Rheumatology News

Convalescent plasma may not prevent progression to severe disease or reduce mortality risk in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19, based on a phase 2 trial involving more than 400 patients in India.

The PLACID trial offers real-world data with “high generalizability,” according to lead author Anup Agarwal, MD, of the Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“Evidence suggests that convalescent plasma collected from survivors of COVID-19 contains receptor binding domain specific antibodies with potent antiviral activity,” the investigators wrote in the BMJ. “However, effective titers of antiviral neutralizing antibodies, optimal timing for convalescent plasma treatment, optimal timing for plasma donation, and the severity class of patients who are likely to benefit from convalescent plasma remain unclear.”

According to Dr. Agarwal and colleagues, case series and observational studies have suggested that convalescent plasma may reduce viral load, hospital stay, and mortality, but randomized controlled trials to date have ended prematurely because of issues with enrollment and design, making PLACID the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to reach completion.

The open-label, multicenter study involved 464 hospitalized adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Enrollment also required a respiratory rate of more than 24 breaths/min with an oxygen saturation (SpO₂) of 93% or less on room air, or a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂ /FiO₂ ) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either best standard of care (control), or best standard of care plus convalescent plasma, which was given in two doses of 200 mL, 24 hours apart. Patients were assessed via clinical examination, chest imaging, and serial laboratory testing, the latter of which included neutralizing antibody titers on days 0, 3, and 7.

The primary outcome was a 28-day composite of progression to severe disease (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio < 100 mm Hg) and all-cause mortality. An array of secondary outcomes were also reported, including symptom resolution, total duration of respiratory support, change in oxygen requirement, and others.

In the convalescent plasma group, 19% of patients progressed to severe disease or died within 28 days, compared with 18% of those in the control group (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.54), suggesting no statistically significant benefit from the intervention. This lack of benefit was also found in a subgroup analysis of patients with detectable titers of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, and when progression to severe disease and all-cause mortality were analyzed independently across all patients.

Still, at day 7, patients treated with convalescent plasma were significantly more likely to have resolution of fatigue (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42) and shortness of breath (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32). And at the same time point, patients treated with convalescent plasma were 20% more likely to test negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.04-1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth B. Pathak, PhD, of the Women’s Institute for Independent Social Enquiry, Olney, Md., suggested that the reported symptom improvements need to be viewed with skepticism.

“These results should be interpreted with caution, because the trial was not blinded, so knowledge of treatment status could have influenced the reporting of subjective symptoms by patients who survived to day 7,” Dr. Pathak wrote.

Dr. Pathak noted that convalescent plasma did appear to have an antiviral effect, based on the higher rate of negative RNA test results at day 7. She hypothesized that the lack of major corresponding clinical benefit could be explained by detrimental thrombotic processes.

“The net effect of plasma is prothrombotic,” Dr. Pathak wrote, which should raise safety concerns, since “COVID-19 is a life-threatening thrombotic disorder.”

According to Dr. Pathak, large-scale datasets may be giving a false sense of security. She cited a recent safety analysis of 20,000 U.S. patients who received convalescent plasma, in which the investigators excluded 88.2% of cardiac events and 66.3% of thrombotic events, as these were deemed unrelated to transfusion; but this decision was made by the treating physician, without independent review or a defined protocol.

Michael J. Joyner, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., was the lead author of the above safety study, and is leading the Food and Drug Administration expanded access program for convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19. He suggested that the study by Dr. Agarwal and colleagues was admirable, but flaws in the treatment protocol cast doubt upon the efficacy findings.

“It is very impressive that these investigators performed a large trial of convalescent plasma in the midst of a pandemic,” Dr. Joyner said. “Unfortunately it is unclear how generalizable the findings are because many of the units of plasma had either very low or no antibody titers and because the plasma was given late in the course of the disease. It has been known since at least the 1930s that antibody therapy works best when enough product is given either prophylactically or early in the course of disease.”

Dr. Joyner had a more positive interpretation of the reported symptom improvements.

“It is also interesting to note that while there was no mortality benefit, that – even with the limitations of the study – there was some evidence of improved patient physiology at 7 days,” he said. “So, at one level, [this is] a negative study, but at least [there are] some hints of efficacy given the suboptimal use case in the patients studied.”

The study was funded by the Indian Council of Medical Research, which employs several of the authors and PLACID Trial Collaborators. Dr. Pathak and Dr. Joyner reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Agarwal A et al. BMJ. 2020 Oct 23. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3939 .

Convalescent plasma may not prevent progression to severe disease or reduce mortality risk in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19, based on a phase 2 trial involving more than 400 patients in India.

The PLACID trial offers real-world data with “high generalizability,” according to lead author Anup Agarwal, MD, of the Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“Evidence suggests that convalescent plasma collected from survivors of COVID-19 contains receptor binding domain specific antibodies with potent antiviral activity,” the investigators wrote in the BMJ. “However, effective titers of antiviral neutralizing antibodies, optimal timing for convalescent plasma treatment, optimal timing for plasma donation, and the severity class of patients who are likely to benefit from convalescent plasma remain unclear.”

According to Dr. Agarwal and colleagues, case series and observational studies have suggested that convalescent plasma may reduce viral load, hospital stay, and mortality, but randomized controlled trials to date have ended prematurely because of issues with enrollment and design, making PLACID the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to reach completion.

The open-label, multicenter study involved 464 hospitalized adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Enrollment also required a respiratory rate of more than 24 breaths/min with an oxygen saturation (SpO₂) of 93% or less on room air, or a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂ /FiO₂ ) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either best standard of care (control), or best standard of care plus convalescent plasma, which was given in two doses of 200 mL, 24 hours apart. Patients were assessed via clinical examination, chest imaging, and serial laboratory testing, the latter of which included neutralizing antibody titers on days 0, 3, and 7.

The primary outcome was a 28-day composite of progression to severe disease (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio < 100 mm Hg) and all-cause mortality. An array of secondary outcomes were also reported, including symptom resolution, total duration of respiratory support, change in oxygen requirement, and others.

In the convalescent plasma group, 19% of patients progressed to severe disease or died within 28 days, compared with 18% of those in the control group (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.54), suggesting no statistically significant benefit from the intervention. This lack of benefit was also found in a subgroup analysis of patients with detectable titers of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, and when progression to severe disease and all-cause mortality were analyzed independently across all patients.

Still, at day 7, patients treated with convalescent plasma were significantly more likely to have resolution of fatigue (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42) and shortness of breath (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32). And at the same time point, patients treated with convalescent plasma were 20% more likely to test negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.04-1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth B. Pathak, PhD, of the Women’s Institute for Independent Social Enquiry, Olney, Md., suggested that the reported symptom improvements need to be viewed with skepticism.

“These results should be interpreted with caution, because the trial was not blinded, so knowledge of treatment status could have influenced the reporting of subjective symptoms by patients who survived to day 7,” Dr. Pathak wrote.

Dr. Pathak noted that convalescent plasma did appear to have an antiviral effect, based on the higher rate of negative RNA test results at day 7. She hypothesized that the lack of major corresponding clinical benefit could be explained by detrimental thrombotic processes.

“The net effect of plasma is prothrombotic,” Dr. Pathak wrote, which should raise safety concerns, since “COVID-19 is a life-threatening thrombotic disorder.”

According to Dr. Pathak, large-scale datasets may be giving a false sense of security. She cited a recent safety analysis of 20,000 U.S. patients who received convalescent plasma, in which the investigators excluded 88.2% of cardiac events and 66.3% of thrombotic events, as these were deemed unrelated to transfusion; but this decision was made by the treating physician, without independent review or a defined protocol.

Michael J. Joyner, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., was the lead author of the above safety study, and is leading the Food and Drug Administration expanded access program for convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19. He suggested that the study by Dr. Agarwal and colleagues was admirable, but flaws in the treatment protocol cast doubt upon the efficacy findings.

“It is very impressive that these investigators performed a large trial of convalescent plasma in the midst of a pandemic,” Dr. Joyner said. “Unfortunately it is unclear how generalizable the findings are because many of the units of plasma had either very low or no antibody titers and because the plasma was given late in the course of the disease. It has been known since at least the 1930s that antibody therapy works best when enough product is given either prophylactically or early in the course of disease.”

Dr. Joyner had a more positive interpretation of the reported symptom improvements.

“It is also interesting to note that while there was no mortality benefit, that – even with the limitations of the study – there was some evidence of improved patient physiology at 7 days,” he said. “So, at one level, [this is] a negative study, but at least [there are] some hints of efficacy given the suboptimal use case in the patients studied.”

The study was funded by the Indian Council of Medical Research, which employs several of the authors and PLACID Trial Collaborators. Dr. Pathak and Dr. Joyner reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Agarwal A et al. BMJ. 2020 Oct 23. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3939 .

Convalescent plasma may not prevent progression to severe disease or reduce mortality risk in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19, based on a phase 2 trial involving more than 400 patients in India.

The PLACID trial offers real-world data with “high generalizability,” according to lead author Anup Agarwal, MD, of the Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“Evidence suggests that convalescent plasma collected from survivors of COVID-19 contains receptor binding domain specific antibodies with potent antiviral activity,” the investigators wrote in the BMJ. “However, effective titers of antiviral neutralizing antibodies, optimal timing for convalescent plasma treatment, optimal timing for plasma donation, and the severity class of patients who are likely to benefit from convalescent plasma remain unclear.”

According to Dr. Agarwal and colleagues, case series and observational studies have suggested that convalescent plasma may reduce viral load, hospital stay, and mortality, but randomized controlled trials to date have ended prematurely because of issues with enrollment and design, making PLACID the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to reach completion.

The open-label, multicenter study involved 464 hospitalized adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Enrollment also required a respiratory rate of more than 24 breaths/min with an oxygen saturation (SpO₂) of 93% or less on room air, or a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂ /FiO₂ ) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either best standard of care (control), or best standard of care plus convalescent plasma, which was given in two doses of 200 mL, 24 hours apart. Patients were assessed via clinical examination, chest imaging, and serial laboratory testing, the latter of which included neutralizing antibody titers on days 0, 3, and 7.

The primary outcome was a 28-day composite of progression to severe disease (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio < 100 mm Hg) and all-cause mortality. An array of secondary outcomes were also reported, including symptom resolution, total duration of respiratory support, change in oxygen requirement, and others.

In the convalescent plasma group, 19% of patients progressed to severe disease or died within 28 days, compared with 18% of those in the control group (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.54), suggesting no statistically significant benefit from the intervention. This lack of benefit was also found in a subgroup analysis of patients with detectable titers of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, and when progression to severe disease and all-cause mortality were analyzed independently across all patients.

Still, at day 7, patients treated with convalescent plasma were significantly more likely to have resolution of fatigue (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42) and shortness of breath (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32). And at the same time point, patients treated with convalescent plasma were 20% more likely to test negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.04-1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth B. Pathak, PhD, of the Women’s Institute for Independent Social Enquiry, Olney, Md., suggested that the reported symptom improvements need to be viewed with skepticism.

“These results should be interpreted with caution, because the trial was not blinded, so knowledge of treatment status could have influenced the reporting of subjective symptoms by patients who survived to day 7,” Dr. Pathak wrote.

Dr. Pathak noted that convalescent plasma did appear to have an antiviral effect, based on the higher rate of negative RNA test results at day 7. She hypothesized that the lack of major corresponding clinical benefit could be explained by detrimental thrombotic processes.

“The net effect of plasma is prothrombotic,” Dr. Pathak wrote, which should raise safety concerns, since “COVID-19 is a life-threatening thrombotic disorder.”

According to Dr. Pathak, large-scale datasets may be giving a false sense of security. She cited a recent safety analysis of 20,000 U.S. patients who received convalescent plasma, in which the investigators excluded 88.2% of cardiac events and 66.3% of thrombotic events, as these were deemed unrelated to transfusion; but this decision was made by the treating physician, without independent review or a defined protocol.

Michael J. Joyner, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., was the lead author of the above safety study, and is leading the Food and Drug Administration expanded access program for convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19. He suggested that the study by Dr. Agarwal and colleagues was admirable, but flaws in the treatment protocol cast doubt upon the efficacy findings.

“It is very impressive that these investigators performed a large trial of convalescent plasma in the midst of a pandemic,” Dr. Joyner said. “Unfortunately it is unclear how generalizable the findings are because many of the units of plasma had either very low or no antibody titers and because the plasma was given late in the course of the disease. It has been known since at least the 1930s that antibody therapy works best when enough product is given either prophylactically or early in the course of disease.”

Dr. Joyner had a more positive interpretation of the reported symptom improvements.

“It is also interesting to note that while there was no mortality benefit, that – even with the limitations of the study – there was some evidence of improved patient physiology at 7 days,” he said. “So, at one level, [this is] a negative study, but at least [there are] some hints of efficacy given the suboptimal use case in the patients studied.”

The study was funded by the Indian Council of Medical Research, which employs several of the authors and PLACID Trial Collaborators. Dr. Pathak and Dr. Joyner reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Agarwal A et al. BMJ. 2020 Oct 23. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3939 .

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir (Veklury) Oct. 22 as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients aged 12 and up, making it the first and only approved treatment for COVID-19, according to a release from drug manufacturer Gilead Sciences.

The FDA’s initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the antiviral, issued in May, allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who needed oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

An August EUA expanded treatment to include all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease. The FDA also issued a new EUA for remdesivir Oct. 22 allowing treatment of hospitalized pediatric patients younger than 12 weighing at least 3.5 kg.

Today’s approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, according to Gilead.

Final trial results from one of them, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease–funded ACTT-1 trial, published earlier in October, showed that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir had a shorter median recovery time than those who received a placebo – 10 days versus 15 days.

This difference and some related secondary endpoints were statistically significant in the randomized trial, but there was not a statistically significant difference in mortality between the treatment and placebo groups.

The other two trials used for the approval, the SIMPLE trials, were open-label phase 3 trials conducted in countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 infections, according to Gilead.

The SIMPLE-Severe trial was a randomized, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing plus standard of care in 397 hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 14 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale, according to Gilead.

The trial found that a 5-day or a 10-day treatment course of Veklury achieved similar clinical outcomes to the ACTT-1 trial (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.12).

The SIMPLE-Moderate trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing durations of Veklury plus standard of care, compared with standard of care alone in 600 hospitalized adult patients with moderate COVID-19, Gilead stated in its release.

The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.

The results showed statistically improved clinical outcomes with a 5-day treatment course of Veklury, compared with standard of care (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.0-2.48; P = .017), according to Gilead.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir (Veklury) Oct. 22 as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients aged 12 and up, making it the first and only approved treatment for COVID-19, according to a release from drug manufacturer Gilead Sciences.

The FDA’s initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the antiviral, issued in May, allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who needed oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

An August EUA expanded treatment to include all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease. The FDA also issued a new EUA for remdesivir Oct. 22 allowing treatment of hospitalized pediatric patients younger than 12 weighing at least 3.5 kg.

Today’s approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, according to Gilead.

Final trial results from one of them, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease–funded ACTT-1 trial, published earlier in October, showed that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir had a shorter median recovery time than those who received a placebo – 10 days versus 15 days.

This difference and some related secondary endpoints were statistically significant in the randomized trial, but there was not a statistically significant difference in mortality between the treatment and placebo groups.

The other two trials used for the approval, the SIMPLE trials, were open-label phase 3 trials conducted in countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 infections, according to Gilead.

The SIMPLE-Severe trial was a randomized, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing plus standard of care in 397 hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 14 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale, according to Gilead.

The trial found that a 5-day or a 10-day treatment course of Veklury achieved similar clinical outcomes to the ACTT-1 trial (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.12).

The SIMPLE-Moderate trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing durations of Veklury plus standard of care, compared with standard of care alone in 600 hospitalized adult patients with moderate COVID-19, Gilead stated in its release.

The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.

The results showed statistically improved clinical outcomes with a 5-day treatment course of Veklury, compared with standard of care (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.0-2.48; P = .017), according to Gilead.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir (Veklury) Oct. 22 as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients aged 12 and up, making it the first and only approved treatment for COVID-19, according to a release from drug manufacturer Gilead Sciences.

The FDA’s initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the antiviral, issued in May, allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who needed oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

An August EUA expanded treatment to include all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease. The FDA also issued a new EUA for remdesivir Oct. 22 allowing treatment of hospitalized pediatric patients younger than 12 weighing at least 3.5 kg.

Today’s approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, according to Gilead.

Final trial results from one of them, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease–funded ACTT-1 trial, published earlier in October, showed that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir had a shorter median recovery time than those who received a placebo – 10 days versus 15 days.

This difference and some related secondary endpoints were statistically significant in the randomized trial, but there was not a statistically significant difference in mortality between the treatment and placebo groups.

The other two trials used for the approval, the SIMPLE trials, were open-label phase 3 trials conducted in countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 infections, according to Gilead.

The SIMPLE-Severe trial was a randomized, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing plus standard of care in 397 hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 14 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale, according to Gilead.

The trial found that a 5-day or a 10-day treatment course of Veklury achieved similar clinical outcomes to the ACTT-1 trial (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.12).

The SIMPLE-Moderate trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing durations of Veklury plus standard of care, compared with standard of care alone in 600 hospitalized adult patients with moderate COVID-19, Gilead stated in its release.

The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.

The results showed statistically improved clinical outcomes with a 5-day treatment course of Veklury, compared with standard of care (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.0-2.48; P = .017), according to Gilead.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple mouthwash and oral rinse products wiped out a human coronavirus closely related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a laboratory comparison study.

Listerine Antiseptic led the list of most effective mouthwashes for inactivating the coronavirus. Interestingly, a 1% nasal rinse solution of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo also worked, eliminating up to 99.9% of the viral load in the in vitro experiments.

In contrast, use of a neti pot nasal solution yielded no decrease in virus levels.

The study was published in the Journal of Medical Virology.

Because the mouthwash and hydrogen peroxide oral rinses in the study are widely available and easy to use, “I would recommend the use of the rinses on top of wearing mask and social distancing. This could add a layer of protection for yourself and others,” lead study author Craig Meyers, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and obstetrics and gynecology, Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, told Medscape Medical News.

Meyers and colleagues found that efficacy aligned with duration of time the cell cultures were exposed to each mouthwash or rinse product. Although it varied, the products required at least 30 seconds to kill most of the virus. Waiting 1 or 2 minutes tended to fortify results.

“This study adds to and further confirms the recently published evidence from virologists in Germany that mouthwashes can inactivate the virus that causes COVID-19 in a test tube,” Valerie O’Donnell, PhD, co-director of the Systems Immunity Research Institute of Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, said when asked to comment on the study.

“While this is great to see, what is still lacking is in vivo evidence, since we know the virus will be continually shed in the mouth,” O’Donnell said. “So, the question now becomes, by how much could mouthwashes reduce viral load in the oropharynx of infected people, and if so, then for how long?”

Meyers noted that studies of people positive for COVID-19 using each product would be informative. It remains unknown, for example, if swishing, gargling, and/or spitting out mouthwash would add or decrease the efficacy demonstrated in the lab.

The investigators used the human coronavirus HCoV‐229e as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2. They noted HCoV-229e is analogous, and SARS-CoV-2 would have been more expensive, less available, and would have required biosafety level 3 laboratory conditions.
 

Listerine Antiseptic leads the way

“Surprisingly, we found that several of these common products had strong virucidal properties, inactivating from 2 log10 [or 99%] to greater than 4 log10 [or 99.99%] of infectious human coronavirus,” the researchers note.

Timing of the essence?

Meyers and colleagues also tested a nasal rinse solution of 1% baby shampoo because it is sometimes used to treat people with chronic rhinosinusitis. They found 30 seconds led to < 90% to < 99.99% effectiveness, but that, by 2 minutes, efficacy climbed to > 99.9% to > 99.99%.

“Thirty seconds for some products just was not enough time for the efficacy to be observed,” Meyers said. “Whereas, after a minute or two the active ingredient had enough time to work. Thirty seconds may be at the border to see full efficacy.” More research is needed to confirm the timing and determine which active ingredients are driving the findings.

A future trial could test the efficacy of mouthwash products to reduce the viral load in people with COVID-19. “If we are able to get funding to continue, I would like to see a small clinical trial as the next step,” Meyers said.

Meyers and O’Donnell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple mouthwash and oral rinse products wiped out a human coronavirus closely related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a laboratory comparison study.

Listerine Antiseptic led the list of most effective mouthwashes for inactivating the coronavirus. Interestingly, a 1% nasal rinse solution of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo also worked, eliminating up to 99.9% of the viral load in the in vitro experiments.

In contrast, use of a neti pot nasal solution yielded no decrease in virus levels.

The study was published in the Journal of Medical Virology.

Because the mouthwash and hydrogen peroxide oral rinses in the study are widely available and easy to use, “I would recommend the use of the rinses on top of wearing mask and social distancing. This could add a layer of protection for yourself and others,” lead study author Craig Meyers, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and obstetrics and gynecology, Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, told Medscape Medical News.

Meyers and colleagues found that efficacy aligned with duration of time the cell cultures were exposed to each mouthwash or rinse product. Although it varied, the products required at least 30 seconds to kill most of the virus. Waiting 1 or 2 minutes tended to fortify results.

“This study adds to and further confirms the recently published evidence from virologists in Germany that mouthwashes can inactivate the virus that causes COVID-19 in a test tube,” Valerie O’Donnell, PhD, co-director of the Systems Immunity Research Institute of Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, said when asked to comment on the study.

“While this is great to see, what is still lacking is in vivo evidence, since we know the virus will be continually shed in the mouth,” O’Donnell said. “So, the question now becomes, by how much could mouthwashes reduce viral load in the oropharynx of infected people, and if so, then for how long?”

Meyers noted that studies of people positive for COVID-19 using each product would be informative. It remains unknown, for example, if swishing, gargling, and/or spitting out mouthwash would add or decrease the efficacy demonstrated in the lab.

The investigators used the human coronavirus HCoV‐229e as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2. They noted HCoV-229e is analogous, and SARS-CoV-2 would have been more expensive, less available, and would have required biosafety level 3 laboratory conditions.
 

Listerine Antiseptic leads the way

“Surprisingly, we found that several of these common products had strong virucidal properties, inactivating from 2 log10 [or 99%] to greater than 4 log10 [or 99.99%] of infectious human coronavirus,” the researchers note.

Timing of the essence?

Meyers and colleagues also tested a nasal rinse solution of 1% baby shampoo because it is sometimes used to treat people with chronic rhinosinusitis. They found 30 seconds led to < 90% to < 99.99% effectiveness, but that, by 2 minutes, efficacy climbed to > 99.9% to > 99.99%.

“Thirty seconds for some products just was not enough time for the efficacy to be observed,” Meyers said. “Whereas, after a minute or two the active ingredient had enough time to work. Thirty seconds may be at the border to see full efficacy.” More research is needed to confirm the timing and determine which active ingredients are driving the findings.

A future trial could test the efficacy of mouthwash products to reduce the viral load in people with COVID-19. “If we are able to get funding to continue, I would like to see a small clinical trial as the next step,” Meyers said.

Meyers and O’Donnell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple mouthwash and oral rinse products wiped out a human coronavirus closely related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a laboratory comparison study.

Listerine Antiseptic led the list of most effective mouthwashes for inactivating the coronavirus. Interestingly, a 1% nasal rinse solution of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo also worked, eliminating up to 99.9% of the viral load in the in vitro experiments.

In contrast, use of a neti pot nasal solution yielded no decrease in virus levels.

The study was published in the Journal of Medical Virology.

Because the mouthwash and hydrogen peroxide oral rinses in the study are widely available and easy to use, “I would recommend the use of the rinses on top of wearing mask and social distancing. This could add a layer of protection for yourself and others,” lead study author Craig Meyers, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and obstetrics and gynecology, Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, told Medscape Medical News.

Meyers and colleagues found that efficacy aligned with duration of time the cell cultures were exposed to each mouthwash or rinse product. Although it varied, the products required at least 30 seconds to kill most of the virus. Waiting 1 or 2 minutes tended to fortify results.

“This study adds to and further confirms the recently published evidence from virologists in Germany that mouthwashes can inactivate the virus that causes COVID-19 in a test tube,” Valerie O’Donnell, PhD, co-director of the Systems Immunity Research Institute of Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, said when asked to comment on the study.

“While this is great to see, what is still lacking is in vivo evidence, since we know the virus will be continually shed in the mouth,” O’Donnell said. “So, the question now becomes, by how much could mouthwashes reduce viral load in the oropharynx of infected people, and if so, then for how long?”

Meyers noted that studies of people positive for COVID-19 using each product would be informative. It remains unknown, for example, if swishing, gargling, and/or spitting out mouthwash would add or decrease the efficacy demonstrated in the lab.

The investigators used the human coronavirus HCoV‐229e as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2. They noted HCoV-229e is analogous, and SARS-CoV-2 would have been more expensive, less available, and would have required biosafety level 3 laboratory conditions.
 

Listerine Antiseptic leads the way

“Surprisingly, we found that several of these common products had strong virucidal properties, inactivating from 2 log10 [or 99%] to greater than 4 log10 [or 99.99%] of infectious human coronavirus,” the researchers note.

Timing of the essence?

Meyers and colleagues also tested a nasal rinse solution of 1% baby shampoo because it is sometimes used to treat people with chronic rhinosinusitis. They found 30 seconds led to < 90% to < 99.99% effectiveness, but that, by 2 minutes, efficacy climbed to > 99.9% to > 99.99%.

“Thirty seconds for some products just was not enough time for the efficacy to be observed,” Meyers said. “Whereas, after a minute or two the active ingredient had enough time to work. Thirty seconds may be at the border to see full efficacy.” More research is needed to confirm the timing and determine which active ingredients are driving the findings.

A future trial could test the efficacy of mouthwash products to reduce the viral load in people with COVID-19. “If we are able to get funding to continue, I would like to see a small clinical trial as the next step,” Meyers said.

Meyers and O’Donnell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting Nov. 2, all patients in the United States will have immediate access to clinical notes and thus will be able to read their doctors’ writings, as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

FG Trade/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates that patients have fast, electronic access to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, history, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes.

But this federal mandate, called “open notes” by many, is potentially confusing and frightening for patients, say some physicians. Others worry that the change will increase workload as clinicians tailor notes for patients and answer related questions.

The law means that inpatient and outpatient notes will be released immediately and that patients will have immediate access to testing and imaging results, including results from sexually transmitted disease tests, Pap tests, cancer biopsies, CT and PET scans, fetal ultrasounds, pneumonia cultures, and mammograms.

Such notes could contain sensitive information, and there is concern that patients could be shocked, confused, or annoyed by what they read, even with more run-of-the-mill notes.

Champions of open notes say that the benefits, including better provider-patient communication, greatly outweigh such risks.

“This is about convenience – a bit like online banking,” commented Charlotte Blease, PhD, resident scholar at OpenNotes, an advocacy nonprofit organization headquartered at the Beth Israel–Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “But it’s a culture shift for doctors,” she said in an interview.

“It turns physician paternalism on its head,” said C. T. Lin, MD, chief medical information officer, UCHealth, Denver. The change requires “some letting go of old traditions” in medicine, he wrote in an August blog post, referring to the fact that a computer screen – and not a physician – may tell patients about a new health problem.

Dr. Lin summarized the experience at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, which has allowed patients to have access to oncology notes for the past 5 years: “No issues and highly appreciated by patients. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
 

A new audience

Other institutions have also been voluntarily implementing open notes.

UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., has run an optional program for the past year. However, only about two dozen of approximately 1,000 staff physicians opted in to the program.

“This illustrates the point that it’s a new thing that physicians aren’t used to doing. They’ve traditionally written notes for the benefit of their colleagues, for billing, for their own reference,” Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at UC Davis Health, told this news organization.

“They’ve never –until recently – had the patient as one of the audiences for a note,” he said.

Liam Keating, MD, an otolaryngologist in Martinez, Calif., recalls that he once wrote “globus hystericus,” and the patient wanted to sue him for saying that the patient was hysterical. “I now just code ‘Globus’ (if I don’t jump straight to LPD [lateral pharyngeal diverticulum]),” he commented in response to a commentary on open notes.

Sensitive information occurs more often in certain specialties, for example, psychiatry, genetics, adolescent medicine, and oncology, experts say.

“Cancer is an area that is highly charged for patients and doctors alike,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out. When reading pathology or imaging notes, patients may learn that they have been diagnosed with cancer or that they have a recurrence “without the physician being able to contextualize it and explain things – that’s just new and scary,” he said.

California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first, said Dr. MacDonald, but not all states have such laws.
 

Adjustments needed – or not – with open notes

At UCHealth in Aurora, Colo., Robert Breeze, MD, vice-chair of neurosurgery, said he has adjusted his practice to accommodate open notes and to anticipate trouble spots.*

“When I order imaging or send pathology specimens, I have already discussed with the patient the possibilities, including cancer, and what we will do next. Patients deeply appreciate these discussions, before they see the results,” he commented in an institutional white paper issued in anticipation of the changes on Nov. 2.

This is called precounseling, said Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., which has been a pioneer in information sharing with patients. Their system does delay the release of information in the case of “complicated” results, such as from cancer biopsies, he said in an interview.

However, Christiaan Hoff, MD, PhD, a surgeon at the Medical Center Leeuwarden (the Netherlands), wonders how important it is for the physician to be present when the patient receives bad news, including news about cancer. “We may overestimate our added value in these situations,” he suggested.

“Our empathy may not outweigh” the disadvantages of the situation, and the “finer points of our explanation will often go unnoticed” by the stressed patient, he commented. Dr. Hoff was also responding to the commentary about open notes.

In that commentary, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., was concerned about misunderstandings. Oncology is complex, and patients can struggle to understand their prognosis and planned treatment efficacy, especially in cases of metastatic disease, he wrote.

This concern is somewhat refuted by a study published Oct. 5 in Cancer Cell. Responses to two surveys involving 96 oncology clinicians at three U.S. centers found that almost half (44%) believed that their patients “would be confused” by open notes.

However, only 4% of the 3,418 cancer patients from the same surveys reported being confused by open notes. (A majority of participants had more than a high school education, and English was their primary language.)

“Patient and clinician views about open notes in oncology are not aligned, with patients expressing considerably more enthusiasm,” wrote the authors, led by Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who has been treated for brain cancer.

“All clinicians are anxious at first,” Ms. Salmi told this news organization. “Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions … are more likely to read their notes.”

The survey results echo the early experience reported from Sweden, where open notes was launched in 2012. “Patients have loved it from the beginning,” said Maria Haggland, PhD, of Uppsala MedTech Science Innovation Center.

However, when the scheme first launched, it was considered to be “very controversial,” and “there were a lot of complaints, from health care professionals, especially,” she added.

Over time, clinicians have embraced open notes, and the program has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, she observed during an Oct. 5 webinar on open notes.
 

More work for already overworked clinicians?

An outstanding concern about open notes is that it will cause more work for health care professionals.

Traditionally, doctors have written notes using medical lexicon, including a lot of abbreviations and jargon for efficiency’s sake. Now that patients will read the notes, will clinicians have to spell out things in lay terms, alter their writing so as not to offend, and generally do more work?

William Harvey, MD, chief medical information officer, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, acknowledged that that may be the case.

In a forthcoming note to staff about the Nov. 2 start of open notes, Dr. Harvey will include a reminder to accommodate the patient as a reader. But that may or may not mean an increase in work volume, depending on the provider. “Clinical note writing is highly personal. There’s an art to it,” he said in an interview. “So it’s hard to give standard advice.”

Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and a lecturer at California Pacific Medical Center, is particularly concerned about the impact of open notes on progress notes, which he calls a tool to develop strategies and make observations while working with a patient.

By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” he told this news organization.

“These notes serve many masters already,” he said, referring to purposes such as utilization review and billing. “The more masters they serve, the less useful they are to get medical work done.”

Dr. MacDonald, the medical information officer, said the new law doesn’t mandate a change in writing style.

In a study published last year, researchers analyzed notes written by oncologists before and after adoption of open notes. They found that, on average, clinicians did not change their note writing. The investigators analyzed more than 100,000 clinical notes written by 35 oncologists at a single center.

Advocates for open notes emphasize that there are benefits for clinicians.

“Doctors are overworked. They’re overburdened. But empowered patients can help the doctor,” said OpenNotes’ Dr. Blease. She cited survey data that show that patients better understand their treatment plan and medication, which can cut down on physician workload.

Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot program for 3 years. Each day, Dr. Millen discusses a shared note with two or three patients. “I actually end all of my appointments with, ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she told this news organization.

“I was a little afraid of this initially,” she said, but within the first 3 months of the pilot, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”

The persons quoted in this article have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

Correction, 10/23/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the campus' location. 

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

Starting Nov. 2, all patients in the United States will have immediate access to clinical notes and thus will be able to read their doctors’ writings, as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

FG Trade/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates that patients have fast, electronic access to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, history, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes.

But this federal mandate, called “open notes” by many, is potentially confusing and frightening for patients, say some physicians. Others worry that the change will increase workload as clinicians tailor notes for patients and answer related questions.

The law means that inpatient and outpatient notes will be released immediately and that patients will have immediate access to testing and imaging results, including results from sexually transmitted disease tests, Pap tests, cancer biopsies, CT and PET scans, fetal ultrasounds, pneumonia cultures, and mammograms.

Such notes could contain sensitive information, and there is concern that patients could be shocked, confused, or annoyed by what they read, even with more run-of-the-mill notes.

Champions of open notes say that the benefits, including better provider-patient communication, greatly outweigh such risks.

“This is about convenience – a bit like online banking,” commented Charlotte Blease, PhD, resident scholar at OpenNotes, an advocacy nonprofit organization headquartered at the Beth Israel–Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “But it’s a culture shift for doctors,” she said in an interview.

“It turns physician paternalism on its head,” said C. T. Lin, MD, chief medical information officer, UCHealth, Denver. The change requires “some letting go of old traditions” in medicine, he wrote in an August blog post, referring to the fact that a computer screen – and not a physician – may tell patients about a new health problem.

Dr. Lin summarized the experience at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, which has allowed patients to have access to oncology notes for the past 5 years: “No issues and highly appreciated by patients. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
 

A new audience

Other institutions have also been voluntarily implementing open notes.

UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., has run an optional program for the past year. However, only about two dozen of approximately 1,000 staff physicians opted in to the program.

“This illustrates the point that it’s a new thing that physicians aren’t used to doing. They’ve traditionally written notes for the benefit of their colleagues, for billing, for their own reference,” Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at UC Davis Health, told this news organization.

“They’ve never –until recently – had the patient as one of the audiences for a note,” he said.

Liam Keating, MD, an otolaryngologist in Martinez, Calif., recalls that he once wrote “globus hystericus,” and the patient wanted to sue him for saying that the patient was hysterical. “I now just code ‘Globus’ (if I don’t jump straight to LPD [lateral pharyngeal diverticulum]),” he commented in response to a commentary on open notes.

Sensitive information occurs more often in certain specialties, for example, psychiatry, genetics, adolescent medicine, and oncology, experts say.

“Cancer is an area that is highly charged for patients and doctors alike,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out. When reading pathology or imaging notes, patients may learn that they have been diagnosed with cancer or that they have a recurrence “without the physician being able to contextualize it and explain things – that’s just new and scary,” he said.

California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first, said Dr. MacDonald, but not all states have such laws.
 

Adjustments needed – or not – with open notes

At UCHealth in Aurora, Colo., Robert Breeze, MD, vice-chair of neurosurgery, said he has adjusted his practice to accommodate open notes and to anticipate trouble spots.*

“When I order imaging or send pathology specimens, I have already discussed with the patient the possibilities, including cancer, and what we will do next. Patients deeply appreciate these discussions, before they see the results,” he commented in an institutional white paper issued in anticipation of the changes on Nov. 2.

This is called precounseling, said Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., which has been a pioneer in information sharing with patients. Their system does delay the release of information in the case of “complicated” results, such as from cancer biopsies, he said in an interview.

However, Christiaan Hoff, MD, PhD, a surgeon at the Medical Center Leeuwarden (the Netherlands), wonders how important it is for the physician to be present when the patient receives bad news, including news about cancer. “We may overestimate our added value in these situations,” he suggested.

“Our empathy may not outweigh” the disadvantages of the situation, and the “finer points of our explanation will often go unnoticed” by the stressed patient, he commented. Dr. Hoff was also responding to the commentary about open notes.

In that commentary, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., was concerned about misunderstandings. Oncology is complex, and patients can struggle to understand their prognosis and planned treatment efficacy, especially in cases of metastatic disease, he wrote.

This concern is somewhat refuted by a study published Oct. 5 in Cancer Cell. Responses to two surveys involving 96 oncology clinicians at three U.S. centers found that almost half (44%) believed that their patients “would be confused” by open notes.

However, only 4% of the 3,418 cancer patients from the same surveys reported being confused by open notes. (A majority of participants had more than a high school education, and English was their primary language.)

“Patient and clinician views about open notes in oncology are not aligned, with patients expressing considerably more enthusiasm,” wrote the authors, led by Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who has been treated for brain cancer.

“All clinicians are anxious at first,” Ms. Salmi told this news organization. “Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions … are more likely to read their notes.”

The survey results echo the early experience reported from Sweden, where open notes was launched in 2012. “Patients have loved it from the beginning,” said Maria Haggland, PhD, of Uppsala MedTech Science Innovation Center.

However, when the scheme first launched, it was considered to be “very controversial,” and “there were a lot of complaints, from health care professionals, especially,” she added.

Over time, clinicians have embraced open notes, and the program has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, she observed during an Oct. 5 webinar on open notes.
 

More work for already overworked clinicians?

An outstanding concern about open notes is that it will cause more work for health care professionals.

Traditionally, doctors have written notes using medical lexicon, including a lot of abbreviations and jargon for efficiency’s sake. Now that patients will read the notes, will clinicians have to spell out things in lay terms, alter their writing so as not to offend, and generally do more work?

William Harvey, MD, chief medical information officer, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, acknowledged that that may be the case.

In a forthcoming note to staff about the Nov. 2 start of open notes, Dr. Harvey will include a reminder to accommodate the patient as a reader. But that may or may not mean an increase in work volume, depending on the provider. “Clinical note writing is highly personal. There’s an art to it,” he said in an interview. “So it’s hard to give standard advice.”

Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and a lecturer at California Pacific Medical Center, is particularly concerned about the impact of open notes on progress notes, which he calls a tool to develop strategies and make observations while working with a patient.

By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” he told this news organization.

“These notes serve many masters already,” he said, referring to purposes such as utilization review and billing. “The more masters they serve, the less useful they are to get medical work done.”

Dr. MacDonald, the medical information officer, said the new law doesn’t mandate a change in writing style.

In a study published last year, researchers analyzed notes written by oncologists before and after adoption of open notes. They found that, on average, clinicians did not change their note writing. The investigators analyzed more than 100,000 clinical notes written by 35 oncologists at a single center.

Advocates for open notes emphasize that there are benefits for clinicians.

“Doctors are overworked. They’re overburdened. But empowered patients can help the doctor,” said OpenNotes’ Dr. Blease. She cited survey data that show that patients better understand their treatment plan and medication, which can cut down on physician workload.

Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot program for 3 years. Each day, Dr. Millen discusses a shared note with two or three patients. “I actually end all of my appointments with, ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she told this news organization.

“I was a little afraid of this initially,” she said, but within the first 3 months of the pilot, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”

The persons quoted in this article have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

Correction, 10/23/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the campus' location. 

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

Starting Nov. 2, all patients in the United States will have immediate access to clinical notes and thus will be able to read their doctors’ writings, as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

FG Trade/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates that patients have fast, electronic access to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, history, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes.

But this federal mandate, called “open notes” by many, is potentially confusing and frightening for patients, say some physicians. Others worry that the change will increase workload as clinicians tailor notes for patients and answer related questions.

The law means that inpatient and outpatient notes will be released immediately and that patients will have immediate access to testing and imaging results, including results from sexually transmitted disease tests, Pap tests, cancer biopsies, CT and PET scans, fetal ultrasounds, pneumonia cultures, and mammograms.

Such notes could contain sensitive information, and there is concern that patients could be shocked, confused, or annoyed by what they read, even with more run-of-the-mill notes.

Champions of open notes say that the benefits, including better provider-patient communication, greatly outweigh such risks.

“This is about convenience – a bit like online banking,” commented Charlotte Blease, PhD, resident scholar at OpenNotes, an advocacy nonprofit organization headquartered at the Beth Israel–Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “But it’s a culture shift for doctors,” she said in an interview.

“It turns physician paternalism on its head,” said C. T. Lin, MD, chief medical information officer, UCHealth, Denver. The change requires “some letting go of old traditions” in medicine, he wrote in an August blog post, referring to the fact that a computer screen – and not a physician – may tell patients about a new health problem.

Dr. Lin summarized the experience at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, which has allowed patients to have access to oncology notes for the past 5 years: “No issues and highly appreciated by patients. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
 

A new audience

Other institutions have also been voluntarily implementing open notes.

UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., has run an optional program for the past year. However, only about two dozen of approximately 1,000 staff physicians opted in to the program.

“This illustrates the point that it’s a new thing that physicians aren’t used to doing. They’ve traditionally written notes for the benefit of their colleagues, for billing, for their own reference,” Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at UC Davis Health, told this news organization.

“They’ve never –until recently – had the patient as one of the audiences for a note,” he said.

Liam Keating, MD, an otolaryngologist in Martinez, Calif., recalls that he once wrote “globus hystericus,” and the patient wanted to sue him for saying that the patient was hysterical. “I now just code ‘Globus’ (if I don’t jump straight to LPD [lateral pharyngeal diverticulum]),” he commented in response to a commentary on open notes.

Sensitive information occurs more often in certain specialties, for example, psychiatry, genetics, adolescent medicine, and oncology, experts say.

“Cancer is an area that is highly charged for patients and doctors alike,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out. When reading pathology or imaging notes, patients may learn that they have been diagnosed with cancer or that they have a recurrence “without the physician being able to contextualize it and explain things – that’s just new and scary,” he said.

California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first, said Dr. MacDonald, but not all states have such laws.
 

Adjustments needed – or not – with open notes

At UCHealth in Aurora, Colo., Robert Breeze, MD, vice-chair of neurosurgery, said he has adjusted his practice to accommodate open notes and to anticipate trouble spots.*

“When I order imaging or send pathology specimens, I have already discussed with the patient the possibilities, including cancer, and what we will do next. Patients deeply appreciate these discussions, before they see the results,” he commented in an institutional white paper issued in anticipation of the changes on Nov. 2.

This is called precounseling, said Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., which has been a pioneer in information sharing with patients. Their system does delay the release of information in the case of “complicated” results, such as from cancer biopsies, he said in an interview.

However, Christiaan Hoff, MD, PhD, a surgeon at the Medical Center Leeuwarden (the Netherlands), wonders how important it is for the physician to be present when the patient receives bad news, including news about cancer. “We may overestimate our added value in these situations,” he suggested.

“Our empathy may not outweigh” the disadvantages of the situation, and the “finer points of our explanation will often go unnoticed” by the stressed patient, he commented. Dr. Hoff was also responding to the commentary about open notes.

In that commentary, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., was concerned about misunderstandings. Oncology is complex, and patients can struggle to understand their prognosis and planned treatment efficacy, especially in cases of metastatic disease, he wrote.

This concern is somewhat refuted by a study published Oct. 5 in Cancer Cell. Responses to two surveys involving 96 oncology clinicians at three U.S. centers found that almost half (44%) believed that their patients “would be confused” by open notes.

However, only 4% of the 3,418 cancer patients from the same surveys reported being confused by open notes. (A majority of participants had more than a high school education, and English was their primary language.)

“Patient and clinician views about open notes in oncology are not aligned, with patients expressing considerably more enthusiasm,” wrote the authors, led by Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who has been treated for brain cancer.

“All clinicians are anxious at first,” Ms. Salmi told this news organization. “Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions … are more likely to read their notes.”

The survey results echo the early experience reported from Sweden, where open notes was launched in 2012. “Patients have loved it from the beginning,” said Maria Haggland, PhD, of Uppsala MedTech Science Innovation Center.

However, when the scheme first launched, it was considered to be “very controversial,” and “there were a lot of complaints, from health care professionals, especially,” she added.

Over time, clinicians have embraced open notes, and the program has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, she observed during an Oct. 5 webinar on open notes.
 

More work for already overworked clinicians?

An outstanding concern about open notes is that it will cause more work for health care professionals.

Traditionally, doctors have written notes using medical lexicon, including a lot of abbreviations and jargon for efficiency’s sake. Now that patients will read the notes, will clinicians have to spell out things in lay terms, alter their writing so as not to offend, and generally do more work?

William Harvey, MD, chief medical information officer, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, acknowledged that that may be the case.

In a forthcoming note to staff about the Nov. 2 start of open notes, Dr. Harvey will include a reminder to accommodate the patient as a reader. But that may or may not mean an increase in work volume, depending on the provider. “Clinical note writing is highly personal. There’s an art to it,” he said in an interview. “So it’s hard to give standard advice.”

Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and a lecturer at California Pacific Medical Center, is particularly concerned about the impact of open notes on progress notes, which he calls a tool to develop strategies and make observations while working with a patient.

By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” he told this news organization.

“These notes serve many masters already,” he said, referring to purposes such as utilization review and billing. “The more masters they serve, the less useful they are to get medical work done.”

Dr. MacDonald, the medical information officer, said the new law doesn’t mandate a change in writing style.

In a study published last year, researchers analyzed notes written by oncologists before and after adoption of open notes. They found that, on average, clinicians did not change their note writing. The investigators analyzed more than 100,000 clinical notes written by 35 oncologists at a single center.

Advocates for open notes emphasize that there are benefits for clinicians.

“Doctors are overworked. They’re overburdened. But empowered patients can help the doctor,” said OpenNotes’ Dr. Blease. She cited survey data that show that patients better understand their treatment plan and medication, which can cut down on physician workload.

Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot program for 3 years. Each day, Dr. Millen discusses a shared note with two or three patients. “I actually end all of my appointments with, ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she told this news organization.

“I was a little afraid of this initially,” she said, but within the first 3 months of the pilot, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”

The persons quoted in this article have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

Correction, 10/23/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the campus' location. 

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

Fifteen days. That’s how much time the American College of Cardiology (ACC) had to convert its annual conference, scheduled for the end of March this year in Chicago, into a virtual meeting for the estimated 17,000 people who had planned to attend.

Because of the coronavirus pandemic, Illinois announced restrictions on the size of gatherings on March 13, causing the ACC to pivot to an online-only model.

“One big advantage was that we already had all of our content planned,” Janice Sibley, the ACC’s executive vice president of education, told Medscape Medical News. “We knew who the faculty would be for different sessions, and many of them had already planned their slides.”

But determining how to present those hundreds of presentations at an online conference, not to mention addressing the logistics related to registrations, tech platforms, exhibit hall sponsors, and other aspects of an annual meeting, would be no small task.

As medical societies have pivoted from in-person annual conferences to online meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic, they have found that they are mostly up to the challenge of disseminating research results and clinical education on par with in-person presentations. But according to a Medscape poll, many physicians think that, while the virtual experience is worthwhile and getting better, it’s never going to be the same as spending several days on site, immersed in the experience of an annual meeting.

As one respondent commented, “I miss the intellectual excitement, the electricity in the room, when there is a live presentation that announces a major breakthrough.”
 

Large medical societies have an advantage

As ACC rapidly prepared for its virtual conference, the society first refunded all registration and expo fees and worked with the vendor partners to resolve the cancellation of rental space, food and beverage services, and decorating. Then they organized a team of 15 people split into three groups. One group focused on the intellectual, scientific, and educational elements of the virtual conference. They chose 24 sessions to livestream and decided to prerecord the rest for on-demand access, limiting the number of presenters they needed to train for online presentation.

A second team focused on business and worked with industry partners on how to translate a large expo into digital offerings. They developed virtual pages, advertisements, promotions, and industry-sponsored education.

The third team’s focus, Ms. Sibley said, was most critical, and the hardest: addressing socio-emotional needs.

“That group was responsible for trying to create the buzz and excitement we would have had at the event,” she said, “pivoting that experience we would have had in a live event to a virtual environment. What we were worried about was, would anyone even come?”

But ACC built it, and they did indeed come. Within a half hour of the opening session, nearly 13,000 people logged on from around the world. “It worked beautifully,” Ms. Sibley said.

By the end of the 3-day event, approximately 34,000 unique visitors had logged in for live or prerecorded sessions. Although ACC worried at first about technical glitches and bandwidth needs, everything ran smoothly. By 90 days after the meeting, 63,000 unique users had logged in to access the conference content.

ACC was among the first organizations forced to switch from an in-person to all-online meeting, but dozens of other organizations have now done the same, discovering the benefits and drawbacks of a virtual environment while experimenting with different formats and offerings. Talks with a few large medical societies about the experience revealed several common themes, including the following:

• Finding new ways to attract and measure attendance.
• Ensuring the actual scientific content was as robust online as in person.
• Realizing the value of social media in enhancing the socio-emotional experience.
• Believing that virtual meetings will become a permanent fixture in a future of “hybrid” conferences.

New ways of attracting and measuring attendance

Previous ways to measure meeting attendance were straightforward: number of registrations and number of people physically walking into sessions. An online conference, however, offers dozens of ways to measure attendance. While the number of registrations remained one tool – and all the organizations interviewed reported record numbers of registrations – organizations also used other metrics to measure success, such as “participation,” “engagement,” and “viewing time.”

ACC defined “participation” as a unique user logging in, and it defined “engagement” as sticking around for a while, possibly using chat functions or discussing the content on social media. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual conference in May, which attracted more than 44,000 registered attendees, also measured total content views – more than 2.5 million during the meeting – and monitored social media. More than 8,800 Twitter users posted more than 45,000 tweets with the #ASCO20 hashtag during the meeting, generating 750 million likes, shares, and comments. The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) annual congress registered a record 18,700 delegates – up from 14,500 in 2019 – but it also measured attendance by average viewing time and visits by congress day and by category.

Organizations shifted fee structures as well. While ACC refunded fees for its first online meeting, it has since developed tiers to match fees to anticipated value, such as charging more for livestreamed sessions that allow interactivity than for viewing recordings. ASCO offered a one-time fee waiver for members plus free registration to cancer survivors and caregivers, discounted registration for patient advocates, and reduced fees for other categories. But adjusting how to measure attendance and charge for events were the easy parts of transitioning to online.
 

Priority for having robust content

The biggest difficulty for most organizations was the short time they had to move online, with a host of challenges accompanying the switch, said the executive director of EULAR, Julia Rautenstrauch, DrMed. These included technical requirements, communication, training, finances, legal issues, compliance rules, and other logistics.

“The year 2020 will be remembered for being the year of unexpected transformation,” said a spokesperson from European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), who declined to be named. “The number of fundamental questions we had to ask ourselves is pages long. The solutions we have implemented so far have been successful, but we won’t rest on our laurels.”

ASCO had an advantage in the pivot, despite only 6 weeks to make the switch, because they already had a robust online platform to build on. “We weren’t starting from scratch, but we were sure changing the way we prepared,” ASCO CEO Clifford Hudis, MD, said.

All of the organizations made the breadth and quality of scientific and educational content a top priority, and those who have already hosted meetings this year report positive feedback.

“The rating of the scientific content was excellent, and the event did indeed fulfill the educational goals and expected learning outcomes for the vast majority of delegates,” EULAR’s Dr. Rautenstrauch said.

“Our goal, when we went into this, was that, in the future when somebody looks back at ASCO20, they should not be able to tell that it was a different year from any other in terms of the science,” Dr. Hudis said.
 

Missing out on networking and social interaction

Even when logistics run smoothly, virtual conferences must overcome two other challenges: the loss of in-person interactions and the potential for “Zoom burnout.”

“You do miss that human contact, the unsaid reactions in the room when you’re speaking or providing a controversial statement, even the facial expression or seeing people lean in or being distracted,” Ms. Sibley said.

Taher Modarressi, MD, an endocrinologist with Diabetes and Endocrine Associates of Hunterdon in Flemington, N.J., said all the digital conferences he has attended were missing those key social elements: “seeing old friends, sideline discussions that generate new ideas, and meeting new colleagues. However, this has been partly alleviated with the robust rise of social media and ‘MedTwitter,’ in particular, where these discussions and interactions continue.”

To attempt to meet that need for social interaction, societies came up with a variety of options. EULAR offered chatrooms, “Meet the Expert” sessions, and other virtual opportunities for live interaction. ASCO hosted discussion groups with subsets of participants, such as virtual meetings with oncology fellows, and it plans to offer networking sessions and “poster walks” during future meetings.

“The value of an in-person meeting is connecting with people, exchanging ideas over coffee, and making new contacts,” ASCO’s Dr. Hudis said. While virtual meetings lose many of those personal interactions, knowledge can also be shared with more people, he said.

The key to combating digital fatigue is focusing on opportunities for interactivity, ACC’s Ms. Sibley said. “When you are creating a virtual environment, it’s important that you offer choices.” Online learners tend to have shorter attention spans than in-person learners, so people need opportunities to flip between sessions, like flipping between TV channels. Different engagement options are also essential, such as chat functions on the video platforms, asking questions of presenters orally or in writing, and using the familiar hashtags for social media discussion.

“We set up all those different ways to interact, and you allow the user to choose,” Ms. Sibley said.

Some conferences, however, had less time or fewer resources to adjust to a virtual format and couldn’t make up for the lost social interaction. Andy Bowman, MD, a neonatologist in Lubbock, Tex., was supposed to attend the Neonatal & Pediatric Airborne Transport Conference sponsored by International Biomed in the spring, but it was canceled at the last minute. Several weeks later, the organizers released videos of scheduled speakers giving their talks, but it was less engaging and too easy to get distracted, Dr. Bowman said.

“There is a noticeable decrease in energy – you can’t look around to feed off other’s reactions when a speaker says something off the wall, or new, or contrary to expectations,” he said. He also especially missed the social interactions, such as “missing out on the chance encounters in the hallway or seeing the same face in back-to-back sessions and figuring out you have shared interest.” He was also sorry to miss the expo because neonatal transport requires a lot of specialty equipment, and he appreciates the chance to actually touch and see it in person.
 

Advantages of an online meeting

Despite the challenges, online meetings can overcome obstacles of in-person meetings, particularly for those in low- and middle-income countries, such as travel and registration costs, the hardships of being away from practice, and visa restrictions.

“You really have the potential to broaden your reach,” Ms. Sibley said, noting that people in 157 countries participated in ACC.20.

Another advantage is keeping the experience available to people after the livestreamed event.

“Virtual events have demonstrated the potential for a more democratic conference world, expanding the dissemination of information to a much wider community of stakeholders,” ESMO’s spokesperson said.

Not traveling can actually mean getting more out of the conference, said Atisha Patel Manhas, MD, a hematologist/oncologist in Dallas, who attended ASCO. “I have really enjoyed the access aspect – on the virtual platform there is so much more content available to you, and travel time doesn’t cut into conference time,” she said, though she also missed the interaction with colleagues.

Others found that virtual conferences provided more engagement than in-person conferences. Marwah Abdalla, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine and director of education for the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, felt that moderated Q&A sessions offered more interaction among participants. She attended and spoke on a panel during virtual SLEEP 2020, a joint meeting of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and the Sleep Research Society (SRS).

“Usually during in-person sessions, only a few questions are possible, and participants rarely have an opportunity to discuss the presentations within the session due to time limits,” Dr. Abdalla said. “Because the conference presentations can also be viewed asynchronously, participants have been able to comment on lectures and continue the discussion offline, either via social media or via email.” She acknowledged drawbacks of the virtual experience, such as an inability to socialize in person and participate in activities but appreciated the new opportunities to network and learn from international colleagues who would not have been able to attend in person.

Ritu Thamman, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, pointed out that many institutions have cut their travel budgets, and physicians would be unable to attend in-person conferences for financial or other reasons. She especially appreciated that the European Society of Cardiology had no registration fee for ESC 2020 and made their content free for all of September, which led to more than 100,000 participants.

“That meant anyone anywhere could learn,” she said. “It makes it much more diverse and more egalitarian. That feels like a good step in the right direction for all of us.”

Dr. Modarressi, who found ESC “exhilarating,” similarly noted the benefit of such an equitably accessible conference. “Decreasing barriers and improving access to top-line results and up-to-date information has always been a challenge to the global health community,” he said, noting that the map of attendance for the virtual meeting was “astonishing.”

Given these benefits, organizers said they expect a future of hybrid conferences: physical meetings for those able to attend in person and virtual ones for those who cannot.

“We also expect that the hybrid congress will cater to the needs of people on-site by allowing them additional access to more scientific content than by physical attendance alone,” Dr. Rautenstrauch said.

Everyone has been in reactive mode this year, Ms. Sibley said, but the future looks bright as they seek ways to overcome challenges such as socio-emotional needs and virtual expo spaces.

“We’ve been thrust into the virtual world much faster than we expected, but we’re finding it’s opening more opportunities than we had live,” Ms. Sibley said. “This has catapulted us, for better or worse, into a new way to deliver education and other types of information.

“I think, if we’re smart, we’ll continue to think of ways this can augment our live environment and not replace it.”
 

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

Fifteen days. That’s how much time the American College of Cardiology (ACC) had to convert its annual conference, scheduled for the end of March this year in Chicago, into a virtual meeting for the estimated 17,000 people who had planned to attend.

Because of the coronavirus pandemic, Illinois announced restrictions on the size of gatherings on March 13, causing the ACC to pivot to an online-only model.

“One big advantage was that we already had all of our content planned,” Janice Sibley, the ACC’s executive vice president of education, told Medscape Medical News. “We knew who the faculty would be for different sessions, and many of them had already planned their slides.”

But determining how to present those hundreds of presentations at an online conference, not to mention addressing the logistics related to registrations, tech platforms, exhibit hall sponsors, and other aspects of an annual meeting, would be no small task.

As medical societies have pivoted from in-person annual conferences to online meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic, they have found that they are mostly up to the challenge of disseminating research results and clinical education on par with in-person presentations. But according to a Medscape poll, many physicians think that, while the virtual experience is worthwhile and getting better, it’s never going to be the same as spending several days on site, immersed in the experience of an annual meeting.

As one respondent commented, “I miss the intellectual excitement, the electricity in the room, when there is a live presentation that announces a major breakthrough.”
 

Large medical societies have an advantage

As ACC rapidly prepared for its virtual conference, the society first refunded all registration and expo fees and worked with the vendor partners to resolve the cancellation of rental space, food and beverage services, and decorating. Then they organized a team of 15 people split into three groups. One group focused on the intellectual, scientific, and educational elements of the virtual conference. They chose 24 sessions to livestream and decided to prerecord the rest for on-demand access, limiting the number of presenters they needed to train for online presentation.

A second team focused on business and worked with industry partners on how to translate a large expo into digital offerings. They developed virtual pages, advertisements, promotions, and industry-sponsored education.

The third team’s focus, Ms. Sibley said, was most critical, and the hardest: addressing socio-emotional needs.

“That group was responsible for trying to create the buzz and excitement we would have had at the event,” she said, “pivoting that experience we would have had in a live event to a virtual environment. What we were worried about was, would anyone even come?”

But ACC built it, and they did indeed come. Within a half hour of the opening session, nearly 13,000 people logged on from around the world. “It worked beautifully,” Ms. Sibley said.

By the end of the 3-day event, approximately 34,000 unique visitors had logged in for live or prerecorded sessions. Although ACC worried at first about technical glitches and bandwidth needs, everything ran smoothly. By 90 days after the meeting, 63,000 unique users had logged in to access the conference content.

ACC was among the first organizations forced to switch from an in-person to all-online meeting, but dozens of other organizations have now done the same, discovering the benefits and drawbacks of a virtual environment while experimenting with different formats and offerings. Talks with a few large medical societies about the experience revealed several common themes, including the following:

• Finding new ways to attract and measure attendance.
• Ensuring the actual scientific content was as robust online as in person.
• Realizing the value of social media in enhancing the socio-emotional experience.
• Believing that virtual meetings will become a permanent fixture in a future of “hybrid” conferences.

New ways of attracting and measuring attendance

Previous ways to measure meeting attendance were straightforward: number of registrations and number of people physically walking into sessions. An online conference, however, offers dozens of ways to measure attendance. While the number of registrations remained one tool – and all the organizations interviewed reported record numbers of registrations – organizations also used other metrics to measure success, such as “participation,” “engagement,” and “viewing time.”

ACC defined “participation” as a unique user logging in, and it defined “engagement” as sticking around for a while, possibly using chat functions or discussing the content on social media. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual conference in May, which attracted more than 44,000 registered attendees, also measured total content views – more than 2.5 million during the meeting – and monitored social media. More than 8,800 Twitter users posted more than 45,000 tweets with the #ASCO20 hashtag during the meeting, generating 750 million likes, shares, and comments. The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) annual congress registered a record 18,700 delegates – up from 14,500 in 2019 – but it also measured attendance by average viewing time and visits by congress day and by category.

Organizations shifted fee structures as well. While ACC refunded fees for its first online meeting, it has since developed tiers to match fees to anticipated value, such as charging more for livestreamed sessions that allow interactivity than for viewing recordings. ASCO offered a one-time fee waiver for members plus free registration to cancer survivors and caregivers, discounted registration for patient advocates, and reduced fees for other categories. But adjusting how to measure attendance and charge for events were the easy parts of transitioning to online.
 

Priority for having robust content

The biggest difficulty for most organizations was the short time they had to move online, with a host of challenges accompanying the switch, said the executive director of EULAR, Julia Rautenstrauch, DrMed. These included technical requirements, communication, training, finances, legal issues, compliance rules, and other logistics.

“The year 2020 will be remembered for being the year of unexpected transformation,” said a spokesperson from European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), who declined to be named. “The number of fundamental questions we had to ask ourselves is pages long. The solutions we have implemented so far have been successful, but we won’t rest on our laurels.”

ASCO had an advantage in the pivot, despite only 6 weeks to make the switch, because they already had a robust online platform to build on. “We weren’t starting from scratch, but we were sure changing the way we prepared,” ASCO CEO Clifford Hudis, MD, said.

All of the organizations made the breadth and quality of scientific and educational content a top priority, and those who have already hosted meetings this year report positive feedback.

“The rating of the scientific content was excellent, and the event did indeed fulfill the educational goals and expected learning outcomes for the vast majority of delegates,” EULAR’s Dr. Rautenstrauch said.

“Our goal, when we went into this, was that, in the future when somebody looks back at ASCO20, they should not be able to tell that it was a different year from any other in terms of the science,” Dr. Hudis said.
 

Missing out on networking and social interaction

Even when logistics run smoothly, virtual conferences must overcome two other challenges: the loss of in-person interactions and the potential for “Zoom burnout.”

“You do miss that human contact, the unsaid reactions in the room when you’re speaking or providing a controversial statement, even the facial expression or seeing people lean in or being distracted,” Ms. Sibley said.

Taher Modarressi, MD, an endocrinologist with Diabetes and Endocrine Associates of Hunterdon in Flemington, N.J., said all the digital conferences he has attended were missing those key social elements: “seeing old friends, sideline discussions that generate new ideas, and meeting new colleagues. However, this has been partly alleviated with the robust rise of social media and ‘MedTwitter,’ in particular, where these discussions and interactions continue.”

To attempt to meet that need for social interaction, societies came up with a variety of options. EULAR offered chatrooms, “Meet the Expert” sessions, and other virtual opportunities for live interaction. ASCO hosted discussion groups with subsets of participants, such as virtual meetings with oncology fellows, and it plans to offer networking sessions and “poster walks” during future meetings.

“The value of an in-person meeting is connecting with people, exchanging ideas over coffee, and making new contacts,” ASCO’s Dr. Hudis said. While virtual meetings lose many of those personal interactions, knowledge can also be shared with more people, he said.

The key to combating digital fatigue is focusing on opportunities for interactivity, ACC’s Ms. Sibley said. “When you are creating a virtual environment, it’s important that you offer choices.” Online learners tend to have shorter attention spans than in-person learners, so people need opportunities to flip between sessions, like flipping between TV channels. Different engagement options are also essential, such as chat functions on the video platforms, asking questions of presenters orally or in writing, and using the familiar hashtags for social media discussion.

“We set up all those different ways to interact, and you allow the user to choose,” Ms. Sibley said.

Some conferences, however, had less time or fewer resources to adjust to a virtual format and couldn’t make up for the lost social interaction. Andy Bowman, MD, a neonatologist in Lubbock, Tex., was supposed to attend the Neonatal & Pediatric Airborne Transport Conference sponsored by International Biomed in the spring, but it was canceled at the last minute. Several weeks later, the organizers released videos of scheduled speakers giving their talks, but it was less engaging and too easy to get distracted, Dr. Bowman said.

“There is a noticeable decrease in energy – you can’t look around to feed off other’s reactions when a speaker says something off the wall, or new, or contrary to expectations,” he said. He also especially missed the social interactions, such as “missing out on the chance encounters in the hallway or seeing the same face in back-to-back sessions and figuring out you have shared interest.” He was also sorry to miss the expo because neonatal transport requires a lot of specialty equipment, and he appreciates the chance to actually touch and see it in person.
 

Advantages of an online meeting

Despite the challenges, online meetings can overcome obstacles of in-person meetings, particularly for those in low- and middle-income countries, such as travel and registration costs, the hardships of being away from practice, and visa restrictions.

“You really have the potential to broaden your reach,” Ms. Sibley said, noting that people in 157 countries participated in ACC.20.

Another advantage is keeping the experience available to people after the livestreamed event.

“Virtual events have demonstrated the potential for a more democratic conference world, expanding the dissemination of information to a much wider community of stakeholders,” ESMO’s spokesperson said.

Not traveling can actually mean getting more out of the conference, said Atisha Patel Manhas, MD, a hematologist/oncologist in Dallas, who attended ASCO. “I have really enjoyed the access aspect – on the virtual platform there is so much more content available to you, and travel time doesn’t cut into conference time,” she said, though she also missed the interaction with colleagues.

Others found that virtual conferences provided more engagement than in-person conferences. Marwah Abdalla, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine and director of education for the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, felt that moderated Q&A sessions offered more interaction among participants. She attended and spoke on a panel during virtual SLEEP 2020, a joint meeting of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and the Sleep Research Society (SRS).

“Usually during in-person sessions, only a few questions are possible, and participants rarely have an opportunity to discuss the presentations within the session due to time limits,” Dr. Abdalla said. “Because the conference presentations can also be viewed asynchronously, participants have been able to comment on lectures and continue the discussion offline, either via social media or via email.” She acknowledged drawbacks of the virtual experience, such as an inability to socialize in person and participate in activities but appreciated the new opportunities to network and learn from international colleagues who would not have been able to attend in person.

Ritu Thamman, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, pointed out that many institutions have cut their travel budgets, and physicians would be unable to attend in-person conferences for financial or other reasons. She especially appreciated that the European Society of Cardiology had no registration fee for ESC 2020 and made their content free for all of September, which led to more than 100,000 participants.

“That meant anyone anywhere could learn,” she said. “It makes it much more diverse and more egalitarian. That feels like a good step in the right direction for all of us.”

Dr. Modarressi, who found ESC “exhilarating,” similarly noted the benefit of such an equitably accessible conference. “Decreasing barriers and improving access to top-line results and up-to-date information has always been a challenge to the global health community,” he said, noting that the map of attendance for the virtual meeting was “astonishing.”

Given these benefits, organizers said they expect a future of hybrid conferences: physical meetings for those able to attend in person and virtual ones for those who cannot.

“We also expect that the hybrid congress will cater to the needs of people on-site by allowing them additional access to more scientific content than by physical attendance alone,” Dr. Rautenstrauch said.

Everyone has been in reactive mode this year, Ms. Sibley said, but the future looks bright as they seek ways to overcome challenges such as socio-emotional needs and virtual expo spaces.

“We’ve been thrust into the virtual world much faster than we expected, but we’re finding it’s opening more opportunities than we had live,” Ms. Sibley said. “This has catapulted us, for better or worse, into a new way to deliver education and other types of information.

“I think, if we’re smart, we’ll continue to think of ways this can augment our live environment and not replace it.”
 

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

Fifteen days. That’s how much time the American College of Cardiology (ACC) had to convert its annual conference, scheduled for the end of March this year in Chicago, into a virtual meeting for the estimated 17,000 people who had planned to attend.

Because of the coronavirus pandemic, Illinois announced restrictions on the size of gatherings on March 13, causing the ACC to pivot to an online-only model.

“One big advantage was that we already had all of our content planned,” Janice Sibley, the ACC’s executive vice president of education, told Medscape Medical News. “We knew who the faculty would be for different sessions, and many of them had already planned their slides.”

But determining how to present those hundreds of presentations at an online conference, not to mention addressing the logistics related to registrations, tech platforms, exhibit hall sponsors, and other aspects of an annual meeting, would be no small task.

As medical societies have pivoted from in-person annual conferences to online meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic, they have found that they are mostly up to the challenge of disseminating research results and clinical education on par with in-person presentations. But according to a Medscape poll, many physicians think that, while the virtual experience is worthwhile and getting better, it’s never going to be the same as spending several days on site, immersed in the experience of an annual meeting.

As one respondent commented, “I miss the intellectual excitement, the electricity in the room, when there is a live presentation that announces a major breakthrough.”
 

Large medical societies have an advantage

As ACC rapidly prepared for its virtual conference, the society first refunded all registration and expo fees and worked with the vendor partners to resolve the cancellation of rental space, food and beverage services, and decorating. Then they organized a team of 15 people split into three groups. One group focused on the intellectual, scientific, and educational elements of the virtual conference. They chose 24 sessions to livestream and decided to prerecord the rest for on-demand access, limiting the number of presenters they needed to train for online presentation.

A second team focused on business and worked with industry partners on how to translate a large expo into digital offerings. They developed virtual pages, advertisements, promotions, and industry-sponsored education.

The third team’s focus, Ms. Sibley said, was most critical, and the hardest: addressing socio-emotional needs.

“That group was responsible for trying to create the buzz and excitement we would have had at the event,” she said, “pivoting that experience we would have had in a live event to a virtual environment. What we were worried about was, would anyone even come?”

But ACC built it, and they did indeed come. Within a half hour of the opening session, nearly 13,000 people logged on from around the world. “It worked beautifully,” Ms. Sibley said.

By the end of the 3-day event, approximately 34,000 unique visitors had logged in for live or prerecorded sessions. Although ACC worried at first about technical glitches and bandwidth needs, everything ran smoothly. By 90 days after the meeting, 63,000 unique users had logged in to access the conference content.

ACC was among the first organizations forced to switch from an in-person to all-online meeting, but dozens of other organizations have now done the same, discovering the benefits and drawbacks of a virtual environment while experimenting with different formats and offerings. Talks with a few large medical societies about the experience revealed several common themes, including the following:

• Finding new ways to attract and measure attendance.
• Ensuring the actual scientific content was as robust online as in person.
• Realizing the value of social media in enhancing the socio-emotional experience.
• Believing that virtual meetings will become a permanent fixture in a future of “hybrid” conferences.

New ways of attracting and measuring attendance

Previous ways to measure meeting attendance were straightforward: number of registrations and number of people physically walking into sessions. An online conference, however, offers dozens of ways to measure attendance. While the number of registrations remained one tool – and all the organizations interviewed reported record numbers of registrations – organizations also used other metrics to measure success, such as “participation,” “engagement,” and “viewing time.”

ACC defined “participation” as a unique user logging in, and it defined “engagement” as sticking around for a while, possibly using chat functions or discussing the content on social media. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual conference in May, which attracted more than 44,000 registered attendees, also measured total content views – more than 2.5 million during the meeting – and monitored social media. More than 8,800 Twitter users posted more than 45,000 tweets with the #ASCO20 hashtag during the meeting, generating 750 million likes, shares, and comments. The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) annual congress registered a record 18,700 delegates – up from 14,500 in 2019 – but it also measured attendance by average viewing time and visits by congress day and by category.

Organizations shifted fee structures as well. While ACC refunded fees for its first online meeting, it has since developed tiers to match fees to anticipated value, such as charging more for livestreamed sessions that allow interactivity than for viewing recordings. ASCO offered a one-time fee waiver for members plus free registration to cancer survivors and caregivers, discounted registration for patient advocates, and reduced fees for other categories. But adjusting how to measure attendance and charge for events were the easy parts of transitioning to online.
 

Priority for having robust content

The biggest difficulty for most organizations was the short time they had to move online, with a host of challenges accompanying the switch, said the executive director of EULAR, Julia Rautenstrauch, DrMed. These included technical requirements, communication, training, finances, legal issues, compliance rules, and other logistics.

“The year 2020 will be remembered for being the year of unexpected transformation,” said a spokesperson from European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), who declined to be named. “The number of fundamental questions we had to ask ourselves is pages long. The solutions we have implemented so far have been successful, but we won’t rest on our laurels.”

ASCO had an advantage in the pivot, despite only 6 weeks to make the switch, because they already had a robust online platform to build on. “We weren’t starting from scratch, but we were sure changing the way we prepared,” ASCO CEO Clifford Hudis, MD, said.

All of the organizations made the breadth and quality of scientific and educational content a top priority, and those who have already hosted meetings this year report positive feedback.

“The rating of the scientific content was excellent, and the event did indeed fulfill the educational goals and expected learning outcomes for the vast majority of delegates,” EULAR’s Dr. Rautenstrauch said.

“Our goal, when we went into this, was that, in the future when somebody looks back at ASCO20, they should not be able to tell that it was a different year from any other in terms of the science,” Dr. Hudis said.
 

Missing out on networking and social interaction

Even when logistics run smoothly, virtual conferences must overcome two other challenges: the loss of in-person interactions and the potential for “Zoom burnout.”

“You do miss that human contact, the unsaid reactions in the room when you’re speaking or providing a controversial statement, even the facial expression or seeing people lean in or being distracted,” Ms. Sibley said.

Taher Modarressi, MD, an endocrinologist with Diabetes and Endocrine Associates of Hunterdon in Flemington, N.J., said all the digital conferences he has attended were missing those key social elements: “seeing old friends, sideline discussions that generate new ideas, and meeting new colleagues. However, this has been partly alleviated with the robust rise of social media and ‘MedTwitter,’ in particular, where these discussions and interactions continue.”

To attempt to meet that need for social interaction, societies came up with a variety of options. EULAR offered chatrooms, “Meet the Expert” sessions, and other virtual opportunities for live interaction. ASCO hosted discussion groups with subsets of participants, such as virtual meetings with oncology fellows, and it plans to offer networking sessions and “poster walks” during future meetings.

“The value of an in-person meeting is connecting with people, exchanging ideas over coffee, and making new contacts,” ASCO’s Dr. Hudis said. While virtual meetings lose many of those personal interactions, knowledge can also be shared with more people, he said.

The key to combating digital fatigue is focusing on opportunities for interactivity, ACC’s Ms. Sibley said. “When you are creating a virtual environment, it’s important that you offer choices.” Online learners tend to have shorter attention spans than in-person learners, so people need opportunities to flip between sessions, like flipping between TV channels. Different engagement options are also essential, such as chat functions on the video platforms, asking questions of presenters orally or in writing, and using the familiar hashtags for social media discussion.

“We set up all those different ways to interact, and you allow the user to choose,” Ms. Sibley said.

Some conferences, however, had less time or fewer resources to adjust to a virtual format and couldn’t make up for the lost social interaction. Andy Bowman, MD, a neonatologist in Lubbock, Tex., was supposed to attend the Neonatal & Pediatric Airborne Transport Conference sponsored by International Biomed in the spring, but it was canceled at the last minute. Several weeks later, the organizers released videos of scheduled speakers giving their talks, but it was less engaging and too easy to get distracted, Dr. Bowman said.

“There is a noticeable decrease in energy – you can’t look around to feed off other’s reactions when a speaker says something off the wall, or new, or contrary to expectations,” he said. He also especially missed the social interactions, such as “missing out on the chance encounters in the hallway or seeing the same face in back-to-back sessions and figuring out you have shared interest.” He was also sorry to miss the expo because neonatal transport requires a lot of specialty equipment, and he appreciates the chance to actually touch and see it in person.
 

Advantages of an online meeting

Despite the challenges, online meetings can overcome obstacles of in-person meetings, particularly for those in low- and middle-income countries, such as travel and registration costs, the hardships of being away from practice, and visa restrictions.

“You really have the potential to broaden your reach,” Ms. Sibley said, noting that people in 157 countries participated in ACC.20.

Another advantage is keeping the experience available to people after the livestreamed event.

“Virtual events have demonstrated the potential for a more democratic conference world, expanding the dissemination of information to a much wider community of stakeholders,” ESMO’s spokesperson said.

Not traveling can actually mean getting more out of the conference, said Atisha Patel Manhas, MD, a hematologist/oncologist in Dallas, who attended ASCO. “I have really enjoyed the access aspect – on the virtual platform there is so much more content available to you, and travel time doesn’t cut into conference time,” she said, though she also missed the interaction with colleagues.

Others found that virtual conferences provided more engagement than in-person conferences. Marwah Abdalla, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine and director of education for the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, felt that moderated Q&A sessions offered more interaction among participants. She attended and spoke on a panel during virtual SLEEP 2020, a joint meeting of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and the Sleep Research Society (SRS).

“Usually during in-person sessions, only a few questions are possible, and participants rarely have an opportunity to discuss the presentations within the session due to time limits,” Dr. Abdalla said. “Because the conference presentations can also be viewed asynchronously, participants have been able to comment on lectures and continue the discussion offline, either via social media or via email.” She acknowledged drawbacks of the virtual experience, such as an inability to socialize in person and participate in activities but appreciated the new opportunities to network and learn from international colleagues who would not have been able to attend in person.

Ritu Thamman, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, pointed out that many institutions have cut their travel budgets, and physicians would be unable to attend in-person conferences for financial or other reasons. She especially appreciated that the European Society of Cardiology had no registration fee for ESC 2020 and made their content free for all of September, which led to more than 100,000 participants.

“That meant anyone anywhere could learn,” she said. “It makes it much more diverse and more egalitarian. That feels like a good step in the right direction for all of us.”

Dr. Modarressi, who found ESC “exhilarating,” similarly noted the benefit of such an equitably accessible conference. “Decreasing barriers and improving access to top-line results and up-to-date information has always been a challenge to the global health community,” he said, noting that the map of attendance for the virtual meeting was “astonishing.”

Given these benefits, organizers said they expect a future of hybrid conferences: physical meetings for those able to attend in person and virtual ones for those who cannot.

“We also expect that the hybrid congress will cater to the needs of people on-site by allowing them additional access to more scientific content than by physical attendance alone,” Dr. Rautenstrauch said.

Everyone has been in reactive mode this year, Ms. Sibley said, but the future looks bright as they seek ways to overcome challenges such as socio-emotional needs and virtual expo spaces.

“We’ve been thrust into the virtual world much faster than we expected, but we’re finding it’s opening more opportunities than we had live,” Ms. Sibley said. “This has catapulted us, for better or worse, into a new way to deliver education and other types of information.

“I think, if we’re smart, we’ll continue to think of ways this can augment our live environment and not replace it.”
 

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

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

[email protected]

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

[email protected]

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

[email protected]

Fully 48% of patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases who developed persistent hypogammaglobulinemia after initiating treatment with immunomodulatory agents harbored gene variants associated with inborn errors of immunity, according to the findings of a single-center study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.