heightened risk for developing acute coronary syndrome during acute infection, potentially resulting from a severe increase in myocardial demand during infection, or severe systemic inflammatory stress that could result in atherosclerotic plaque instability and rupture as well as vascular and myocardial inflammation.

In addition, patients with heart failure are prone to hemodynamic instability during severe infection. “Thus it is anticipated that patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases, which are more prevalent in older adults, would be susceptible to higher risks of adverse outcomes and death during the severe and aggressive inflammatory responses to COVID-19 than individuals who are younger and healthier,” they wrote.

They also cited the potential for acute or fulminant myocarditis as well as new-onset heart failure caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 disease based on experience with the related Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Another concerning observation is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 protein on cell surfaces as its main entry receptor, “raising the possibility of direct viral infection of vascular endothelium and myocardium,” a process that itself could produce myocardial injury and myocarditis.

These new findings from COVID-19 patients in Wuhan represent early data from what has become a global pandemic, and raise questions about generalizability, but for the time being a key message from these early cases is that prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection is paramount. “Until we know more, the populations described in these primary data reports should be most observant of strict hand hygiene, social distancing, and, where available, COVID-19 testing,” the authors said.

Dr. Bonow and coauthors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

The first data on myocardial injury linked with COVID-19 disease during the start of the pandemic in Wuhan, China serves as a “wake up call” for clinicians and the general public on what the United States and other Western countries can expect as the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads and case numbers mount: a potentially “daunting” toll of deaths as an infection with a tendency to be most severe in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease hits populations that include large numbers of such patients.

“A consistent picture emerges” from two reports on a total of 603 COVID-19 patients treated at two academic hospitals in Wuhan, which described “remarkably similar characteristics of patients who develop myocardial injury” associated with their infection. “Patients who develop myocardial injury with COVID-19 have clinical evidence of higher acuity, with a higher incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and more frequent need for assisted ventilation than those without myocardial injury, and the patients who are more prone to have myocardial injury are “older patients with preexisting cardiovascular complications and diabetes,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, and coauthors wrote in an editorial published online (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1105).

These new findings have special relevance to the United States and other Western countries because of their substantial numbers of elderly patients with cardiovascular diseases, said Dr. Bonow, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthors.

One of the two reports cited in the editorial reviewed 416 patients hospitalized at Renmin Hospital in Wuhan during the period of Jan. 20 to Feb. 10, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 disease, and found that 20% of the cohort had evidence of cardiac injury, defined as blood levels of the high-sensitivity troponin I cardiac biomarker above the 99th-percentile upper reference limit, regardless of new abnormalities in electrocardiography and echocardiography.

The analysis also showed that patients with myocardial injury had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate, 51%, compared with a 5% mortality rate among patients without myocardial injury, and among patients with myocardial injury those with elevated high-sensitivity troponin I had an even higher mortality rate (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0950).

A second review of 187 confirmed COVID-19 cases at Seventh Hospital in Wuhan during the period of Jan. 23 to Feb. 23, 2020, showed similar findings, with a 28% prevalence of myocardial injury at admission based on an elevated level of plasma troponin T (TnT), and 35% had cardiovascular disease (CVD) including hypertension, coronary heart disease, and cardiomyopathy. Elevated TnT levels and CVD at entry each linked with substantially increased mortality. The incidence of death among patients with elevated TnT and no underlying CVD was 38% compared with 8% among patients without elevated TnT or underlying CVD. Among patients admitted with underlying CVD those who also had an elevated TnT had a 69% death rate during hospitalization compared with a 13% rate in those without TnT elevation (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1017).

Dr. Bonow and coauthors noted that patients with chronic coronary artery disease have a heightened risk for developing acute coronary syndrome during acute infection, potentially resulting from a severe increase in myocardial demand during infection, or severe systemic inflammatory stress that could result in atherosclerotic plaque instability and rupture as well as vascular and myocardial inflammation.

In addition, patients with heart failure are prone to hemodynamic instability during severe infection. “Thus it is anticipated that patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases, which are more prevalent in older adults, would be susceptible to higher risks of adverse outcomes and death during the severe and aggressive inflammatory responses to COVID-19 than individuals who are younger and healthier,” they wrote.

They also cited the potential for acute or fulminant myocarditis as well as new-onset heart failure caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 disease based on experience with the related Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Another concerning observation is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 protein on cell surfaces as its main entry receptor, “raising the possibility of direct viral infection of vascular endothelium and myocardium,” a process that itself could produce myocardial injury and myocarditis.

These new findings from COVID-19 patients in Wuhan represent early data from what has become a global pandemic, and raise questions about generalizability, but for the time being a key message from these early cases is that prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection is paramount. “Until we know more, the populations described in these primary data reports should be most observant of strict hand hygiene, social distancing, and, where available, COVID-19 testing,” the authors said.

Dr. Bonow and coauthors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

The first data on myocardial injury linked with COVID-19 disease during the start of the pandemic in Wuhan, China serves as a “wake up call” for clinicians and the general public on what the United States and other Western countries can expect as the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads and case numbers mount: a potentially “daunting” toll of deaths as an infection with a tendency to be most severe in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease hits populations that include large numbers of such patients.

“A consistent picture emerges” from two reports on a total of 603 COVID-19 patients treated at two academic hospitals in Wuhan, which described “remarkably similar characteristics of patients who develop myocardial injury” associated with their infection. “Patients who develop myocardial injury with COVID-19 have clinical evidence of higher acuity, with a higher incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and more frequent need for assisted ventilation than those without myocardial injury, and the patients who are more prone to have myocardial injury are “older patients with preexisting cardiovascular complications and diabetes,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, and coauthors wrote in an editorial published online (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1105).

These new findings have special relevance to the United States and other Western countries because of their substantial numbers of elderly patients with cardiovascular diseases, said Dr. Bonow, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthors.

One of the two reports cited in the editorial reviewed 416 patients hospitalized at Renmin Hospital in Wuhan during the period of Jan. 20 to Feb. 10, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 disease, and found that 20% of the cohort had evidence of cardiac injury, defined as blood levels of the high-sensitivity troponin I cardiac biomarker above the 99th-percentile upper reference limit, regardless of new abnormalities in electrocardiography and echocardiography.

The analysis also showed that patients with myocardial injury had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate, 51%, compared with a 5% mortality rate among patients without myocardial injury, and among patients with myocardial injury those with elevated high-sensitivity troponin I had an even higher mortality rate (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0950).

A second review of 187 confirmed COVID-19 cases at Seventh Hospital in Wuhan during the period of Jan. 23 to Feb. 23, 2020, showed similar findings, with a 28% prevalence of myocardial injury at admission based on an elevated level of plasma troponin T (TnT), and 35% had cardiovascular disease (CVD) including hypertension, coronary heart disease, and cardiomyopathy. Elevated TnT levels and CVD at entry each linked with substantially increased mortality. The incidence of death among patients with elevated TnT and no underlying CVD was 38% compared with 8% among patients without elevated TnT or underlying CVD. Among patients admitted with underlying CVD those who also had an elevated TnT had a 69% death rate during hospitalization compared with a 13% rate in those without TnT elevation (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1017).

Dr. Bonow and coauthors noted that patients with chronic coronary artery disease have a heightened risk for developing acute coronary syndrome during acute infection, potentially resulting from a severe increase in myocardial demand during infection, or severe systemic inflammatory stress that could result in atherosclerotic plaque instability and rupture as well as vascular and myocardial inflammation.

In addition, patients with heart failure are prone to hemodynamic instability during severe infection. “Thus it is anticipated that patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases, which are more prevalent in older adults, would be susceptible to higher risks of adverse outcomes and death during the severe and aggressive inflammatory responses to COVID-19 than individuals who are younger and healthier,” they wrote.

They also cited the potential for acute or fulminant myocarditis as well as new-onset heart failure caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 disease based on experience with the related Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Another concerning observation is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 protein on cell surfaces as its main entry receptor, “raising the possibility of direct viral infection of vascular endothelium and myocardium,” a process that itself could produce myocardial injury and myocarditis.

These new findings from COVID-19 patients in Wuhan represent early data from what has become a global pandemic, and raise questions about generalizability, but for the time being a key message from these early cases is that prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection is paramount. “Until we know more, the populations described in these primary data reports should be most observant of strict hand hygiene, social distancing, and, where available, COVID-19 testing,” the authors said.

Dr. Bonow and coauthors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Current risk factors used to screen for hepatitis C should be updated, according to study results of 106,842 pregnant women who underwent screening.

Courtesy NIH

“Because risk-factor screening has obvious limitations, universal screening in pregnancy has been suggested to allow for linkage to postpartum care and identification of children for future testing and treatment,” wrote Mona Prasad, DO, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from women with singleton pregnancies presenting for prenatal care prior to 23 weeks’ gestation during 2012-2015. Of these, 254 tested positive for the hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody, for a seroprevalence rate of 2.4 cases per 1,000 women.

The researchers conducted a case-control analysis of 131 women who tested positive and 251 controls to identify HCV infection risk factors based on interviews and chart reviews. They found that risk factors significantly associated with positive HCV antibodies included injection drug use (adjusted odds ratio, 22.9), a history of blood transfusion (aOR, 3.7), having an HCV-infected partner (aOR, 6.3), having had more than three sexual partners (aOR, 5.3), and smoking during pregnancy (aOR, 2.4).

In an unadjusted analysis, the researchers confirmed two of the risk factors currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for screening for HCV: injection drug use and being born to a mother with HCV infection, but not dialysis, organ transplantation, or HIV infection.

“Our results demonstrate that current risk factors could be contemporized,” Dr. Prasad and colleagues noted. “The currently accepted risk factors such as exposure to clotting factors, dialysis, and organ transplants are unlikely to be found. A thorough assessment of injection drug use history, smoking, transfusions, number of sexual partners, and partners with HCV infection is more sensitive in an obstetric population.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including possible selection bias and inclusion of only 65% of eligible women who were HCV positive, as well as a lack of screening data from 2016 to the present, which may not reflect the impact of the recent opioid epidemic, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and the generalizability of the study population.

“Our results regarding prevalence rates and risk factors of HCV antibody among pregnant women in the United States will be valuable to policymakers as they weigh the costs and benefits of universal screening,” Dr. Prasad and associates concluded.

Although universal screening has the potential to be more cost effective, given the small population of pregnant women eligible for treatment and lack of an available treatment, “the rationale is weaker for unique universal HCV screening recommendations for pregnant women,” they said.

By contrast, Sammy Saab, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles; Ravina Kullar, PharmD, MPH, of Gilead Sciences, Foster City, Calif.; and Prabhu Gounder, MD, MPH, of the Los Angeles Department of Public Health, wrote an accompanying commentary in favor of universal HCV screening for pregnant women, in part because of the increase in HCV in the younger population overall.

“For many women of reproductive age, pregnancy is one of their few points of contact with their health care provider; therefore, pregnancy could provide a crucial time for targeting this population,” they noted.

Risk-based screening is of limited effectiveness because patients are not identified by way of current screening tools or they decline to reveal risk factors that providers might miss, the editorialists said. Pregnancy has not been shown to affect the accuracy of HCV tests, and identifying infections in mothers allows for screening in children as well.

“The perinatal hepatitis B virus infection program, which has been implemented in several state and local public health departments, could serve as an example for how to conduct surveillance for mothers with HCV infection and to ensure that HCV-exposed children receive appropriate follow-up testing and linkage to care,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported in part by multiple grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Prasad disclosed funding from Ohio State University and from Gilead. Coauthors had links with pharmaceutical companies, associations, and organizations – most unrelated to this study. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Prasad M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:778-88; Saab S et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:773-7.

Current risk factors used to screen for hepatitis C should be updated, according to study results of 106,842 pregnant women who underwent screening.

Courtesy NIH

“Because risk-factor screening has obvious limitations, universal screening in pregnancy has been suggested to allow for linkage to postpartum care and identification of children for future testing and treatment,” wrote Mona Prasad, DO, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from women with singleton pregnancies presenting for prenatal care prior to 23 weeks’ gestation during 2012-2015. Of these, 254 tested positive for the hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody, for a seroprevalence rate of 2.4 cases per 1,000 women.

The researchers conducted a case-control analysis of 131 women who tested positive and 251 controls to identify HCV infection risk factors based on interviews and chart reviews. They found that risk factors significantly associated with positive HCV antibodies included injection drug use (adjusted odds ratio, 22.9), a history of blood transfusion (aOR, 3.7), having an HCV-infected partner (aOR, 6.3), having had more than three sexual partners (aOR, 5.3), and smoking during pregnancy (aOR, 2.4).

In an unadjusted analysis, the researchers confirmed two of the risk factors currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for screening for HCV: injection drug use and being born to a mother with HCV infection, but not dialysis, organ transplantation, or HIV infection.

“Our results demonstrate that current risk factors could be contemporized,” Dr. Prasad and colleagues noted. “The currently accepted risk factors such as exposure to clotting factors, dialysis, and organ transplants are unlikely to be found. A thorough assessment of injection drug use history, smoking, transfusions, number of sexual partners, and partners with HCV infection is more sensitive in an obstetric population.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including possible selection bias and inclusion of only 65% of eligible women who were HCV positive, as well as a lack of screening data from 2016 to the present, which may not reflect the impact of the recent opioid epidemic, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and the generalizability of the study population.

“Our results regarding prevalence rates and risk factors of HCV antibody among pregnant women in the United States will be valuable to policymakers as they weigh the costs and benefits of universal screening,” Dr. Prasad and associates concluded.

Although universal screening has the potential to be more cost effective, given the small population of pregnant women eligible for treatment and lack of an available treatment, “the rationale is weaker for unique universal HCV screening recommendations for pregnant women,” they said.

By contrast, Sammy Saab, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles; Ravina Kullar, PharmD, MPH, of Gilead Sciences, Foster City, Calif.; and Prabhu Gounder, MD, MPH, of the Los Angeles Department of Public Health, wrote an accompanying commentary in favor of universal HCV screening for pregnant women, in part because of the increase in HCV in the younger population overall.

“For many women of reproductive age, pregnancy is one of their few points of contact with their health care provider; therefore, pregnancy could provide a crucial time for targeting this population,” they noted.

Risk-based screening is of limited effectiveness because patients are not identified by way of current screening tools or they decline to reveal risk factors that providers might miss, the editorialists said. Pregnancy has not been shown to affect the accuracy of HCV tests, and identifying infections in mothers allows for screening in children as well.

“The perinatal hepatitis B virus infection program, which has been implemented in several state and local public health departments, could serve as an example for how to conduct surveillance for mothers with HCV infection and to ensure that HCV-exposed children receive appropriate follow-up testing and linkage to care,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported in part by multiple grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Prasad disclosed funding from Ohio State University and from Gilead. Coauthors had links with pharmaceutical companies, associations, and organizations – most unrelated to this study. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Prasad M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:778-88; Saab S et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:773-7.

Current risk factors used to screen for hepatitis C should be updated, according to study results of 106,842 pregnant women who underwent screening.

Courtesy NIH

“Because risk-factor screening has obvious limitations, universal screening in pregnancy has been suggested to allow for linkage to postpartum care and identification of children for future testing and treatment,” wrote Mona Prasad, DO, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from women with singleton pregnancies presenting for prenatal care prior to 23 weeks’ gestation during 2012-2015. Of these, 254 tested positive for the hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody, for a seroprevalence rate of 2.4 cases per 1,000 women.

The researchers conducted a case-control analysis of 131 women who tested positive and 251 controls to identify HCV infection risk factors based on interviews and chart reviews. They found that risk factors significantly associated with positive HCV antibodies included injection drug use (adjusted odds ratio, 22.9), a history of blood transfusion (aOR, 3.7), having an HCV-infected partner (aOR, 6.3), having had more than three sexual partners (aOR, 5.3), and smoking during pregnancy (aOR, 2.4).

In an unadjusted analysis, the researchers confirmed two of the risk factors currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for screening for HCV: injection drug use and being born to a mother with HCV infection, but not dialysis, organ transplantation, or HIV infection.

“Our results demonstrate that current risk factors could be contemporized,” Dr. Prasad and colleagues noted. “The currently accepted risk factors such as exposure to clotting factors, dialysis, and organ transplants are unlikely to be found. A thorough assessment of injection drug use history, smoking, transfusions, number of sexual partners, and partners with HCV infection is more sensitive in an obstetric population.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including possible selection bias and inclusion of only 65% of eligible women who were HCV positive, as well as a lack of screening data from 2016 to the present, which may not reflect the impact of the recent opioid epidemic, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and the generalizability of the study population.

“Our results regarding prevalence rates and risk factors of HCV antibody among pregnant women in the United States will be valuable to policymakers as they weigh the costs and benefits of universal screening,” Dr. Prasad and associates concluded.

Although universal screening has the potential to be more cost effective, given the small population of pregnant women eligible for treatment and lack of an available treatment, “the rationale is weaker for unique universal HCV screening recommendations for pregnant women,” they said.

By contrast, Sammy Saab, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles; Ravina Kullar, PharmD, MPH, of Gilead Sciences, Foster City, Calif.; and Prabhu Gounder, MD, MPH, of the Los Angeles Department of Public Health, wrote an accompanying commentary in favor of universal HCV screening for pregnant women, in part because of the increase in HCV in the younger population overall.

“For many women of reproductive age, pregnancy is one of their few points of contact with their health care provider; therefore, pregnancy could provide a crucial time for targeting this population,” they noted.

Risk-based screening is of limited effectiveness because patients are not identified by way of current screening tools or they decline to reveal risk factors that providers might miss, the editorialists said. Pregnancy has not been shown to affect the accuracy of HCV tests, and identifying infections in mothers allows for screening in children as well.

“The perinatal hepatitis B virus infection program, which has been implemented in several state and local public health departments, could serve as an example for how to conduct surveillance for mothers with HCV infection and to ensure that HCV-exposed children receive appropriate follow-up testing and linkage to care,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported in part by multiple grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Prasad disclosed funding from Ohio State University and from Gilead. Coauthors had links with pharmaceutical companies, associations, and organizations – most unrelated to this study. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Prasad M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:778-88; Saab S et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:773-7.

Physicians and pharmacists are reporting shortages of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine following President Trump’s promotion of the medications as potential COVID-19 treatments, leaving patients with rheumatic diseases wondering how it will impact their access.

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, issued a joint statement that strongly opposed prophylactic prescribing of these medications for COVID-19 or stockpiling them in anticipation of use for COVID-19. The concerns over shortages have also prompted the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Arthritis Foundation, and Lupus Foundation of America to send a joint statement to the Trump administration and the nation’s governors highlighting critical hydroxychloroquine access issues and asking policymakers to work together with health care providers and patient communities to ensure continued availability of these drugs.

Now rheumatologists are trying to reassure patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases who take the antimalarials that they will be available and are relatively easy for manufacturers to produce.

In a Q and A interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatology division director and Lupus Center director Jill P. Buyon, MD, and associate professor of rheumatology, Peter M. Izmirly, MD, noted that, while shortages have been reported across the United States because of large increases in off-label prescribing, many of the drugs’ manufacturers have committed to donating millions of doses and/or stepping up production to meet demand.

Later in this article, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Langone Health, New York, answered questions about a new multicenter study called COLCORONA getting underway to test the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine. The answers in this Q&A have been edited for length and clarity. 
 

Questions about hydroxychloroquine shortage

Q: What is the current situation with hydroxychloroquine in your practice?

A: We have been getting calls from our patients asking about getting refills for hydroxychloroquine. Our group has been calling local pharmacies asking about the availability of hydroxychloroquine, and we are compiling a list of pharmacies in New York with current availabilities to share with patients. We are somewhat limited by our electronic health record system, Epic, which can only send a prescription to one pharmacy, so that has placed some limitations on knowing where it is available. Some pharmacies have not had hydroxychloroquine available, while others have. We have also been encouraging patients to check online and look for mail-order possibilities for 90-day supplies.

Nearly all prescriptions are for generic hydroxychloroquine. Branded hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is much more expensive, and we can run into obstacles with getting it approved by insurers, too.
 

Q: What are you telling patients who seek to refill their prescription or call with concerns? Is it feasible for patients to stop hydroxychloroquine or cut their dosage if necessary?

A: If someone’s been on hydroxychloroquine and has benefited from its use there’s no reason to come off it at this time, and given the possibility that it may have an effect on COVID-19, that is all the better. But we want to reassure patients that they can get the drug and that it is not difficult to manufacture.

Given the significantly higher risk of disease flare that was first described in lupus patients who discontinued hydroxychloroquine in the Canadian Hydroxychloroquine Study Group’s 1991 randomized, controlled trial, it is not advisable for patients to stop the drug.

Some patients do split their dosage day-to-day if they are taking less than 400 mg daily, such that someone taking 300 mg daily may take two 200-mg tablets one day and just one 200-mg tablet the next day, and so on. To avoid eye toxicity that can occur after years of taking the drug, hydroxychloroquine is generally prescribed based on weight at 5 mg/kg.

The drug also stays in the body for quite a while [often up to 3 months and even longer], so that is helpful for patients to know.

Given the current situation and the possibility of its effectiveness against COVID-19, it is ironic that we are actually trying to recruit older lupus patients who have had long-term stable disease while on hydroxychloroquine to a trial of stopping the drug to reduce the risk of developing the side effect of retinopathy. We want to see if patients can safely withdraw hydroxychloroquine without flaring, so we hope to not run into enrollment difficulties based on the current situation with COVID-19.
 

Q: How do you view the balance between having enough hydroxychloroquine for patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases and its use in COVID-19 patients?

A: We want to reassure patients that hydroxychloroquine will be available, and there is no reason to hoard the drug or to worry excessively about being unable to obtain it. Efforts to increase production by Mylan, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, and other manufacturers of hydroxychloroquine should really help out.

Q: Are there pharmacy restrictions on prescription amounts?

A: This is not universal at this time, but some institutions are cutting back and offering only 1-month supplies.
 

Colchicine COVID-19 trial underway

Dr. Pillinger, of NYU Langone Health, explored the COLCORONA study of colchicine as a treatment for people infected with COVID-19 and the worry that shortage concerns may arise for it, too. 

Q: What is the general availability of colchicine and its susceptibility to shortage?

A: There are two major manufacturers of colchicine in the United States, Takeda and Hikma, who together manufacture the majority of the drug.

The greatest use of colchicine in the United States is for gout, which affects approximately 4 million Americans, but the drug is not used chronically, so a much smaller number of patients are using colchicine at any one time. Colchicine is also used for other inflammatory conditions, primarily calcium pyrophosphate crystal disease and familial Mediterranean fever (FMF is rare in the United States). Cardiologists also regularly prescribe colchicine in pericarditis for short-term use. Physicians may use it off label for other purposes, too.

Overall, the number of patients using colchicine is much larger than that for the use of hydroxychloroquine, for example, suggesting that the immediate risk of shortage could be lower. However, if individuals started using it off label, or prescribing inappropriately for the COVID-19 indication, the supply would rapidly run short.
 

Q: What other points are there to consider regarding the use of colchicine to treat COVID-19?

A: There is no evidence – zero – that colchicine has any benefit for COVID-19, not even case reports. There is some rationale that it might be beneficial, but that is exactly why the COLCORONA trial would be logical to try.

The COLCORONA trial is exactly the kind of trial that would be needed for assessing colchicine, and it is big enough and happening quickly enough to get an answer. But if people start to use colchicine off label, we may never know the truth.

While colchicine can be used safely in most people, it can be very problematic and requires an experienced doctor’s supervision. Overdoses can be fatal, and colchicine interacts with many drugs, all of which require dose adjustment and some of which must be stopped in order to use colchicine – it isn’t candy. Some of the other drugs being looked at for COVID-19 in fact may interact with colchicine.

Colchicine must also be dose adjusted for kidney disease, and, in some of the COVID-19 patients, kidney function changes rapidly. So again, its use would require expert supervision even if there were evidence for its utility.

The side effects of colchicine, if mis-dosed, can be very unpleasant, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Even at the apparent right dose, some people will get these side effects, so colchicine has to be something that works to make the risk/benefit ratio worth it.

Some preparations of colchicine are made combined with probenecid, a gout drug. This is even more problematic because probenecid can raise the level of drugs excreted by the kidney and could affect other treatments.

So in sum, what may be a good idea in theory can turn out to be a disastrous idea in practice, and here we have nothing but theory. This is not an agent to use randomly; the studies will be rushed out quickly and hopefully will give us the knowledge to know what to do.

Dr. Izmirly and Dr. Buyon said they have research grants with the National Institutes of Health to study hydroxychloroquine in patients with lupus and in anti–SSA/Ro-positive pregnant women with a previous child with congenital heart block. Dr. Pillinger reports that he has an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma to study colchicine in osteoarthritis.

[email protected]

This article was reformatted on 3/30/2020 for clarity. 

Physicians and pharmacists are reporting shortages of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine following President Trump’s promotion of the medications as potential COVID-19 treatments, leaving patients with rheumatic diseases wondering how it will impact their access.

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, issued a joint statement that strongly opposed prophylactic prescribing of these medications for COVID-19 or stockpiling them in anticipation of use for COVID-19. The concerns over shortages have also prompted the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Arthritis Foundation, and Lupus Foundation of America to send a joint statement to the Trump administration and the nation’s governors highlighting critical hydroxychloroquine access issues and asking policymakers to work together with health care providers and patient communities to ensure continued availability of these drugs.

Now rheumatologists are trying to reassure patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases who take the antimalarials that they will be available and are relatively easy for manufacturers to produce.

In a Q and A interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatology division director and Lupus Center director Jill P. Buyon, MD, and associate professor of rheumatology, Peter M. Izmirly, MD, noted that, while shortages have been reported across the United States because of large increases in off-label prescribing, many of the drugs’ manufacturers have committed to donating millions of doses and/or stepping up production to meet demand.

Later in this article, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Langone Health, New York, answered questions about a new multicenter study called COLCORONA getting underway to test the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine. The answers in this Q&A have been edited for length and clarity. 
 

Questions about hydroxychloroquine shortage

Q: What is the current situation with hydroxychloroquine in your practice?

A: We have been getting calls from our patients asking about getting refills for hydroxychloroquine. Our group has been calling local pharmacies asking about the availability of hydroxychloroquine, and we are compiling a list of pharmacies in New York with current availabilities to share with patients. We are somewhat limited by our electronic health record system, Epic, which can only send a prescription to one pharmacy, so that has placed some limitations on knowing where it is available. Some pharmacies have not had hydroxychloroquine available, while others have. We have also been encouraging patients to check online and look for mail-order possibilities for 90-day supplies.

Nearly all prescriptions are for generic hydroxychloroquine. Branded hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is much more expensive, and we can run into obstacles with getting it approved by insurers, too.
 

Q: What are you telling patients who seek to refill their prescription or call with concerns? Is it feasible for patients to stop hydroxychloroquine or cut their dosage if necessary?

A: If someone’s been on hydroxychloroquine and has benefited from its use there’s no reason to come off it at this time, and given the possibility that it may have an effect on COVID-19, that is all the better. But we want to reassure patients that they can get the drug and that it is not difficult to manufacture.

Given the significantly higher risk of disease flare that was first described in lupus patients who discontinued hydroxychloroquine in the Canadian Hydroxychloroquine Study Group’s 1991 randomized, controlled trial, it is not advisable for patients to stop the drug.

Some patients do split their dosage day-to-day if they are taking less than 400 mg daily, such that someone taking 300 mg daily may take two 200-mg tablets one day and just one 200-mg tablet the next day, and so on. To avoid eye toxicity that can occur after years of taking the drug, hydroxychloroquine is generally prescribed based on weight at 5 mg/kg.

The drug also stays in the body for quite a while [often up to 3 months and even longer], so that is helpful for patients to know.

Given the current situation and the possibility of its effectiveness against COVID-19, it is ironic that we are actually trying to recruit older lupus patients who have had long-term stable disease while on hydroxychloroquine to a trial of stopping the drug to reduce the risk of developing the side effect of retinopathy. We want to see if patients can safely withdraw hydroxychloroquine without flaring, so we hope to not run into enrollment difficulties based on the current situation with COVID-19.
 

Q: How do you view the balance between having enough hydroxychloroquine for patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases and its use in COVID-19 patients?

A: We want to reassure patients that hydroxychloroquine will be available, and there is no reason to hoard the drug or to worry excessively about being unable to obtain it. Efforts to increase production by Mylan, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, and other manufacturers of hydroxychloroquine should really help out.

Q: Are there pharmacy restrictions on prescription amounts?

A: This is not universal at this time, but some institutions are cutting back and offering only 1-month supplies.
 

Colchicine COVID-19 trial underway

Dr. Pillinger, of NYU Langone Health, explored the COLCORONA study of colchicine as a treatment for people infected with COVID-19 and the worry that shortage concerns may arise for it, too. 

Q: What is the general availability of colchicine and its susceptibility to shortage?

A: There are two major manufacturers of colchicine in the United States, Takeda and Hikma, who together manufacture the majority of the drug.

The greatest use of colchicine in the United States is for gout, which affects approximately 4 million Americans, but the drug is not used chronically, so a much smaller number of patients are using colchicine at any one time. Colchicine is also used for other inflammatory conditions, primarily calcium pyrophosphate crystal disease and familial Mediterranean fever (FMF is rare in the United States). Cardiologists also regularly prescribe colchicine in pericarditis for short-term use. Physicians may use it off label for other purposes, too.

Overall, the number of patients using colchicine is much larger than that for the use of hydroxychloroquine, for example, suggesting that the immediate risk of shortage could be lower. However, if individuals started using it off label, or prescribing inappropriately for the COVID-19 indication, the supply would rapidly run short.
 

Q: What other points are there to consider regarding the use of colchicine to treat COVID-19?

A: There is no evidence – zero – that colchicine has any benefit for COVID-19, not even case reports. There is some rationale that it might be beneficial, but that is exactly why the COLCORONA trial would be logical to try.

The COLCORONA trial is exactly the kind of trial that would be needed for assessing colchicine, and it is big enough and happening quickly enough to get an answer. But if people start to use colchicine off label, we may never know the truth.

While colchicine can be used safely in most people, it can be very problematic and requires an experienced doctor’s supervision. Overdoses can be fatal, and colchicine interacts with many drugs, all of which require dose adjustment and some of which must be stopped in order to use colchicine – it isn’t candy. Some of the other drugs being looked at for COVID-19 in fact may interact with colchicine.

Colchicine must also be dose adjusted for kidney disease, and, in some of the COVID-19 patients, kidney function changes rapidly. So again, its use would require expert supervision even if there were evidence for its utility.

The side effects of colchicine, if mis-dosed, can be very unpleasant, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Even at the apparent right dose, some people will get these side effects, so colchicine has to be something that works to make the risk/benefit ratio worth it.

Some preparations of colchicine are made combined with probenecid, a gout drug. This is even more problematic because probenecid can raise the level of drugs excreted by the kidney and could affect other treatments.

So in sum, what may be a good idea in theory can turn out to be a disastrous idea in practice, and here we have nothing but theory. This is not an agent to use randomly; the studies will be rushed out quickly and hopefully will give us the knowledge to know what to do.

Dr. Izmirly and Dr. Buyon said they have research grants with the National Institutes of Health to study hydroxychloroquine in patients with lupus and in anti–SSA/Ro-positive pregnant women with a previous child with congenital heart block. Dr. Pillinger reports that he has an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma to study colchicine in osteoarthritis.

[email protected]

This article was reformatted on 3/30/2020 for clarity. 

Physicians and pharmacists are reporting shortages of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine following President Trump’s promotion of the medications as potential COVID-19 treatments, leaving patients with rheumatic diseases wondering how it will impact their access.

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, issued a joint statement that strongly opposed prophylactic prescribing of these medications for COVID-19 or stockpiling them in anticipation of use for COVID-19. The concerns over shortages have also prompted the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Arthritis Foundation, and Lupus Foundation of America to send a joint statement to the Trump administration and the nation’s governors highlighting critical hydroxychloroquine access issues and asking policymakers to work together with health care providers and patient communities to ensure continued availability of these drugs.

Now rheumatologists are trying to reassure patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases who take the antimalarials that they will be available and are relatively easy for manufacturers to produce.

In a Q and A interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatology division director and Lupus Center director Jill P. Buyon, MD, and associate professor of rheumatology, Peter M. Izmirly, MD, noted that, while shortages have been reported across the United States because of large increases in off-label prescribing, many of the drugs’ manufacturers have committed to donating millions of doses and/or stepping up production to meet demand.

Later in this article, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Langone Health, New York, answered questions about a new multicenter study called COLCORONA getting underway to test the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine. The answers in this Q&A have been edited for length and clarity. 
 

Questions about hydroxychloroquine shortage

Q: What is the current situation with hydroxychloroquine in your practice?

A: We have been getting calls from our patients asking about getting refills for hydroxychloroquine. Our group has been calling local pharmacies asking about the availability of hydroxychloroquine, and we are compiling a list of pharmacies in New York with current availabilities to share with patients. We are somewhat limited by our electronic health record system, Epic, which can only send a prescription to one pharmacy, so that has placed some limitations on knowing where it is available. Some pharmacies have not had hydroxychloroquine available, while others have. We have also been encouraging patients to check online and look for mail-order possibilities for 90-day supplies.

Nearly all prescriptions are for generic hydroxychloroquine. Branded hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is much more expensive, and we can run into obstacles with getting it approved by insurers, too.
 

Q: What are you telling patients who seek to refill their prescription or call with concerns? Is it feasible for patients to stop hydroxychloroquine or cut their dosage if necessary?

A: If someone’s been on hydroxychloroquine and has benefited from its use there’s no reason to come off it at this time, and given the possibility that it may have an effect on COVID-19, that is all the better. But we want to reassure patients that they can get the drug and that it is not difficult to manufacture.

Given the significantly higher risk of disease flare that was first described in lupus patients who discontinued hydroxychloroquine in the Canadian Hydroxychloroquine Study Group’s 1991 randomized, controlled trial, it is not advisable for patients to stop the drug.

Some patients do split their dosage day-to-day if they are taking less than 400 mg daily, such that someone taking 300 mg daily may take two 200-mg tablets one day and just one 200-mg tablet the next day, and so on. To avoid eye toxicity that can occur after years of taking the drug, hydroxychloroquine is generally prescribed based on weight at 5 mg/kg.

The drug also stays in the body for quite a while [often up to 3 months and even longer], so that is helpful for patients to know.

Given the current situation and the possibility of its effectiveness against COVID-19, it is ironic that we are actually trying to recruit older lupus patients who have had long-term stable disease while on hydroxychloroquine to a trial of stopping the drug to reduce the risk of developing the side effect of retinopathy. We want to see if patients can safely withdraw hydroxychloroquine without flaring, so we hope to not run into enrollment difficulties based on the current situation with COVID-19.
 

Q: How do you view the balance between having enough hydroxychloroquine for patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases and its use in COVID-19 patients?

A: We want to reassure patients that hydroxychloroquine will be available, and there is no reason to hoard the drug or to worry excessively about being unable to obtain it. Efforts to increase production by Mylan, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, and other manufacturers of hydroxychloroquine should really help out.

Q: Are there pharmacy restrictions on prescription amounts?

A: This is not universal at this time, but some institutions are cutting back and offering only 1-month supplies.
 

Colchicine COVID-19 trial underway

Dr. Pillinger, of NYU Langone Health, explored the COLCORONA study of colchicine as a treatment for people infected with COVID-19 and the worry that shortage concerns may arise for it, too. 

Q: What is the general availability of colchicine and its susceptibility to shortage?

A: There are two major manufacturers of colchicine in the United States, Takeda and Hikma, who together manufacture the majority of the drug.

The greatest use of colchicine in the United States is for gout, which affects approximately 4 million Americans, but the drug is not used chronically, so a much smaller number of patients are using colchicine at any one time. Colchicine is also used for other inflammatory conditions, primarily calcium pyrophosphate crystal disease and familial Mediterranean fever (FMF is rare in the United States). Cardiologists also regularly prescribe colchicine in pericarditis for short-term use. Physicians may use it off label for other purposes, too.

Overall, the number of patients using colchicine is much larger than that for the use of hydroxychloroquine, for example, suggesting that the immediate risk of shortage could be lower. However, if individuals started using it off label, or prescribing inappropriately for the COVID-19 indication, the supply would rapidly run short.
 

Q: What other points are there to consider regarding the use of colchicine to treat COVID-19?

A: There is no evidence – zero – that colchicine has any benefit for COVID-19, not even case reports. There is some rationale that it might be beneficial, but that is exactly why the COLCORONA trial would be logical to try.

The COLCORONA trial is exactly the kind of trial that would be needed for assessing colchicine, and it is big enough and happening quickly enough to get an answer. But if people start to use colchicine off label, we may never know the truth.

While colchicine can be used safely in most people, it can be very problematic and requires an experienced doctor’s supervision. Overdoses can be fatal, and colchicine interacts with many drugs, all of which require dose adjustment and some of which must be stopped in order to use colchicine – it isn’t candy. Some of the other drugs being looked at for COVID-19 in fact may interact with colchicine.

Colchicine must also be dose adjusted for kidney disease, and, in some of the COVID-19 patients, kidney function changes rapidly. So again, its use would require expert supervision even if there were evidence for its utility.

The side effects of colchicine, if mis-dosed, can be very unpleasant, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Even at the apparent right dose, some people will get these side effects, so colchicine has to be something that works to make the risk/benefit ratio worth it.

Some preparations of colchicine are made combined with probenecid, a gout drug. This is even more problematic because probenecid can raise the level of drugs excreted by the kidney and could affect other treatments.

So in sum, what may be a good idea in theory can turn out to be a disastrous idea in practice, and here we have nothing but theory. This is not an agent to use randomly; the studies will be rushed out quickly and hopefully will give us the knowledge to know what to do.

Dr. Izmirly and Dr. Buyon said they have research grants with the National Institutes of Health to study hydroxychloroquine in patients with lupus and in anti–SSA/Ro-positive pregnant women with a previous child with congenital heart block. Dr. Pillinger reports that he has an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma to study colchicine in osteoarthritis.

[email protected]

This article was reformatted on 3/30/2020 for clarity. 

Physicians were concerned about the safety of their loved ones and themselves and pessimistic about how those outside of the medical community will respond to the pandemic, according to a survey.

One positive finding from the physicians who participated in this survey March 19-20 was that the availability of COVID-19 test kits has more than doubled since late February.

Reported access to test kits went from 31% in the first wave of a series of surveys (Jan. 31–Feb. 4), down to 20% in the second (Feb. 26-27), and then jumped to 67% by the third wave (March 19-20), InCrowd reported March 26.

Views on several other COVID-related topics were negative among the majority of responding physicians – all of whom had or were currently treating 20 or more patients with flu-like symptoms at the time of the survey.

“Their frustrations and concerns about their ability to protect themselves while meeting upcoming patient care levels has increased significantly in the last 3 months,” Daniel S. Fitzgerald, CEO and president of InCrowd, said in a written statement.

In the third wave, 78% of respondents were “concerned for the safety of loved ones due to my exposure as a physician to COVID-19” and only 16% believed that their facility was “staffed adequately to treat the influx of patients anticipated in the next 30 days,” InCrowd said.

One primary care physician from California elaborated on the issue of safety equipment: “First, [the CDC] said we need N95 masks and other masks would not protect us. As those are running out then they said just use regular surgical masks. Now they are saying use bandannas and scarves! It’s like they don’t care about the safety of the people who will be treating the ill! We don’t want to bring it home to our families!”

“Overall, morale appears low, with few optimistic about the efficacy of public-private collaboration (21%), their own safety given current PPE [personal protective equipment] supply (13%), and the U.S.’s ability to ‘flatten the curve’ (12%),” InCrowd noted in the report.

The first two waves each had 150 respondents, but the number increased to 263 for wave 3, with similar proportions – about 50% emergency medicine or critical care specialists, 25% pediatricians, and 25% primary care physicians – in all three.

[email protected]

Physicians were concerned about the safety of their loved ones and themselves and pessimistic about how those outside of the medical community will respond to the pandemic, according to a survey.

One positive finding from the physicians who participated in this survey March 19-20 was that the availability of COVID-19 test kits has more than doubled since late February.

Reported access to test kits went from 31% in the first wave of a series of surveys (Jan. 31–Feb. 4), down to 20% in the second (Feb. 26-27), and then jumped to 67% by the third wave (March 19-20), InCrowd reported March 26.

Views on several other COVID-related topics were negative among the majority of responding physicians – all of whom had or were currently treating 20 or more patients with flu-like symptoms at the time of the survey.

“Their frustrations and concerns about their ability to protect themselves while meeting upcoming patient care levels has increased significantly in the last 3 months,” Daniel S. Fitzgerald, CEO and president of InCrowd, said in a written statement.

In the third wave, 78% of respondents were “concerned for the safety of loved ones due to my exposure as a physician to COVID-19” and only 16% believed that their facility was “staffed adequately to treat the influx of patients anticipated in the next 30 days,” InCrowd said.

One primary care physician from California elaborated on the issue of safety equipment: “First, [the CDC] said we need N95 masks and other masks would not protect us. As those are running out then they said just use regular surgical masks. Now they are saying use bandannas and scarves! It’s like they don’t care about the safety of the people who will be treating the ill! We don’t want to bring it home to our families!”

“Overall, morale appears low, with few optimistic about the efficacy of public-private collaboration (21%), their own safety given current PPE [personal protective equipment] supply (13%), and the U.S.’s ability to ‘flatten the curve’ (12%),” InCrowd noted in the report.

The first two waves each had 150 respondents, but the number increased to 263 for wave 3, with similar proportions – about 50% emergency medicine or critical care specialists, 25% pediatricians, and 25% primary care physicians – in all three.

[email protected]

Physicians were concerned about the safety of their loved ones and themselves and pessimistic about how those outside of the medical community will respond to the pandemic, according to a survey.

One positive finding from the physicians who participated in this survey March 19-20 was that the availability of COVID-19 test kits has more than doubled since late February.

Reported access to test kits went from 31% in the first wave of a series of surveys (Jan. 31–Feb. 4), down to 20% in the second (Feb. 26-27), and then jumped to 67% by the third wave (March 19-20), InCrowd reported March 26.

Views on several other COVID-related topics were negative among the majority of responding physicians – all of whom had or were currently treating 20 or more patients with flu-like symptoms at the time of the survey.

“Their frustrations and concerns about their ability to protect themselves while meeting upcoming patient care levels has increased significantly in the last 3 months,” Daniel S. Fitzgerald, CEO and president of InCrowd, said in a written statement.

In the third wave, 78% of respondents were “concerned for the safety of loved ones due to my exposure as a physician to COVID-19” and only 16% believed that their facility was “staffed adequately to treat the influx of patients anticipated in the next 30 days,” InCrowd said.

One primary care physician from California elaborated on the issue of safety equipment: “First, [the CDC] said we need N95 masks and other masks would not protect us. As those are running out then they said just use regular surgical masks. Now they are saying use bandannas and scarves! It’s like they don’t care about the safety of the people who will be treating the ill! We don’t want to bring it home to our families!”

“Overall, morale appears low, with few optimistic about the efficacy of public-private collaboration (21%), their own safety given current PPE [personal protective equipment] supply (13%), and the U.S.’s ability to ‘flatten the curve’ (12%),” InCrowd noted in the report.

The first two waves each had 150 respondents, but the number increased to 263 for wave 3, with similar proportions – about 50% emergency medicine or critical care specialists, 25% pediatricians, and 25% primary care physicians – in all three.

[email protected]

Reports from pediatric endocrinologists in COVID-19 hot spots globally indicate that children, adolescents, and young adults with diabetes have so far not shown a different disease pattern with the virus compared to children and younger people who do not have diabetes.

Indeed, colleagues in Wuhan, China, and Italy “state they have not had cases of COVID-19 in children, adolescents, or young adults less than 25 years of age with diabetes who required hospitalization, to date [as of March 24]” according to a new statement from the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), which currently has about 1,300 members around the globe and has instituted a discussion forum about the topic of treating children with both diabetes and COVID-19.

“We find these reports [from colleagues around the world], though anecdotal, to be reassuring,” it notes. However, there are real worries regarding other potentially dangerous effects. ISPAD has expressed concern, for example, that the COVID-19 pandemic will prevent youngsters with existing diabetes who are having diabetic emergencies from seeking hospital care.

Chinese physicians have reported to ISPAD a number of cases of delayed hospital admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in children with known type 1 diabetes because hospital services were closed for non–COVID-19 care.

Andrea Scaramuzza, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Ospedale Maggiore di Cremona, Italy, has similarly reported multiple cases of patients presenting to emergency services there with severe DKA.

“These experiences reinforce the importance of continued attentiveness to standard diabetes care to avoid the need for hospitalization and emergency or urgent care visits,” says ISPAD, under the strapline: “Keep calm and mind your diabetes care.”

But it nevertheless stresses that these resources should be used “if needed.”
 

Worries that new-onset diabetes will be missed during COVID-19

Dr. Scaramuzza said in an interview that there also are concerns regarding delays in diagnoses of new cases of type 1 diabetes “due to the fear families have to go to the emergency department because of COVID-19.”

Indeed, in Italy, a few patients have arrived with very serious DKA, he said. Dr. Scaramuzza noted a colleague from Naples, Dario Iafusco, MD, and colleagues have made a video to keep awareness high regarding new-onset diabetes.

“This coronavirus pandemic can be defeated if you stay at home, but if you know of a child who has excessive thirst, frequent urination, or who starts vomiting,” seek health care advice immediately. “This child could have [type 1] diabetes. Prevent severe DKA, or worse, death,” Dr. Iafusco of the Regional Centre of Paediatric Diabetology G.Stoppoloni Via S. Andrea delle Dame, Naples, said in the video.

Physicians from China have similar observations, reporting to ISPAD several cases of delayed admissions of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes because hospital services were closed for non–COVID-19 care.
 

Keep calm and mind your diabetes care; physicians use telemedicine

Meanwhile, last week ISPAD issued guidance for young people with diabetes and their carers about what to do if COVID-19 infection is suspected.

Most advice is the same as for the general public because reports of COVID-19 infection suggest it is much less severe in children and adolescents, and the summary currently serves “as reassurance that youth with diabetes are not more affected by COVID-19 than peers,” it adds.

“Our approach to treating a child with diabetes would be to follow the ISPAD sick-day guidelines, which provide generalized diabetes management in any flu-like illness. We wouldn’t do anything very different right now,” one of the authors, Jamie Wood, MD, associate professor of clinical pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“Any illness makes diabetes more difficult to manage and can increase the risk of DKA,” she emphasized.

“We would reinforce frequent monitoring of blood glucose and ketone levels, to never stop insulin – in fact, when most people are ill, the body is stressed and requires more insulin – and to stay hydrated and treat the underlying symptoms.”

And make sure to “treat the fever,” she stressed. “When patients with type 1 diabetes get fever, they have a tendency to make more ketones, so we recommend aggressive control of fever.”

ISPAD recommends young people aim to keep blood glucose levels between 4 and 10 mmol/L (72-180 mg/dL) and blood ketones below 0.6 mmol/L (10.8 mg/dL) during illness and to never stop insulin.

Guidance is provided on when to seek urgent specialist advice with possible referral to emergency care, for example, in cases in which the patient has DKA symptoms, such as persistent and/or worsened fruity breath odor or vomiting.

Dr. Scaramuzza said in an interview that, in Italy, he and his colleagues have increased their use of telemedicine to keep monitoring their patients with diabetes even from a distance and that it was working very well.

“Technology – such as downloading [records from] insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring systems, and the possibility to use Skype or other platforms – really helps,” he noted.

“There has been a rapid increase in telehealth as a way to continue to care for youth with diabetes and decrease risk for infection,” said ISPAD.

“Communication between patients, families, and health care teams is vitally important. Methods to do so that avoid visits to clinics or hospitals can provide needed diabetes advice and reduce risk for COVID-19 transmission.”

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

Reports from pediatric endocrinologists in COVID-19 hot spots globally indicate that children, adolescents, and young adults with diabetes have so far not shown a different disease pattern with the virus compared to children and younger people who do not have diabetes.

Indeed, colleagues in Wuhan, China, and Italy “state they have not had cases of COVID-19 in children, adolescents, or young adults less than 25 years of age with diabetes who required hospitalization, to date [as of March 24]” according to a new statement from the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), which currently has about 1,300 members around the globe and has instituted a discussion forum about the topic of treating children with both diabetes and COVID-19.

“We find these reports [from colleagues around the world], though anecdotal, to be reassuring,” it notes. However, there are real worries regarding other potentially dangerous effects. ISPAD has expressed concern, for example, that the COVID-19 pandemic will prevent youngsters with existing diabetes who are having diabetic emergencies from seeking hospital care.

Chinese physicians have reported to ISPAD a number of cases of delayed hospital admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in children with known type 1 diabetes because hospital services were closed for non–COVID-19 care.

Andrea Scaramuzza, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Ospedale Maggiore di Cremona, Italy, has similarly reported multiple cases of patients presenting to emergency services there with severe DKA.

“These experiences reinforce the importance of continued attentiveness to standard diabetes care to avoid the need for hospitalization and emergency or urgent care visits,” says ISPAD, under the strapline: “Keep calm and mind your diabetes care.”

But it nevertheless stresses that these resources should be used “if needed.”
 

Worries that new-onset diabetes will be missed during COVID-19

Dr. Scaramuzza said in an interview that there also are concerns regarding delays in diagnoses of new cases of type 1 diabetes “due to the fear families have to go to the emergency department because of COVID-19.”

Indeed, in Italy, a few patients have arrived with very serious DKA, he said. Dr. Scaramuzza noted a colleague from Naples, Dario Iafusco, MD, and colleagues have made a video to keep awareness high regarding new-onset diabetes.

“This coronavirus pandemic can be defeated if you stay at home, but if you know of a child who has excessive thirst, frequent urination, or who starts vomiting,” seek health care advice immediately. “This child could have [type 1] diabetes. Prevent severe DKA, or worse, death,” Dr. Iafusco of the Regional Centre of Paediatric Diabetology G.Stoppoloni Via S. Andrea delle Dame, Naples, said in the video.

Physicians from China have similar observations, reporting to ISPAD several cases of delayed admissions of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes because hospital services were closed for non–COVID-19 care.
 

Keep calm and mind your diabetes care; physicians use telemedicine

Meanwhile, last week ISPAD issued guidance for young people with diabetes and their carers about what to do if COVID-19 infection is suspected.

Most advice is the same as for the general public because reports of COVID-19 infection suggest it is much less severe in children and adolescents, and the summary currently serves “as reassurance that youth with diabetes are not more affected by COVID-19 than peers,” it adds.

“Our approach to treating a child with diabetes would be to follow the ISPAD sick-day guidelines, which provide generalized diabetes management in any flu-like illness. We wouldn’t do anything very different right now,” one of the authors, Jamie Wood, MD, associate professor of clinical pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“Any illness makes diabetes more difficult to manage and can increase the risk of DKA,” she emphasized.

“We would reinforce frequent monitoring of blood glucose and ketone levels, to never stop insulin – in fact, when most people are ill, the body is stressed and requires more insulin – and to stay hydrated and treat the underlying symptoms.”

And make sure to “treat the fever,” she stressed. “When patients with type 1 diabetes get fever, they have a tendency to make more ketones, so we recommend aggressive control of fever.”

ISPAD recommends young people aim to keep blood glucose levels between 4 and 10 mmol/L (72-180 mg/dL) and blood ketones below 0.6 mmol/L (10.8 mg/dL) during illness and to never stop insulin.

Guidance is provided on when to seek urgent specialist advice with possible referral to emergency care, for example, in cases in which the patient has DKA symptoms, such as persistent and/or worsened fruity breath odor or vomiting.

Dr. Scaramuzza said in an interview that, in Italy, he and his colleagues have increased their use of telemedicine to keep monitoring their patients with diabetes even from a distance and that it was working very well.

“Technology – such as downloading [records from] insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring systems, and the possibility to use Skype or other platforms – really helps,” he noted.

“There has been a rapid increase in telehealth as a way to continue to care for youth with diabetes and decrease risk for infection,” said ISPAD.

“Communication between patients, families, and health care teams is vitally important. Methods to do so that avoid visits to clinics or hospitals can provide needed diabetes advice and reduce risk for COVID-19 transmission.”

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

Reports from pediatric endocrinologists in COVID-19 hot spots globally indicate that children, adolescents, and young adults with diabetes have so far not shown a different disease pattern with the virus compared to children and younger people who do not have diabetes.

Indeed, colleagues in Wuhan, China, and Italy “state they have not had cases of COVID-19 in children, adolescents, or young adults less than 25 years of age with diabetes who required hospitalization, to date [as of March 24]” according to a new statement from the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), which currently has about 1,300 members around the globe and has instituted a discussion forum about the topic of treating children with both diabetes and COVID-19.

“We find these reports [from colleagues around the world], though anecdotal, to be reassuring,” it notes. However, there are real worries regarding other potentially dangerous effects. ISPAD has expressed concern, for example, that the COVID-19 pandemic will prevent youngsters with existing diabetes who are having diabetic emergencies from seeking hospital care.

Chinese physicians have reported to ISPAD a number of cases of delayed hospital admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in children with known type 1 diabetes because hospital services were closed for non–COVID-19 care.

Andrea Scaramuzza, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Ospedale Maggiore di Cremona, Italy, has similarly reported multiple cases of patients presenting to emergency services there with severe DKA.

“These experiences reinforce the importance of continued attentiveness to standard diabetes care to avoid the need for hospitalization and emergency or urgent care visits,” says ISPAD, under the strapline: “Keep calm and mind your diabetes care.”

But it nevertheless stresses that these resources should be used “if needed.”
 

Worries that new-onset diabetes will be missed during COVID-19

Dr. Scaramuzza said in an interview that there also are concerns regarding delays in diagnoses of new cases of type 1 diabetes “due to the fear families have to go to the emergency department because of COVID-19.”

Indeed, in Italy, a few patients have arrived with very serious DKA, he said. Dr. Scaramuzza noted a colleague from Naples, Dario Iafusco, MD, and colleagues have made a video to keep awareness high regarding new-onset diabetes.

“This coronavirus pandemic can be defeated if you stay at home, but if you know of a child who has excessive thirst, frequent urination, or who starts vomiting,” seek health care advice immediately. “This child could have [type 1] diabetes. Prevent severe DKA, or worse, death,” Dr. Iafusco of the Regional Centre of Paediatric Diabetology G.Stoppoloni Via S. Andrea delle Dame, Naples, said in the video.

Physicians from China have similar observations, reporting to ISPAD several cases of delayed admissions of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes because hospital services were closed for non–COVID-19 care.
 

Keep calm and mind your diabetes care; physicians use telemedicine

Meanwhile, last week ISPAD issued guidance for young people with diabetes and their carers about what to do if COVID-19 infection is suspected.

Most advice is the same as for the general public because reports of COVID-19 infection suggest it is much less severe in children and adolescents, and the summary currently serves “as reassurance that youth with diabetes are not more affected by COVID-19 than peers,” it adds.

“Our approach to treating a child with diabetes would be to follow the ISPAD sick-day guidelines, which provide generalized diabetes management in any flu-like illness. We wouldn’t do anything very different right now,” one of the authors, Jamie Wood, MD, associate professor of clinical pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“Any illness makes diabetes more difficult to manage and can increase the risk of DKA,” she emphasized.

“We would reinforce frequent monitoring of blood glucose and ketone levels, to never stop insulin – in fact, when most people are ill, the body is stressed and requires more insulin – and to stay hydrated and treat the underlying symptoms.”

And make sure to “treat the fever,” she stressed. “When patients with type 1 diabetes get fever, they have a tendency to make more ketones, so we recommend aggressive control of fever.”

ISPAD recommends young people aim to keep blood glucose levels between 4 and 10 mmol/L (72-180 mg/dL) and blood ketones below 0.6 mmol/L (10.8 mg/dL) during illness and to never stop insulin.

Guidance is provided on when to seek urgent specialist advice with possible referral to emergency care, for example, in cases in which the patient has DKA symptoms, such as persistent and/or worsened fruity breath odor or vomiting.

Dr. Scaramuzza said in an interview that, in Italy, he and his colleagues have increased their use of telemedicine to keep monitoring their patients with diabetes even from a distance and that it was working very well.

“Technology – such as downloading [records from] insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring systems, and the possibility to use Skype or other platforms – really helps,” he noted.

“There has been a rapid increase in telehealth as a way to continue to care for youth with diabetes and decrease risk for infection,” said ISPAD.

“Communication between patients, families, and health care teams is vitally important. Methods to do so that avoid visits to clinics or hospitals can provide needed diabetes advice and reduce risk for COVID-19 transmission.”

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

Cancer surgeries may need to be delayed as hospitals are forced to allocate resources to a surge of COVID-19 patients, says the American College of Surgeons, as it issues a new set of recommendations in reaction to the crisis.

Most surgeons have already curtailed or have ceased to perform elective operations, the ACS notes, and recommends that surgeons continue to do so in order to preserve the necessary resources for care of critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new clinical guidance for elective surgical case triage during the pandemic includes recommendations for cancer surgery as well as for procedures that are specific to certain cancer types.

“These triage guidelines and joint recommendations are being issued as we appear to be entering a new phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with more hospitals facing a potential push beyond their resources to care for critically ill patients,” commented ACS Executive Director David B. Hoyt, MD, in a statement.

“ACS will continue to monitor the landscape for surgical care but we feel this guidance document provides a good foundation for surgeons to begin enacting these triage recommendations today to help them make the best decisions possible for their patients during COVID-19,” he said.

For cancer surgery, which is often not elective but essential to treatment, ACS has issued general guidance for triaging patients, taking into account the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation.

First, decisions about whether to proceed with elective surgeries must consider the available resources of local facilities. The parties responsible for preparing the facility to manage coronavirus patients should be sharing information at regular intervals about constraints on local resources, especially personal protective equipment (PPE), which is running low in many jurisdictions. For example, if an elective case has a high likelihood of needing postoperative ICU care, it is imperative to balance the risk of delay against the need of availability for patients with COVID-19.

Second, cancer care coordination should use virtual technologies as much as possible, and facilities with tumor boards may find it helpful to locate multidisciplinary experts by virtual means, to assist with decision making and establishing triage criteria.

Three Phases of Pandemic

The ACS has also organized decision making into three phases that reflect the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation:

• Phase I. Semi-Urgent Setting (Preparation Phase) – few COVID-19 patients, hospital resources not exhausted, institution still has ICU ventilator capacity and COVID-19 trajectory not in rapid escalation phase
• Phase II. Urgent Setting – many COVID-19 patients, ICU and ventilator capacity limited, operating room supplies limited
• Phase III. Hospital resources are all routed to COVID-19 patients, no ventilator or ICU capacity, operating room supplies exhausted; patients in whom death is likely within hours if surgery is deferred

Breast Cancer Surgery

The ACS also issued specific guidance for several tumor types, including guidance for breast cancer surgery.

For phase I, surgery should be restricted to patients who are likely to experience compromised survival if it is not performed within next 3 months. This includes patients completing neoadjuvant treatment, those with clinical stage T2 or N1 ERpos/PRpos/HER2-negative tumors, patients with triple negative or HER2-positive tumors, discordant biopsies that are likely to be malignant, and removal of a recurrent lesion.

Phase II would be restricted to patients whose survival is threatened if surgery is not performed within the next few days. These would include incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuating a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

In Phase III, surgical procedures would be restricted to patients who may not survive if surgery is not performed within a few hours. This includes incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuation of a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Guidance for colorectal cancer surgery is also split into the three phases of the pandemic.

Phase I would include cases needing surgical intervention as soon as feasible, while recognizing that the status of each hospital is likely to evolve over the next week or two. These patients would include those with nearly obstructing colon cancer or rectal cancer; cancers that require frequent transfusions; asymptomatic colon cancers; rectal cancers that do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiation; malignancies with a risk of local perforation and sepsis; and those with early stage rectal cancers that are not candidates for adjuvant therapy.

Phase II comprises patients needing surgery as soon as feasible, but recognizing that hospital status is likely to progress over the next few days. These cases include patients with a nearly obstructing colon cancer where stenting is not an option; those with nearly obstructing rectal cancer (should be diverted); cancers with high (inpatient) transfusion requirements; and cancers with pending evidence of local perforation and sepsis.

All colorectal procedures typically scheduled as routine should be delayed.

In Phase III, if the status of the facility is likely to progress within hours, the only surgery that should be performed would be for perforated, obstructed, or actively bleeding (inpatient transfusion dependent) cancers or those with sepsis. All other surgeries should be deferred.

Thoracic Cancer Surgery

Thoracic cancer surgery guidelines follow those for breast cancer. Phase I should be restricted to patients whose survival may be impacted if surgery is not performed within next 3 months. These include:

• Cases with solid or predominantly solid (>50%) lung cancer or presumed lung cancer (>2 cm), clinical node negative
• Node positive lung cancer
• Post-induction therapy cancer
• Esophageal cancer T1b or greater
• Chest wall tumors that are potentially aggressive and not manageable by alternative means
• Stenting for obstructing esophageal tumor
• Staging to start treatment (mediastinoscopy, diagnostic VATS for pleural dissemination)
• Symptomatic mediastinal tumors
• Patients who are enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials.

Phase II would permit surgery if survival will be impacted by a delay of a few days. These cases would include nonseptic perforated cancer of esophagus, a tumor-associated infection, and management of surgical complications in a hemodynamically stable patient.

All thoracic procedures considered to be routine/elective would be deferred.

Phase III restricts surgery to patients whose survival will be compromised if they do not undergo surgery within the next few hours. This group would include perforated cancer of esophagus in a septic patient, a patient with a threatened airway, sepsis associated with the cancer, and management of surgical complications in an unstable patient  (active bleeding that requires surgery, dehiscence of airway, anastomotic leak with sepsis).

All other cases would be deferred.

Other Cancer Types

Although the ACS doesn’t have specific guidelines for all cancer types, a few are included in their general recommendations for the specialty.

For gynecologic surgeries, ACS lists cancer or suspected cancer as indications where significantly delayed surgery could cause “significant harm.”

Delays, in general, are not recommended for neurosurgery, which would include brain cancers. In pediatrics, most cancer surgery is considered “urgent,” where a delay of days to weeks could prove detrimental to the patient. This would comprise all solid tumors, including the initial biopsy and resection following neoadjuvant therapy.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer surgeries may need to be delayed as hospitals are forced to allocate resources to a surge of COVID-19 patients, says the American College of Surgeons, as it issues a new set of recommendations in reaction to the crisis.

Most surgeons have already curtailed or have ceased to perform elective operations, the ACS notes, and recommends that surgeons continue to do so in order to preserve the necessary resources for care of critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new clinical guidance for elective surgical case triage during the pandemic includes recommendations for cancer surgery as well as for procedures that are specific to certain cancer types.

“These triage guidelines and joint recommendations are being issued as we appear to be entering a new phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with more hospitals facing a potential push beyond their resources to care for critically ill patients,” commented ACS Executive Director David B. Hoyt, MD, in a statement.

“ACS will continue to monitor the landscape for surgical care but we feel this guidance document provides a good foundation for surgeons to begin enacting these triage recommendations today to help them make the best decisions possible for their patients during COVID-19,” he said.

For cancer surgery, which is often not elective but essential to treatment, ACS has issued general guidance for triaging patients, taking into account the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation.

First, decisions about whether to proceed with elective surgeries must consider the available resources of local facilities. The parties responsible for preparing the facility to manage coronavirus patients should be sharing information at regular intervals about constraints on local resources, especially personal protective equipment (PPE), which is running low in many jurisdictions. For example, if an elective case has a high likelihood of needing postoperative ICU care, it is imperative to balance the risk of delay against the need of availability for patients with COVID-19.

Second, cancer care coordination should use virtual technologies as much as possible, and facilities with tumor boards may find it helpful to locate multidisciplinary experts by virtual means, to assist with decision making and establishing triage criteria.

Three Phases of Pandemic

The ACS has also organized decision making into three phases that reflect the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation:

• Phase I. Semi-Urgent Setting (Preparation Phase) – few COVID-19 patients, hospital resources not exhausted, institution still has ICU ventilator capacity and COVID-19 trajectory not in rapid escalation phase
• Phase II. Urgent Setting – many COVID-19 patients, ICU and ventilator capacity limited, operating room supplies limited
• Phase III. Hospital resources are all routed to COVID-19 patients, no ventilator or ICU capacity, operating room supplies exhausted; patients in whom death is likely within hours if surgery is deferred

Breast Cancer Surgery

The ACS also issued specific guidance for several tumor types, including guidance for breast cancer surgery.

For phase I, surgery should be restricted to patients who are likely to experience compromised survival if it is not performed within next 3 months. This includes patients completing neoadjuvant treatment, those with clinical stage T2 or N1 ERpos/PRpos/HER2-negative tumors, patients with triple negative or HER2-positive tumors, discordant biopsies that are likely to be malignant, and removal of a recurrent lesion.

Phase II would be restricted to patients whose survival is threatened if surgery is not performed within the next few days. These would include incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuating a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

In Phase III, surgical procedures would be restricted to patients who may not survive if surgery is not performed within a few hours. This includes incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuation of a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Guidance for colorectal cancer surgery is also split into the three phases of the pandemic.

Phase I would include cases needing surgical intervention as soon as feasible, while recognizing that the status of each hospital is likely to evolve over the next week or two. These patients would include those with nearly obstructing colon cancer or rectal cancer; cancers that require frequent transfusions; asymptomatic colon cancers; rectal cancers that do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiation; malignancies with a risk of local perforation and sepsis; and those with early stage rectal cancers that are not candidates for adjuvant therapy.

Phase II comprises patients needing surgery as soon as feasible, but recognizing that hospital status is likely to progress over the next few days. These cases include patients with a nearly obstructing colon cancer where stenting is not an option; those with nearly obstructing rectal cancer (should be diverted); cancers with high (inpatient) transfusion requirements; and cancers with pending evidence of local perforation and sepsis.

All colorectal procedures typically scheduled as routine should be delayed.

In Phase III, if the status of the facility is likely to progress within hours, the only surgery that should be performed would be for perforated, obstructed, or actively bleeding (inpatient transfusion dependent) cancers or those with sepsis. All other surgeries should be deferred.

Thoracic Cancer Surgery

Thoracic cancer surgery guidelines follow those for breast cancer. Phase I should be restricted to patients whose survival may be impacted if surgery is not performed within next 3 months. These include:

• Cases with solid or predominantly solid (>50%) lung cancer or presumed lung cancer (>2 cm), clinical node negative
• Node positive lung cancer
• Post-induction therapy cancer
• Esophageal cancer T1b or greater
• Chest wall tumors that are potentially aggressive and not manageable by alternative means
• Stenting for obstructing esophageal tumor
• Staging to start treatment (mediastinoscopy, diagnostic VATS for pleural dissemination)
• Symptomatic mediastinal tumors
• Patients who are enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials.

Phase II would permit surgery if survival will be impacted by a delay of a few days. These cases would include nonseptic perforated cancer of esophagus, a tumor-associated infection, and management of surgical complications in a hemodynamically stable patient.

All thoracic procedures considered to be routine/elective would be deferred.

Phase III restricts surgery to patients whose survival will be compromised if they do not undergo surgery within the next few hours. This group would include perforated cancer of esophagus in a septic patient, a patient with a threatened airway, sepsis associated with the cancer, and management of surgical complications in an unstable patient  (active bleeding that requires surgery, dehiscence of airway, anastomotic leak with sepsis).

All other cases would be deferred.

Other Cancer Types

Although the ACS doesn’t have specific guidelines for all cancer types, a few are included in their general recommendations for the specialty.

For gynecologic surgeries, ACS lists cancer or suspected cancer as indications where significantly delayed surgery could cause “significant harm.”

Delays, in general, are not recommended for neurosurgery, which would include brain cancers. In pediatrics, most cancer surgery is considered “urgent,” where a delay of days to weeks could prove detrimental to the patient. This would comprise all solid tumors, including the initial biopsy and resection following neoadjuvant therapy.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer surgeries may need to be delayed as hospitals are forced to allocate resources to a surge of COVID-19 patients, says the American College of Surgeons, as it issues a new set of recommendations in reaction to the crisis.

Most surgeons have already curtailed or have ceased to perform elective operations, the ACS notes, and recommends that surgeons continue to do so in order to preserve the necessary resources for care of critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new clinical guidance for elective surgical case triage during the pandemic includes recommendations for cancer surgery as well as for procedures that are specific to certain cancer types.

“These triage guidelines and joint recommendations are being issued as we appear to be entering a new phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with more hospitals facing a potential push beyond their resources to care for critically ill patients,” commented ACS Executive Director David B. Hoyt, MD, in a statement.

“ACS will continue to monitor the landscape for surgical care but we feel this guidance document provides a good foundation for surgeons to begin enacting these triage recommendations today to help them make the best decisions possible for their patients during COVID-19,” he said.

For cancer surgery, which is often not elective but essential to treatment, ACS has issued general guidance for triaging patients, taking into account the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation.

First, decisions about whether to proceed with elective surgeries must consider the available resources of local facilities. The parties responsible for preparing the facility to manage coronavirus patients should be sharing information at regular intervals about constraints on local resources, especially personal protective equipment (PPE), which is running low in many jurisdictions. For example, if an elective case has a high likelihood of needing postoperative ICU care, it is imperative to balance the risk of delay against the need of availability for patients with COVID-19.

Second, cancer care coordination should use virtual technologies as much as possible, and facilities with tumor boards may find it helpful to locate multidisciplinary experts by virtual means, to assist with decision making and establishing triage criteria.

Three Phases of Pandemic

The ACS has also organized decision making into three phases that reflect the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation:

• Phase I. Semi-Urgent Setting (Preparation Phase) – few COVID-19 patients, hospital resources not exhausted, institution still has ICU ventilator capacity and COVID-19 trajectory not in rapid escalation phase
• Phase II. Urgent Setting – many COVID-19 patients, ICU and ventilator capacity limited, operating room supplies limited
• Phase III. Hospital resources are all routed to COVID-19 patients, no ventilator or ICU capacity, operating room supplies exhausted; patients in whom death is likely within hours if surgery is deferred

Breast Cancer Surgery

The ACS also issued specific guidance for several tumor types, including guidance for breast cancer surgery.

For phase I, surgery should be restricted to patients who are likely to experience compromised survival if it is not performed within next 3 months. This includes patients completing neoadjuvant treatment, those with clinical stage T2 or N1 ERpos/PRpos/HER2-negative tumors, patients with triple negative or HER2-positive tumors, discordant biopsies that are likely to be malignant, and removal of a recurrent lesion.

Phase II would be restricted to patients whose survival is threatened if surgery is not performed within the next few days. These would include incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuating a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

In Phase III, surgical procedures would be restricted to patients who may not survive if surgery is not performed within a few hours. This includes incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuation of a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Guidance for colorectal cancer surgery is also split into the three phases of the pandemic.

Phase I would include cases needing surgical intervention as soon as feasible, while recognizing that the status of each hospital is likely to evolve over the next week or two. These patients would include those with nearly obstructing colon cancer or rectal cancer; cancers that require frequent transfusions; asymptomatic colon cancers; rectal cancers that do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiation; malignancies with a risk of local perforation and sepsis; and those with early stage rectal cancers that are not candidates for adjuvant therapy.

Phase II comprises patients needing surgery as soon as feasible, but recognizing that hospital status is likely to progress over the next few days. These cases include patients with a nearly obstructing colon cancer where stenting is not an option; those with nearly obstructing rectal cancer (should be diverted); cancers with high (inpatient) transfusion requirements; and cancers with pending evidence of local perforation and sepsis.

All colorectal procedures typically scheduled as routine should be delayed.

In Phase III, if the status of the facility is likely to progress within hours, the only surgery that should be performed would be for perforated, obstructed, or actively bleeding (inpatient transfusion dependent) cancers or those with sepsis. All other surgeries should be deferred.

Thoracic Cancer Surgery

Thoracic cancer surgery guidelines follow those for breast cancer. Phase I should be restricted to patients whose survival may be impacted if surgery is not performed within next 3 months. These include:

• Cases with solid or predominantly solid (>50%) lung cancer or presumed lung cancer (>2 cm), clinical node negative
• Node positive lung cancer
• Post-induction therapy cancer
• Esophageal cancer T1b or greater
• Chest wall tumors that are potentially aggressive and not manageable by alternative means
• Stenting for obstructing esophageal tumor
• Staging to start treatment (mediastinoscopy, diagnostic VATS for pleural dissemination)
• Symptomatic mediastinal tumors
• Patients who are enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials.

Phase II would permit surgery if survival will be impacted by a delay of a few days. These cases would include nonseptic perforated cancer of esophagus, a tumor-associated infection, and management of surgical complications in a hemodynamically stable patient.

All thoracic procedures considered to be routine/elective would be deferred.

Phase III restricts surgery to patients whose survival will be compromised if they do not undergo surgery within the next few hours. This group would include perforated cancer of esophagus in a septic patient, a patient with a threatened airway, sepsis associated with the cancer, and management of surgical complications in an unstable patient  (active bleeding that requires surgery, dehiscence of airway, anastomotic leak with sepsis).

All other cases would be deferred.

Other Cancer Types

Although the ACS doesn’t have specific guidelines for all cancer types, a few are included in their general recommendations for the specialty.

For gynecologic surgeries, ACS lists cancer or suspected cancer as indications where significantly delayed surgery could cause “significant harm.”

Delays, in general, are not recommended for neurosurgery, which would include brain cancers. In pediatrics, most cancer surgery is considered “urgent,” where a delay of days to weeks could prove detrimental to the patient. This would comprise all solid tumors, including the initial biopsy and resection following neoadjuvant therapy.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – Among women with twin pregnancy and a short cervix, the Arabin cervical pessary did not significantly affect the likelihood of preterm birth or a composite measure of adverse neonatal outcomes, according to a randomized, open-label study.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“The Arabin pessary should not be used to prevent preterm birth in women with twin pregnancy,” Jane E. Norman, MD, dean of health sciences at the University of Bristol (England), said at the Pregnancy Meeting.

“Preterm birth is very common in twin pregnancy” and leads to “excess neonatal mortality amongst twins,” Dr. Norman said at the meeting, which is sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. “Preventing preterm birth is important for both singletons and twins, but it could have even more benefits in twins.”

Emerging evidence has suggested that the Arabin cervical pessary may be useful for the prevention of preterm birth in women with singleton pregnancy and a short cervix. In twin pregnancy, data are more limited.

The ProTwin study randomized 813 women with twin pregnancy to a cervical pessary or standard care. Although the pessary had no impact on preterm birth overall, among women with cervical length of less than 38 mm, those who received a pessary were less likely to have preterm birth. The sample size was small, however, and the average length of the cervix in ProTwin differed from that in a previous U.K. study, Dr. Norman said.

Inspired by the study, Dr. Norman and coinvestigators conducted STOPPIT-2, a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial to further study whether a certain cervical length threshold was associated with benefit of a cervical pessary in preventing preterm birth. The trial included women with twin pregnancy who had a cervical length ultrasound between 18 and 20 weeks and 6 days of gestation. Women with a cervical length of 35 mm or less were eligible for randomization. Patients received an Arabin pessary plus standard care or standard care alone.

The primary obstetric outcome was spontaneous onset of labor leading to delivery before 34 weeks and 6 days of gestation. The primary neonatal outcome was a composite of outcomes – stillbirth, neonatal death, periventricular leukomalacia, respiratory morbidity, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, or sepsis – measured up to 28 days after the expected date of delivery.

The investigators randomized 503 women in all, including 250 to the pessary and 253 to standard care. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics, Dr. Norman said. The average age was about 33 years, and the average cervical length was about 29 mm. A total of 20% had monochorionic diamniotic pregnancies, and 80% had dichorionic pregnancies. The researchers excluded women with monochorionic monoamniotic pregnancies. In the pessary group, 16 patients declined the intervention, and 4 were unable to have the pessary inserted.

Spontaneous preterm birth occurred in 18% of patients in the Arabin pessary group, compared with 21% in the standard treatment group. The adjusted odds ratio, 0.87, was not statistically significant. In subgroups of patients with monochorionic pregnancy, cervical length less than 28 mm, or cervical length less than 25 mm, there was no significant benefit.

The composite measure of adverse neonatal outcomes also did not significantly differ between the groups. None of the individual components indicated benefit of the pessary either, Dr. Norman said.

In subgroup analyses, odds ratios for adverse neonatal outcomes were “tending towards harm for the Arabin pessary group ... although clearly none of them conferring statistical significance,” she said. Among women with cervical length less than 28 mm, a primary neonatal outcome – at least one of the adverse outcomes – occurred in 23% of patients in the Arabin pessary group, compared with 20% of patients in the standard care group.

Approximately two-thirds of patients found pessary insertion painless or slightly uncomfortable, whereas about 10% described the experience of device fitting as very uncomfortable, and about 1% described it as the worse pain imaginable.

“Since we started STOPPIT-2, in addition to ProTwin, another three studies have been published on the efficacy of the Arabin pessary in twins,” said Dr. Norman. Combined data show no significant effect of the pessary on preventing preterm birth in twin pregnancy. Still, the meta-analysis does not rule out the possibility that there could subgroups of patients who may benefit from the intervention, Dr. Norman said.

STOPPIT-2 was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in the United Kingdom. Dr. Norman chaired the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on preterm labor and birth in 2015. In addition, Dr. Norman was a member of a GlaxoSmithKline data safety and monitoring group for a trial of a preterm birth prevention agent, has consulted for Dilafor, and has received research grants for preterm birth prevention from the U.K. Medical Research Council, NIHR, and Tommy’s: Together, for every baby charity.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Norman JE et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S756. Abstract LB 1.


 

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – Among women with twin pregnancy and a short cervix, the Arabin cervical pessary did not significantly affect the likelihood of preterm birth or a composite measure of adverse neonatal outcomes, according to a randomized, open-label study.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“The Arabin pessary should not be used to prevent preterm birth in women with twin pregnancy,” Jane E. Norman, MD, dean of health sciences at the University of Bristol (England), said at the Pregnancy Meeting.

“Preterm birth is very common in twin pregnancy” and leads to “excess neonatal mortality amongst twins,” Dr. Norman said at the meeting, which is sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. “Preventing preterm birth is important for both singletons and twins, but it could have even more benefits in twins.”

Emerging evidence has suggested that the Arabin cervical pessary may be useful for the prevention of preterm birth in women with singleton pregnancy and a short cervix. In twin pregnancy, data are more limited.

The ProTwin study randomized 813 women with twin pregnancy to a cervical pessary or standard care. Although the pessary had no impact on preterm birth overall, among women with cervical length of less than 38 mm, those who received a pessary were less likely to have preterm birth. The sample size was small, however, and the average length of the cervix in ProTwin differed from that in a previous U.K. study, Dr. Norman said.

Inspired by the study, Dr. Norman and coinvestigators conducted STOPPIT-2, a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial to further study whether a certain cervical length threshold was associated with benefit of a cervical pessary in preventing preterm birth. The trial included women with twin pregnancy who had a cervical length ultrasound between 18 and 20 weeks and 6 days of gestation. Women with a cervical length of 35 mm or less were eligible for randomization. Patients received an Arabin pessary plus standard care or standard care alone.

The primary obstetric outcome was spontaneous onset of labor leading to delivery before 34 weeks and 6 days of gestation. The primary neonatal outcome was a composite of outcomes – stillbirth, neonatal death, periventricular leukomalacia, respiratory morbidity, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, or sepsis – measured up to 28 days after the expected date of delivery.

The investigators randomized 503 women in all, including 250 to the pessary and 253 to standard care. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics, Dr. Norman said. The average age was about 33 years, and the average cervical length was about 29 mm. A total of 20% had monochorionic diamniotic pregnancies, and 80% had dichorionic pregnancies. The researchers excluded women with monochorionic monoamniotic pregnancies. In the pessary group, 16 patients declined the intervention, and 4 were unable to have the pessary inserted.

Spontaneous preterm birth occurred in 18% of patients in the Arabin pessary group, compared with 21% in the standard treatment group. The adjusted odds ratio, 0.87, was not statistically significant. In subgroups of patients with monochorionic pregnancy, cervical length less than 28 mm, or cervical length less than 25 mm, there was no significant benefit.

The composite measure of adverse neonatal outcomes also did not significantly differ between the groups. None of the individual components indicated benefit of the pessary either, Dr. Norman said.

In subgroup analyses, odds ratios for adverse neonatal outcomes were “tending towards harm for the Arabin pessary group ... although clearly none of them conferring statistical significance,” she said. Among women with cervical length less than 28 mm, a primary neonatal outcome – at least one of the adverse outcomes – occurred in 23% of patients in the Arabin pessary group, compared with 20% of patients in the standard care group.

Approximately two-thirds of patients found pessary insertion painless or slightly uncomfortable, whereas about 10% described the experience of device fitting as very uncomfortable, and about 1% described it as the worse pain imaginable.

“Since we started STOPPIT-2, in addition to ProTwin, another three studies have been published on the efficacy of the Arabin pessary in twins,” said Dr. Norman. Combined data show no significant effect of the pessary on preventing preterm birth in twin pregnancy. Still, the meta-analysis does not rule out the possibility that there could subgroups of patients who may benefit from the intervention, Dr. Norman said.

STOPPIT-2 was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in the United Kingdom. Dr. Norman chaired the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on preterm labor and birth in 2015. In addition, Dr. Norman was a member of a GlaxoSmithKline data safety and monitoring group for a trial of a preterm birth prevention agent, has consulted for Dilafor, and has received research grants for preterm birth prevention from the U.K. Medical Research Council, NIHR, and Tommy’s: Together, for every baby charity.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Norman JE et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S756. Abstract LB 1.


 

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – Among women with twin pregnancy and a short cervix, the Arabin cervical pessary did not significantly affect the likelihood of preterm birth or a composite measure of adverse neonatal outcomes, according to a randomized, open-label study.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“The Arabin pessary should not be used to prevent preterm birth in women with twin pregnancy,” Jane E. Norman, MD, dean of health sciences at the University of Bristol (England), said at the Pregnancy Meeting.

“Preterm birth is very common in twin pregnancy” and leads to “excess neonatal mortality amongst twins,” Dr. Norman said at the meeting, which is sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. “Preventing preterm birth is important for both singletons and twins, but it could have even more benefits in twins.”

Emerging evidence has suggested that the Arabin cervical pessary may be useful for the prevention of preterm birth in women with singleton pregnancy and a short cervix. In twin pregnancy, data are more limited.

The ProTwin study randomized 813 women with twin pregnancy to a cervical pessary or standard care. Although the pessary had no impact on preterm birth overall, among women with cervical length of less than 38 mm, those who received a pessary were less likely to have preterm birth. The sample size was small, however, and the average length of the cervix in ProTwin differed from that in a previous U.K. study, Dr. Norman said.

Inspired by the study, Dr. Norman and coinvestigators conducted STOPPIT-2, a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial to further study whether a certain cervical length threshold was associated with benefit of a cervical pessary in preventing preterm birth. The trial included women with twin pregnancy who had a cervical length ultrasound between 18 and 20 weeks and 6 days of gestation. Women with a cervical length of 35 mm or less were eligible for randomization. Patients received an Arabin pessary plus standard care or standard care alone.

The primary obstetric outcome was spontaneous onset of labor leading to delivery before 34 weeks and 6 days of gestation. The primary neonatal outcome was a composite of outcomes – stillbirth, neonatal death, periventricular leukomalacia, respiratory morbidity, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, or sepsis – measured up to 28 days after the expected date of delivery.

The investigators randomized 503 women in all, including 250 to the pessary and 253 to standard care. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics, Dr. Norman said. The average age was about 33 years, and the average cervical length was about 29 mm. A total of 20% had monochorionic diamniotic pregnancies, and 80% had dichorionic pregnancies. The researchers excluded women with monochorionic monoamniotic pregnancies. In the pessary group, 16 patients declined the intervention, and 4 were unable to have the pessary inserted.

Spontaneous preterm birth occurred in 18% of patients in the Arabin pessary group, compared with 21% in the standard treatment group. The adjusted odds ratio, 0.87, was not statistically significant. In subgroups of patients with monochorionic pregnancy, cervical length less than 28 mm, or cervical length less than 25 mm, there was no significant benefit.

The composite measure of adverse neonatal outcomes also did not significantly differ between the groups. None of the individual components indicated benefit of the pessary either, Dr. Norman said.

In subgroup analyses, odds ratios for adverse neonatal outcomes were “tending towards harm for the Arabin pessary group ... although clearly none of them conferring statistical significance,” she said. Among women with cervical length less than 28 mm, a primary neonatal outcome – at least one of the adverse outcomes – occurred in 23% of patients in the Arabin pessary group, compared with 20% of patients in the standard care group.

Approximately two-thirds of patients found pessary insertion painless or slightly uncomfortable, whereas about 10% described the experience of device fitting as very uncomfortable, and about 1% described it as the worse pain imaginable.

“Since we started STOPPIT-2, in addition to ProTwin, another three studies have been published on the efficacy of the Arabin pessary in twins,” said Dr. Norman. Combined data show no significant effect of the pessary on preventing preterm birth in twin pregnancy. Still, the meta-analysis does not rule out the possibility that there could subgroups of patients who may benefit from the intervention, Dr. Norman said.

STOPPIT-2 was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in the United Kingdom. Dr. Norman chaired the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on preterm labor and birth in 2015. In addition, Dr. Norman was a member of a GlaxoSmithKline data safety and monitoring group for a trial of a preterm birth prevention agent, has consulted for Dilafor, and has received research grants for preterm birth prevention from the U.K. Medical Research Council, NIHR, and Tommy’s: Together, for every baby charity.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Norman JE et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S756. Abstract LB 1.


 

In about 7% of people with confirmed novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and 22% of the critically ill, the virus injures the heart, probably by either attacking it directly or causing a cytokine storm that leads to myocyte apoptosis, according to a report from the Columbia University Division of Cardiology in New York.

Reports from China document patients presenting with palpitations and chest pain without the typical fever and cough. Among those affected, acute myocardial injury is either apparent at presentation or develops after hospitalization.

The exact mechanism of injury is uncertain, but for now, “it appears that the incidence of fulminant myocarditis and profound cardiogenic shock is low; however, the rate of recovery and mode of treatment are yet to be determined,” wrote authors led by Kevin Clerkin, MD, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Columbia.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) might be prognostic. In one Chinese study of hospitalized patients, median hs-cTnI levels were 2.5 pg/mL in survivors on day 4 of symptoms and did not change significantly during follow-up. Among people who died, day 4 hs-cTnI was 8.8 pg/mL and climbed to 290.6 pg/mL by day 22.

“The rise in hs-cTnI tracks with other inflammatory biomarkers ... raising the possibility that this reflects cytokine storm or secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis more than isolated myocardial injury,” Dr. Clerkin and colleagues wrote.

But there are also acute heart injury reports out of China, including one man who presented with chest pain and ST-segment elevation, but no coronary obstruction, and another who presented with fulminant myocarditis in addition to severe respiratory manifestations, but with no cardiac history.

Both had depressed left ventricular ejection fractions, enlarged left ventricles, and elevated cardiac biomarkers, and both responded to intravenous immunoglobulin and steroids, among other treatments.

Amid a surge of COVID-19 cases at Columbia, “we have seen both forms of cardiac presentations: those presenting with cardiac predominant symptoms (none have had true [ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions] yet, but most fall in the myopericarditis group), some of which have required mechanical circulatory support, and those who seem to have secondary myocardial injury with globally elevated inflammatory biomarkers (e.g., ferritin, interleukin-6, lactate dehydrogenase, hs-cTnI, and D-dimer),” Dr. Clerkin said in an interview.

“We are discussing each of these cases in a multidisciplinary fashion with our infectious disease, pulmonary, interventional cardiology, and cardiac surgery colleagues to try to make the best decision based on what we know and as our knowledge evolves,” he said.

The exact cardiac effect of COVID-19 is unknown for now, but it is known already that it rides along with cardiovascular issues. There’s a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and diagnosed cardiovascular disease among patients, but it’s unclear at this point if it’s because the virus favors older people who happen to be more likely to have those problems or if it attacks people with those conditions preferentially.

It might be the latter. The virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), invades cells through angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) 2 receptors, which are highly expressed in the heart.

That raises the question of whether ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers might help. However, “at this time, nearly all major societies have recommended against adding or stopping ... antagonists in this setting, unless done on clinical grounds independently of COVID-19, given the lack of evidence,” Dr. Clerkin and his colleagues wrote.

As for heart transplants, the current thinking is to continue them without changes in immunosuppression so long as recipients test negative and haven’t been around anyone who has tested positive for a month. If a donor had COVID-19, they should have been free of the virus by polymerase chain reaction for at least 14 days. The concern is that it might be in the donor heart.

If transplant patients come down with COVID-19, the “data to date [indicate that management] is supportive care and continuation of immunosuppression for mild COVID-19 with reduction of the antimetabolite (mycophenolate or azathioprine), and further treatment based on disease severity and drug availability. Notably, one potential treatment option for COVID-19 is protease inhibitors,” the authors said, but it’s important to remember that they will increase the levels of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and other calcineurin inhibitor transplant drugs.

At Columbia, “our processes have been adjusted” for heart transplants. “For instance, non-urgent testing (pre- and post-transplant) has been tabled, we have predominantly shifted to noninvasive screening for rejection, and each potential transplant requires more scrutiny for urgency, donor screening/risk for COVID-19, and perioperative management,” Dr. Clerkin said in the interview.

A study out of Wuhan, China, the outbreak epicenter, was reassuring. It found that routine prevention efforts were enough to protect heart transplant patients.

There was no funding, and the authors had no disclosures.