Clinical

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

Converge 2021 session

Febrile Infant Update

Presenter

Russell J. McCulloh, MD

Session summary

Infections in infants aged younger than 90 days have been the subject of intense study in pediatric hospital medicine for many years. With the guidance of our talented presenter Dr. Russell McCulloh of Children’s Hospital & Medical Center in Omaha, Neb., the audience explored the historical perspective and evolution of this scientific question, including successes, special situations, newer screening tests, and description of cutting-edge scoring tools and platforms.

The challenge – Tens of thousands of infants present for care in the setting of fever each year. We know that our physical exam and history-taking skills are unlikely to be helpful in risk stratification. We have been guided by the desire to separate serious bacterial infection (SBI: bone infection, meningitis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, bacteremia, enteritis) from invasive bacterial infection (IBI: meningitis and bacteremia). Data has shown that no test is 100% sensitive or specific, therefore we have to balance risk of disease to cost and invasiveness of tests. Important questions include whether to test and how to stratify by age, who to admit, and who to provide antibiotics.

The wins and exceptions – Fortunately, the early Boston, Philadelphia, and Rochester criteria set the stage for safely reducing testing. The current American College of Emergency Physicians guidelines for infants aged 29-90 days allows for lumbar puncture to be optional knowing that a look back using prior criteria identified no cases of meningitis in the low risk group. Similarly, in low-risk infants aged less that 29 days in nearly 4,000 cases there were just 2 infants with meningitis. Universal screening of moms for Group B Streptococcus with delivery of antibiotics in appropriate cases has dramatically decreased incidence of SBI. The Hib and pneumovax vaccines have likewise decreased incidence of SBI. Exceptions persist, including knowledge that infants with herpes simplex virus disease will not have fever in 50% of cases and that risk of HSV transmission is highest (25%-60% transmission) in mothers with primary disease. Given risk of HSV CNS disease after 1 week of age, in any high-risk infant less than 21 days, the mantra remains to test and treat.

The cutting edge – Thanks to ongoing research, we now have the PECARN and REVISE study groups to further aid decision-making. With PECARN we know that SBI in infants is extremely unlikely (negative predictive value, 99.7%) with a negative urinalysis , absolute neutrophil count less than 4,090, and procalcitonin less than 1.71. REVISE has revealed that infants with positive viral testing are unlikely to have SBI (7%-12%), particularly with influenza and RSV disease. Procalcitonin has also recently been shown to be an effective tool to rule out disease with the highest negative predictive value among available inflammatory markers. The just-published Aronson rule identifies a scoring system for IBI (using age less than 21 days/1pt; temp 38-38.4° C/2pt; >38.5° C/4pt; abnormal urinalysis/3pt; and absolute neutrophil count >5185/2pt) where any score greater than2 provides a sensitivity of 98.8% and NPV in validation studies of 99.4%. Likewise, multiplex polymerase chain reaction testing of spinal fluid has allowed for additional insight in pretreated cases and has helped us to remove antibiotic treatment from cases where parechovirus and enterovirus are positive because of the low risk for concomitant bacterial meningitis. As we await the release of revised national American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, it is safe to say great progress has been made in the care of young febrile infants with shorter length of stay and fewer tests for all.

Key takeaways

• Numerous screening tests, rules, and scoring tools have been created to improve identification of infants with IBI, a low-frequency, high-morbidity event. The most recent with negative predictive values of 99.7% and 99.4% are the PECARN and Aronson scoring tools.
• Recent studies of the febrile infant population indicate that the odds of UTI or bacteremia in infants with respiratory symptoms is low, particularly for RSV and influenza.
• Among newer tests developed, a negative procalcitonin has the highest negative predictive value.
• Viral pathogens identified on cerebrospinal fluid molecular testing can be helpful in pretreated cases and indicative of low likelihood of bacterial meningitis allowing for observation off of antibiotics.

Dr. King is a hospitalist, associate director for medical education and associate program director for the pediatrics residency program at Children’s Minnesota in Minneapolis. She has shared some of her resident teaching, presentation skills, and peer-coaching work on a national level.

Converge 2021 session

Febrile Infant Update

Presenter

Russell J. McCulloh, MD

Session summary

Infections in infants aged younger than 90 days have been the subject of intense study in pediatric hospital medicine for many years. With the guidance of our talented presenter Dr. Russell McCulloh of Children’s Hospital & Medical Center in Omaha, Neb., the audience explored the historical perspective and evolution of this scientific question, including successes, special situations, newer screening tests, and description of cutting-edge scoring tools and platforms.

The challenge – Tens of thousands of infants present for care in the setting of fever each year. We know that our physical exam and history-taking skills are unlikely to be helpful in risk stratification. We have been guided by the desire to separate serious bacterial infection (SBI: bone infection, meningitis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, bacteremia, enteritis) from invasive bacterial infection (IBI: meningitis and bacteremia). Data has shown that no test is 100% sensitive or specific, therefore we have to balance risk of disease to cost and invasiveness of tests. Important questions include whether to test and how to stratify by age, who to admit, and who to provide antibiotics.

The wins and exceptions – Fortunately, the early Boston, Philadelphia, and Rochester criteria set the stage for safely reducing testing. The current American College of Emergency Physicians guidelines for infants aged 29-90 days allows for lumbar puncture to be optional knowing that a look back using prior criteria identified no cases of meningitis in the low risk group. Similarly, in low-risk infants aged less that 29 days in nearly 4,000 cases there were just 2 infants with meningitis. Universal screening of moms for Group B Streptococcus with delivery of antibiotics in appropriate cases has dramatically decreased incidence of SBI. The Hib and pneumovax vaccines have likewise decreased incidence of SBI. Exceptions persist, including knowledge that infants with herpes simplex virus disease will not have fever in 50% of cases and that risk of HSV transmission is highest (25%-60% transmission) in mothers with primary disease. Given risk of HSV CNS disease after 1 week of age, in any high-risk infant less than 21 days, the mantra remains to test and treat.

The cutting edge – Thanks to ongoing research, we now have the PECARN and REVISE study groups to further aid decision-making. With PECARN we know that SBI in infants is extremely unlikely (negative predictive value, 99.7%) with a negative urinalysis , absolute neutrophil count less than 4,090, and procalcitonin less than 1.71. REVISE has revealed that infants with positive viral testing are unlikely to have SBI (7%-12%), particularly with influenza and RSV disease. Procalcitonin has also recently been shown to be an effective tool to rule out disease with the highest negative predictive value among available inflammatory markers. The just-published Aronson rule identifies a scoring system for IBI (using age less than 21 days/1pt; temp 38-38.4° C/2pt; >38.5° C/4pt; abnormal urinalysis/3pt; and absolute neutrophil count >5185/2pt) where any score greater than2 provides a sensitivity of 98.8% and NPV in validation studies of 99.4%. Likewise, multiplex polymerase chain reaction testing of spinal fluid has allowed for additional insight in pretreated cases and has helped us to remove antibiotic treatment from cases where parechovirus and enterovirus are positive because of the low risk for concomitant bacterial meningitis. As we await the release of revised national American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, it is safe to say great progress has been made in the care of young febrile infants with shorter length of stay and fewer tests for all.

Key takeaways

• Numerous screening tests, rules, and scoring tools have been created to improve identification of infants with IBI, a low-frequency, high-morbidity event. The most recent with negative predictive values of 99.7% and 99.4% are the PECARN and Aronson scoring tools.
• Recent studies of the febrile infant population indicate that the odds of UTI or bacteremia in infants with respiratory symptoms is low, particularly for RSV and influenza.
• Among newer tests developed, a negative procalcitonin has the highest negative predictive value.
• Viral pathogens identified on cerebrospinal fluid molecular testing can be helpful in pretreated cases and indicative of low likelihood of bacterial meningitis allowing for observation off of antibiotics.

Dr. King is a hospitalist, associate director for medical education and associate program director for the pediatrics residency program at Children’s Minnesota in Minneapolis. She has shared some of her resident teaching, presentation skills, and peer-coaching work on a national level.

Converge 2021 session

Febrile Infant Update

Presenter

Russell J. McCulloh, MD

Session summary

Infections in infants aged younger than 90 days have been the subject of intense study in pediatric hospital medicine for many years. With the guidance of our talented presenter Dr. Russell McCulloh of Children’s Hospital & Medical Center in Omaha, Neb., the audience explored the historical perspective and evolution of this scientific question, including successes, special situations, newer screening tests, and description of cutting-edge scoring tools and platforms.

The challenge – Tens of thousands of infants present for care in the setting of fever each year. We know that our physical exam and history-taking skills are unlikely to be helpful in risk stratification. We have been guided by the desire to separate serious bacterial infection (SBI: bone infection, meningitis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, bacteremia, enteritis) from invasive bacterial infection (IBI: meningitis and bacteremia). Data has shown that no test is 100% sensitive or specific, therefore we have to balance risk of disease to cost and invasiveness of tests. Important questions include whether to test and how to stratify by age, who to admit, and who to provide antibiotics.

The wins and exceptions – Fortunately, the early Boston, Philadelphia, and Rochester criteria set the stage for safely reducing testing. The current American College of Emergency Physicians guidelines for infants aged 29-90 days allows for lumbar puncture to be optional knowing that a look back using prior criteria identified no cases of meningitis in the low risk group. Similarly, in low-risk infants aged less that 29 days in nearly 4,000 cases there were just 2 infants with meningitis. Universal screening of moms for Group B Streptococcus with delivery of antibiotics in appropriate cases has dramatically decreased incidence of SBI. The Hib and pneumovax vaccines have likewise decreased incidence of SBI. Exceptions persist, including knowledge that infants with herpes simplex virus disease will not have fever in 50% of cases and that risk of HSV transmission is highest (25%-60% transmission) in mothers with primary disease. Given risk of HSV CNS disease after 1 week of age, in any high-risk infant less than 21 days, the mantra remains to test and treat.

The cutting edge – Thanks to ongoing research, we now have the PECARN and REVISE study groups to further aid decision-making. With PECARN we know that SBI in infants is extremely unlikely (negative predictive value, 99.7%) with a negative urinalysis , absolute neutrophil count less than 4,090, and procalcitonin less than 1.71. REVISE has revealed that infants with positive viral testing are unlikely to have SBI (7%-12%), particularly with influenza and RSV disease. Procalcitonin has also recently been shown to be an effective tool to rule out disease with the highest negative predictive value among available inflammatory markers. The just-published Aronson rule identifies a scoring system for IBI (using age less than 21 days/1pt; temp 38-38.4° C/2pt; >38.5° C/4pt; abnormal urinalysis/3pt; and absolute neutrophil count >5185/2pt) where any score greater than2 provides a sensitivity of 98.8% and NPV in validation studies of 99.4%. Likewise, multiplex polymerase chain reaction testing of spinal fluid has allowed for additional insight in pretreated cases and has helped us to remove antibiotic treatment from cases where parechovirus and enterovirus are positive because of the low risk for concomitant bacterial meningitis. As we await the release of revised national American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, it is safe to say great progress has been made in the care of young febrile infants with shorter length of stay and fewer tests for all.

Key takeaways

• Numerous screening tests, rules, and scoring tools have been created to improve identification of infants with IBI, a low-frequency, high-morbidity event. The most recent with negative predictive values of 99.7% and 99.4% are the PECARN and Aronson scoring tools.
• Recent studies of the febrile infant population indicate that the odds of UTI or bacteremia in infants with respiratory symptoms is low, particularly for RSV and influenza.
• Among newer tests developed, a negative procalcitonin has the highest negative predictive value.
• Viral pathogens identified on cerebrospinal fluid molecular testing can be helpful in pretreated cases and indicative of low likelihood of bacterial meningitis allowing for observation off of antibiotics.

Dr. King is a hospitalist, associate director for medical education and associate program director for the pediatrics residency program at Children’s Minnesota in Minneapolis. She has shared some of her resident teaching, presentation skills, and peer-coaching work on a national level.

Three or more weeks of oral anticoagulation (OAC) sometimes isn’t up to the job of clearing any potentially embolic left atrial (LA) thrombi before procedures like cardioversion or catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Such OAC-defiant LA thrombi aren’t common, nor are they rare enough to ignore, suggests a new meta-analysis that might also have identified features that predispose to them.

Such predictors of LA clots that persist despite OAC could potentially guide selective use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) instead of more routine policies to either use or not use TEE for thrombus rule-out before rhythm-control procedures, researchers propose.

Their prevalence was about 2.7% among the study’s more than 14,000 patients who received at least 3 weeks of OAC with either vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) before undergoing TEE.

But OAC-resistant LA thrombi were two- to four-times as common in patients with than without certain features, including AF other than paroxysmal and higher CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk-stratification scores.

“TEE imaging in select patients at an elevated risk of LA thrombus, despite anticoagulation status, may be a reasonable approach to minimize the risk of thromboembolic complications following cardioversion or catheter ablation,” propose the study’s authors, led by Antony Lurie, BMSC, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont. Their report was published in the June 15 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Guidelines don’t encourage TEE before cardioversion in patients who have been on OAC for at least 3 weeks, the group notes, and policies on TEE use before AF ablation vary widely regardless of anticoagulation status.

The current study suggests that 3 weeks of OAC isn’t enough for a substantial number of patients, who might be put at thromboembolic risk if TEE were to be skipped before rhythm-control procedures.

Conversely, many patients unlikely to have LA thrombi get preprocedure TEE anyway. That can happen “irrespective of how long they’ve been anticoagulated, their pattern of atrial fibrillation, or their stroke risk,” senior author Jorge A. Wong, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

But “TEE is an invasive imaging modality, so it is associated with small element of risk.” The current study, Dr. Wong said, points to potential risk-stratification tools clinicians might use to guide more selective TEE screening.

“At sites where TEEs are done all the time for patients undergoing ablation, one could use several of these risk markers to perhaps tailor use of TEE in individuals,” Dr. Wong said. “For example, in people with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, we found that the risk of left atrial appendage clot was approximately 1% or less.” Screening by TEE might reasonably be avoided in such patients.

“Fortunately, continued oral anticoagulation already yields low peri-procedural stroke rates,” observes an accompanying editorial from Paulus Kirchhof, MD, and Christoph Sinning, MD, from the University Heart & Vascular Center and German Centre of Cardiovascular Research, Hamburg.

“Based on this new analysis of existing data, a risk-based use of TEE imaging in anticoagulated patients could enable further improvement in the safe delivery of rhythm control interventions in patients with AF,” the editorialists agree.

The meta-analysis covered 10 prospective and 25 retrospective studies with a total of 14,653 patients that reported whether LA thrombus was present in patients with AF or atrial flutter (AFL) who underwent TEE after at least 3 weeks of VKA or DOAC therapy. Reports for 30 of the studies identified patients by rhythm-control procedure, and the remaining five didn’t specify TEE indications.

The weighted mean prevalence of LA thrombus at TEE was 2.73% (95% confidence interval, 1.95%-3.80%). The finding was not significantly changed in separate sensitivity analyses, the report says, including one limited to studies with low risk of bias and others excluding patients with valvular AF, interrupted OAC, heparin bridging, or subtherapeutic anticoagulation, respectively.

Patients treated with VKA and DOACs showed similar prevalences of LA thrombi, with means of 2.80% and 3.12%, respectively (P = .674). The prevalence was significantly higher in patients:

• with nonparoxysmal than with paroxysmal AF/AFL (4.81% vs. 1.03%; P < .001)
• undergoing cardioversion than ablation (5.55% vs. 1.65; P < .001)
• with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of at least 3 than with scores of 2 or less (6.31% vs. 1.06%; P < .001).

A limitation of the study, observe Dr. Kirchhof and Dr. Sinning, “is that all patients had a clinical indication for a TEE, which might be a selection bias. When a thrombus was found on TEE, clinical judgment led to postponing of the procedure,” thereby avoiding potential thromboembolism.

“Thus, the paper cannot demonstrate that presence of a thrombus on TEE is related to peri-procedural ischemic stroke,” they write.

The literature puts the risk for stroke or systemic embolism at well under 1% for patients anticoagulated with either VKA or DOACs for at least 3 weeks prior to cardioversion, in contrast to the nearly 3% prevalence of LA appendage thrombus by TEE in the current analysis, Dr. Wong observed.

“So we’re seeing a lot more left atrial appendage thrombus than we would see stroke,” but there wasn’t a way to determine whether that increases the stroke risk, he agreed.Dr. Wong, Dr. Lurie, and the other authors report no relevant conflicts. Dr. Kirchhof discloses receiving partial support “from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation” and to being listed as inventor on two AF-related patents held by the University of Birmingham. Dr. Sinning reports no relevant relationships. 

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

Three or more weeks of oral anticoagulation (OAC) sometimes isn’t up to the job of clearing any potentially embolic left atrial (LA) thrombi before procedures like cardioversion or catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Such OAC-defiant LA thrombi aren’t common, nor are they rare enough to ignore, suggests a new meta-analysis that might also have identified features that predispose to them.

Such predictors of LA clots that persist despite OAC could potentially guide selective use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) instead of more routine policies to either use or not use TEE for thrombus rule-out before rhythm-control procedures, researchers propose.

Their prevalence was about 2.7% among the study’s more than 14,000 patients who received at least 3 weeks of OAC with either vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) before undergoing TEE.

But OAC-resistant LA thrombi were two- to four-times as common in patients with than without certain features, including AF other than paroxysmal and higher CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk-stratification scores.

“TEE imaging in select patients at an elevated risk of LA thrombus, despite anticoagulation status, may be a reasonable approach to minimize the risk of thromboembolic complications following cardioversion or catheter ablation,” propose the study’s authors, led by Antony Lurie, BMSC, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont. Their report was published in the June 15 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Guidelines don’t encourage TEE before cardioversion in patients who have been on OAC for at least 3 weeks, the group notes, and policies on TEE use before AF ablation vary widely regardless of anticoagulation status.

The current study suggests that 3 weeks of OAC isn’t enough for a substantial number of patients, who might be put at thromboembolic risk if TEE were to be skipped before rhythm-control procedures.

Conversely, many patients unlikely to have LA thrombi get preprocedure TEE anyway. That can happen “irrespective of how long they’ve been anticoagulated, their pattern of atrial fibrillation, or their stroke risk,” senior author Jorge A. Wong, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

But “TEE is an invasive imaging modality, so it is associated with small element of risk.” The current study, Dr. Wong said, points to potential risk-stratification tools clinicians might use to guide more selective TEE screening.

“At sites where TEEs are done all the time for patients undergoing ablation, one could use several of these risk markers to perhaps tailor use of TEE in individuals,” Dr. Wong said. “For example, in people with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, we found that the risk of left atrial appendage clot was approximately 1% or less.” Screening by TEE might reasonably be avoided in such patients.

“Fortunately, continued oral anticoagulation already yields low peri-procedural stroke rates,” observes an accompanying editorial from Paulus Kirchhof, MD, and Christoph Sinning, MD, from the University Heart & Vascular Center and German Centre of Cardiovascular Research, Hamburg.

“Based on this new analysis of existing data, a risk-based use of TEE imaging in anticoagulated patients could enable further improvement in the safe delivery of rhythm control interventions in patients with AF,” the editorialists agree.

The meta-analysis covered 10 prospective and 25 retrospective studies with a total of 14,653 patients that reported whether LA thrombus was present in patients with AF or atrial flutter (AFL) who underwent TEE after at least 3 weeks of VKA or DOAC therapy. Reports for 30 of the studies identified patients by rhythm-control procedure, and the remaining five didn’t specify TEE indications.

The weighted mean prevalence of LA thrombus at TEE was 2.73% (95% confidence interval, 1.95%-3.80%). The finding was not significantly changed in separate sensitivity analyses, the report says, including one limited to studies with low risk of bias and others excluding patients with valvular AF, interrupted OAC, heparin bridging, or subtherapeutic anticoagulation, respectively.

Patients treated with VKA and DOACs showed similar prevalences of LA thrombi, with means of 2.80% and 3.12%, respectively (P = .674). The prevalence was significantly higher in patients:

• with nonparoxysmal than with paroxysmal AF/AFL (4.81% vs. 1.03%; P < .001)
• undergoing cardioversion than ablation (5.55% vs. 1.65; P < .001)
• with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of at least 3 than with scores of 2 or less (6.31% vs. 1.06%; P < .001).

A limitation of the study, observe Dr. Kirchhof and Dr. Sinning, “is that all patients had a clinical indication for a TEE, which might be a selection bias. When a thrombus was found on TEE, clinical judgment led to postponing of the procedure,” thereby avoiding potential thromboembolism.

“Thus, the paper cannot demonstrate that presence of a thrombus on TEE is related to peri-procedural ischemic stroke,” they write.

The literature puts the risk for stroke or systemic embolism at well under 1% for patients anticoagulated with either VKA or DOACs for at least 3 weeks prior to cardioversion, in contrast to the nearly 3% prevalence of LA appendage thrombus by TEE in the current analysis, Dr. Wong observed.

“So we’re seeing a lot more left atrial appendage thrombus than we would see stroke,” but there wasn’t a way to determine whether that increases the stroke risk, he agreed.Dr. Wong, Dr. Lurie, and the other authors report no relevant conflicts. Dr. Kirchhof discloses receiving partial support “from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation” and to being listed as inventor on two AF-related patents held by the University of Birmingham. Dr. Sinning reports no relevant relationships. 

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

Three or more weeks of oral anticoagulation (OAC) sometimes isn’t up to the job of clearing any potentially embolic left atrial (LA) thrombi before procedures like cardioversion or catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Such OAC-defiant LA thrombi aren’t common, nor are they rare enough to ignore, suggests a new meta-analysis that might also have identified features that predispose to them.

Such predictors of LA clots that persist despite OAC could potentially guide selective use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) instead of more routine policies to either use or not use TEE for thrombus rule-out before rhythm-control procedures, researchers propose.

Their prevalence was about 2.7% among the study’s more than 14,000 patients who received at least 3 weeks of OAC with either vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) before undergoing TEE.

But OAC-resistant LA thrombi were two- to four-times as common in patients with than without certain features, including AF other than paroxysmal and higher CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk-stratification scores.

“TEE imaging in select patients at an elevated risk of LA thrombus, despite anticoagulation status, may be a reasonable approach to minimize the risk of thromboembolic complications following cardioversion or catheter ablation,” propose the study’s authors, led by Antony Lurie, BMSC, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont. Their report was published in the June 15 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Guidelines don’t encourage TEE before cardioversion in patients who have been on OAC for at least 3 weeks, the group notes, and policies on TEE use before AF ablation vary widely regardless of anticoagulation status.

The current study suggests that 3 weeks of OAC isn’t enough for a substantial number of patients, who might be put at thromboembolic risk if TEE were to be skipped before rhythm-control procedures.

Conversely, many patients unlikely to have LA thrombi get preprocedure TEE anyway. That can happen “irrespective of how long they’ve been anticoagulated, their pattern of atrial fibrillation, or their stroke risk,” senior author Jorge A. Wong, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

But “TEE is an invasive imaging modality, so it is associated with small element of risk.” The current study, Dr. Wong said, points to potential risk-stratification tools clinicians might use to guide more selective TEE screening.

“At sites where TEEs are done all the time for patients undergoing ablation, one could use several of these risk markers to perhaps tailor use of TEE in individuals,” Dr. Wong said. “For example, in people with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, we found that the risk of left atrial appendage clot was approximately 1% or less.” Screening by TEE might reasonably be avoided in such patients.

“Fortunately, continued oral anticoagulation already yields low peri-procedural stroke rates,” observes an accompanying editorial from Paulus Kirchhof, MD, and Christoph Sinning, MD, from the University Heart & Vascular Center and German Centre of Cardiovascular Research, Hamburg.

“Based on this new analysis of existing data, a risk-based use of TEE imaging in anticoagulated patients could enable further improvement in the safe delivery of rhythm control interventions in patients with AF,” the editorialists agree.

The meta-analysis covered 10 prospective and 25 retrospective studies with a total of 14,653 patients that reported whether LA thrombus was present in patients with AF or atrial flutter (AFL) who underwent TEE after at least 3 weeks of VKA or DOAC therapy. Reports for 30 of the studies identified patients by rhythm-control procedure, and the remaining five didn’t specify TEE indications.

The weighted mean prevalence of LA thrombus at TEE was 2.73% (95% confidence interval, 1.95%-3.80%). The finding was not significantly changed in separate sensitivity analyses, the report says, including one limited to studies with low risk of bias and others excluding patients with valvular AF, interrupted OAC, heparin bridging, or subtherapeutic anticoagulation, respectively.

Patients treated with VKA and DOACs showed similar prevalences of LA thrombi, with means of 2.80% and 3.12%, respectively (P = .674). The prevalence was significantly higher in patients:

• with nonparoxysmal than with paroxysmal AF/AFL (4.81% vs. 1.03%; P < .001)
• undergoing cardioversion than ablation (5.55% vs. 1.65; P < .001)
• with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of at least 3 than with scores of 2 or less (6.31% vs. 1.06%; P < .001).

A limitation of the study, observe Dr. Kirchhof and Dr. Sinning, “is that all patients had a clinical indication for a TEE, which might be a selection bias. When a thrombus was found on TEE, clinical judgment led to postponing of the procedure,” thereby avoiding potential thromboembolism.

“Thus, the paper cannot demonstrate that presence of a thrombus on TEE is related to peri-procedural ischemic stroke,” they write.

The literature puts the risk for stroke or systemic embolism at well under 1% for patients anticoagulated with either VKA or DOACs for at least 3 weeks prior to cardioversion, in contrast to the nearly 3% prevalence of LA appendage thrombus by TEE in the current analysis, Dr. Wong observed.

“So we’re seeing a lot more left atrial appendage thrombus than we would see stroke,” but there wasn’t a way to determine whether that increases the stroke risk, he agreed.Dr. Wong, Dr. Lurie, and the other authors report no relevant conflicts. Dr. Kirchhof discloses receiving partial support “from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation” and to being listed as inventor on two AF-related patents held by the University of Birmingham. Dr. Sinning reports no relevant relationships. 

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

A new clinical score has been developed, and externally validated, to identify patients at risk of bleeding after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

“Despite the TAVR iterations, we recognize that bleeding remains a very important and perhaps also neglected issue. Indeed, no specifically developed standard algorithm existed before this to assess bleeding risk post-TAVR,” lead author Eliano Pio Navarese, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Although bleeding rates can be as high as 9% at 30 days and between 3% and 11% in the first year, only a few studies have applied existing scores to TAVR patients, he noted.

The PREDICT-TAVR score includes six common variables and can be calculated by hand using a simple nomogram or a web-based calculator, with a dedicated website in the works, said Dr. Navarese, Nicolaus Copernicus University and SIRO MEDICINE Network, Bydgoszcz, Poland, and the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

A strength of the score is that machine-learning methods were used and the choice of variables optimized through recursive feature elimination and cross validation to remove the weakest variables, he said. Artificial intelligence, including use of random forest, naïve Bayes, and logistic regression classifiers, was also applied to the algorithms and the results cross-checked with standard multivariate analysis.

“It was a tremendous effort in terms of the analytics conducted,” Dr. Navarese said. “This is not a simple score but the integration of the most sophisticated machine learning methods and algorithms.”

Details are published in the June 14 issue of JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

The six variables used to calculate 30-day bleeding risk after TAVR and the points assigned to each are:

• blood hemoglobin (0-10 points)
• serum iron concentration (0-5 points)
• common femoral artery diameter (0-3 points)
•  (0-3 points)
• dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; 0-2 points)
• oral anticoagulation therapy (0-2 points)

The six items were selected among 104 baseline variables from 5,185 consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR in the prospective RISPEVA (Registro Italiano GISE sull’Impianto di Valvola Aortica Percutanea) registry between March 2012 and December 2019, then validated in 5,043 patients in the prospective POL-TAVI (Polish Registry of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) between January 2013 and December 2019.

In the derivation cohort, 216 patients (4.2%) experienced bleeding events at 1 year, with 169 events (78%) occurring during the first 30 days.

PREDICT-TAVR exhibited high discriminatory power for bleeding events at 30 days, as reflected by an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.83). Internal validation by optimism bootstrap-corrected AUC was consistent at 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

PREDICT-TAVR also outperformed scores not developed for TAVR, such as the PARIS score for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (AUC, 0.69) and the well-validated HAS-BLED for patients receiving anticoagulation (AUC, 0.58; P < .001 for both).

In the validation cohort, the AUC for bleeding complications at 30 days was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82) versus an AUC of 0.68 for PARIS and 0.66 for HAS-BLED.

A HAS-BLED score of 4 predicted a higher rate of severe bleeding and mortality in the year after transfemoral TAVR in the 2018 Japanese OCEAN-TAVI study.
 

Bleeding events by risk categories

Risk score quartiles identified as low risk were 8 points or less, as moderate risk were 8 to less than 10 points, as high risk were 10 to less than 12 points, and as very-high-risk score were above 12 points.

In the derivation cohort, 30-day bleeding events across quartiles were 0.8%, 1.1%, 2.5%, and 8.5%, respectively (overall P < .001).

Compared with the lowest quartile, bleeding risk was numerically higher for the second quartile (odds ratio, 1.75) and significantly higher in the third (OR, 2.0) and fourth (OR, 2.49) quartiles (P < .001 for both).

A landmark cumulative-event analysis showed a significantly greater risk of bleeding for the two highest quartiles up to 30 days; however, these differences were no longer significant from 30 days to 1 year, likely because of a limited number of events, the authors suggest. Similar results were seen in the validation cohort.

The number of patients in the high- and very-high-risk groups isn’t trivial, and bleeding rates reached as high as 12.6% in the highest quartile, Dr. Navarese observed. Guidelines recommend DAPT for 3 to 6 months after TAVR; however, emerging data, including a recent meta-analysis, suggest monotherapy may be a very good option.

“So, if you had a high bleeding risk and are considering postprocedural DAPT or anticoagulation, I would think twice rather than administering dual antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation for a long time, or at least, I would consider the impact of this score on this choice,” he said.

Subgroup analyses showed AUCs ranging from 0.77 to 0.81 for subgroups such as age older than 80 years, diabetes, obesity, female sex, previous PCI, and New York Heart Association class III or IV.

Serum iron showed the highest AUC in the primary PREDICT-TAVR model; however, should iron levels be unavailable, a simplified score modeled without iron levels retained predictive power, yielding AUCs for 30-day bleeding of 0.78 in the derivation cohort and 0.75 in the validation cohort.

“PREDICT-TAVR score can impact clinical practice, not only selecting the optimal thrombotic regimen in certain high bleeding-risk populations but also to treat pre-TAVR anemia and iron deficiencies, which may affect outcomes,” Dr. Navarese said. “Of course, future prospective biological and clinical investigations are needed to elucidate the score and the role of the score’s treatable risk traits in reducing post-TAVR bleeding complications.”

Commenting for this news organization, Sunil Rao, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said anemia is a covariant in many risk models for bleeding and vascular complications in PCI and acute coronary syndrome, but hemoglobin and iron levels are collinear.

“The problem I think is when you throw hemoglobin and iron in the same model, just by play of chance, one variable can knock out the other one,” he said. “So I don’t know necessarily if we need to start measuring iron on everyone. We certainly should be measuring hemoglobin, which I think most people will have, and if a patient has pre-existing anemia, that should be a red flag for us.”

Age and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score did not reach statistical significance in the model – likely reflecting the high-/extremely-high-risk patient population with an average STS score of 7.7 and average age of 82 years – but may become more important as TAVR is applied more widely, Dr. Rao and Zachary Wegermann, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, write in an accompanying editorial.

They also point out that the study was limited by a low rate of bleeding events, and, importantly, the score can’t distinguish between minor or major bleeding.

“It’s worth trying to repeat the analyses in lower-risk patients because we may find other covariates that are important,” Dr. Rao said in an interview. “The other thing we need to get to is probably being a little bit more sophisticated. The variables included in these models are the ones that are measured; they’re also the ones that are clinically apparent.”

“But there’s a whole area of genomic medicine, proteomic medicine, metabolomic medicine that, as it starts developing and becomes more and more sophisticated, my suspicion is that we’re going to get even more precise and accurate about patients’ risk, and it’s going to become more individualized, rather than just measuring variables like age and lab values,” he said.

In the meantime, having variables documented in the electronic health record, with hard stops deployed if variables aren’t measured, is “a step in the right direction,” he added.

Dr. Navarese has received research grants from Abbott, Amgen, and Medtronic and received lecture fees and honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Dr. Rao and Dr. Wegermann report no relevant financial disclosures.

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

A new clinical score has been developed, and externally validated, to identify patients at risk of bleeding after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

“Despite the TAVR iterations, we recognize that bleeding remains a very important and perhaps also neglected issue. Indeed, no specifically developed standard algorithm existed before this to assess bleeding risk post-TAVR,” lead author Eliano Pio Navarese, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Although bleeding rates can be as high as 9% at 30 days and between 3% and 11% in the first year, only a few studies have applied existing scores to TAVR patients, he noted.

The PREDICT-TAVR score includes six common variables and can be calculated by hand using a simple nomogram or a web-based calculator, with a dedicated website in the works, said Dr. Navarese, Nicolaus Copernicus University and SIRO MEDICINE Network, Bydgoszcz, Poland, and the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

A strength of the score is that machine-learning methods were used and the choice of variables optimized through recursive feature elimination and cross validation to remove the weakest variables, he said. Artificial intelligence, including use of random forest, naïve Bayes, and logistic regression classifiers, was also applied to the algorithms and the results cross-checked with standard multivariate analysis.

“It was a tremendous effort in terms of the analytics conducted,” Dr. Navarese said. “This is not a simple score but the integration of the most sophisticated machine learning methods and algorithms.”

Details are published in the June 14 issue of JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

The six variables used to calculate 30-day bleeding risk after TAVR and the points assigned to each are:

• blood hemoglobin (0-10 points)
• serum iron concentration (0-5 points)
• common femoral artery diameter (0-3 points)
•  (0-3 points)
• dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; 0-2 points)
• oral anticoagulation therapy (0-2 points)

The six items were selected among 104 baseline variables from 5,185 consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR in the prospective RISPEVA (Registro Italiano GISE sull’Impianto di Valvola Aortica Percutanea) registry between March 2012 and December 2019, then validated in 5,043 patients in the prospective POL-TAVI (Polish Registry of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) between January 2013 and December 2019.

In the derivation cohort, 216 patients (4.2%) experienced bleeding events at 1 year, with 169 events (78%) occurring during the first 30 days.

PREDICT-TAVR exhibited high discriminatory power for bleeding events at 30 days, as reflected by an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.83). Internal validation by optimism bootstrap-corrected AUC was consistent at 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

PREDICT-TAVR also outperformed scores not developed for TAVR, such as the PARIS score for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (AUC, 0.69) and the well-validated HAS-BLED for patients receiving anticoagulation (AUC, 0.58; P < .001 for both).

In the validation cohort, the AUC for bleeding complications at 30 days was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82) versus an AUC of 0.68 for PARIS and 0.66 for HAS-BLED.

A HAS-BLED score of 4 predicted a higher rate of severe bleeding and mortality in the year after transfemoral TAVR in the 2018 Japanese OCEAN-TAVI study.
 

Bleeding events by risk categories

Risk score quartiles identified as low risk were 8 points or less, as moderate risk were 8 to less than 10 points, as high risk were 10 to less than 12 points, and as very-high-risk score were above 12 points.

In the derivation cohort, 30-day bleeding events across quartiles were 0.8%, 1.1%, 2.5%, and 8.5%, respectively (overall P < .001).

Compared with the lowest quartile, bleeding risk was numerically higher for the second quartile (odds ratio, 1.75) and significantly higher in the third (OR, 2.0) and fourth (OR, 2.49) quartiles (P < .001 for both).

A landmark cumulative-event analysis showed a significantly greater risk of bleeding for the two highest quartiles up to 30 days; however, these differences were no longer significant from 30 days to 1 year, likely because of a limited number of events, the authors suggest. Similar results were seen in the validation cohort.

The number of patients in the high- and very-high-risk groups isn’t trivial, and bleeding rates reached as high as 12.6% in the highest quartile, Dr. Navarese observed. Guidelines recommend DAPT for 3 to 6 months after TAVR; however, emerging data, including a recent meta-analysis, suggest monotherapy may be a very good option.

“So, if you had a high bleeding risk and are considering postprocedural DAPT or anticoagulation, I would think twice rather than administering dual antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation for a long time, or at least, I would consider the impact of this score on this choice,” he said.

Subgroup analyses showed AUCs ranging from 0.77 to 0.81 for subgroups such as age older than 80 years, diabetes, obesity, female sex, previous PCI, and New York Heart Association class III or IV.

Serum iron showed the highest AUC in the primary PREDICT-TAVR model; however, should iron levels be unavailable, a simplified score modeled without iron levels retained predictive power, yielding AUCs for 30-day bleeding of 0.78 in the derivation cohort and 0.75 in the validation cohort.

“PREDICT-TAVR score can impact clinical practice, not only selecting the optimal thrombotic regimen in certain high bleeding-risk populations but also to treat pre-TAVR anemia and iron deficiencies, which may affect outcomes,” Dr. Navarese said. “Of course, future prospective biological and clinical investigations are needed to elucidate the score and the role of the score’s treatable risk traits in reducing post-TAVR bleeding complications.”

Commenting for this news organization, Sunil Rao, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said anemia is a covariant in many risk models for bleeding and vascular complications in PCI and acute coronary syndrome, but hemoglobin and iron levels are collinear.

“The problem I think is when you throw hemoglobin and iron in the same model, just by play of chance, one variable can knock out the other one,” he said. “So I don’t know necessarily if we need to start measuring iron on everyone. We certainly should be measuring hemoglobin, which I think most people will have, and if a patient has pre-existing anemia, that should be a red flag for us.”

Age and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score did not reach statistical significance in the model – likely reflecting the high-/extremely-high-risk patient population with an average STS score of 7.7 and average age of 82 years – but may become more important as TAVR is applied more widely, Dr. Rao and Zachary Wegermann, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, write in an accompanying editorial.

They also point out that the study was limited by a low rate of bleeding events, and, importantly, the score can’t distinguish between minor or major bleeding.

“It’s worth trying to repeat the analyses in lower-risk patients because we may find other covariates that are important,” Dr. Rao said in an interview. “The other thing we need to get to is probably being a little bit more sophisticated. The variables included in these models are the ones that are measured; they’re also the ones that are clinically apparent.”

“But there’s a whole area of genomic medicine, proteomic medicine, metabolomic medicine that, as it starts developing and becomes more and more sophisticated, my suspicion is that we’re going to get even more precise and accurate about patients’ risk, and it’s going to become more individualized, rather than just measuring variables like age and lab values,” he said.

In the meantime, having variables documented in the electronic health record, with hard stops deployed if variables aren’t measured, is “a step in the right direction,” he added.

Dr. Navarese has received research grants from Abbott, Amgen, and Medtronic and received lecture fees and honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Dr. Rao and Dr. Wegermann report no relevant financial disclosures.

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

A new clinical score has been developed, and externally validated, to identify patients at risk of bleeding after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

“Despite the TAVR iterations, we recognize that bleeding remains a very important and perhaps also neglected issue. Indeed, no specifically developed standard algorithm existed before this to assess bleeding risk post-TAVR,” lead author Eliano Pio Navarese, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Although bleeding rates can be as high as 9% at 30 days and between 3% and 11% in the first year, only a few studies have applied existing scores to TAVR patients, he noted.

The PREDICT-TAVR score includes six common variables and can be calculated by hand using a simple nomogram or a web-based calculator, with a dedicated website in the works, said Dr. Navarese, Nicolaus Copernicus University and SIRO MEDICINE Network, Bydgoszcz, Poland, and the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

A strength of the score is that machine-learning methods were used and the choice of variables optimized through recursive feature elimination and cross validation to remove the weakest variables, he said. Artificial intelligence, including use of random forest, naïve Bayes, and logistic regression classifiers, was also applied to the algorithms and the results cross-checked with standard multivariate analysis.

“It was a tremendous effort in terms of the analytics conducted,” Dr. Navarese said. “This is not a simple score but the integration of the most sophisticated machine learning methods and algorithms.”

Details are published in the June 14 issue of JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

The six variables used to calculate 30-day bleeding risk after TAVR and the points assigned to each are:

• blood hemoglobin (0-10 points)
• serum iron concentration (0-5 points)
• common femoral artery diameter (0-3 points)
•  (0-3 points)
• dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; 0-2 points)
• oral anticoagulation therapy (0-2 points)

The six items were selected among 104 baseline variables from 5,185 consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR in the prospective RISPEVA (Registro Italiano GISE sull’Impianto di Valvola Aortica Percutanea) registry between March 2012 and December 2019, then validated in 5,043 patients in the prospective POL-TAVI (Polish Registry of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) between January 2013 and December 2019.

In the derivation cohort, 216 patients (4.2%) experienced bleeding events at 1 year, with 169 events (78%) occurring during the first 30 days.

PREDICT-TAVR exhibited high discriminatory power for bleeding events at 30 days, as reflected by an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.83). Internal validation by optimism bootstrap-corrected AUC was consistent at 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

PREDICT-TAVR also outperformed scores not developed for TAVR, such as the PARIS score for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (AUC, 0.69) and the well-validated HAS-BLED for patients receiving anticoagulation (AUC, 0.58; P < .001 for both).

In the validation cohort, the AUC for bleeding complications at 30 days was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82) versus an AUC of 0.68 for PARIS and 0.66 for HAS-BLED.

A HAS-BLED score of 4 predicted a higher rate of severe bleeding and mortality in the year after transfemoral TAVR in the 2018 Japanese OCEAN-TAVI study.
 

Bleeding events by risk categories

Risk score quartiles identified as low risk were 8 points or less, as moderate risk were 8 to less than 10 points, as high risk were 10 to less than 12 points, and as very-high-risk score were above 12 points.

In the derivation cohort, 30-day bleeding events across quartiles were 0.8%, 1.1%, 2.5%, and 8.5%, respectively (overall P < .001).

Compared with the lowest quartile, bleeding risk was numerically higher for the second quartile (odds ratio, 1.75) and significantly higher in the third (OR, 2.0) and fourth (OR, 2.49) quartiles (P < .001 for both).

A landmark cumulative-event analysis showed a significantly greater risk of bleeding for the two highest quartiles up to 30 days; however, these differences were no longer significant from 30 days to 1 year, likely because of a limited number of events, the authors suggest. Similar results were seen in the validation cohort.

The number of patients in the high- and very-high-risk groups isn’t trivial, and bleeding rates reached as high as 12.6% in the highest quartile, Dr. Navarese observed. Guidelines recommend DAPT for 3 to 6 months after TAVR; however, emerging data, including a recent meta-analysis, suggest monotherapy may be a very good option.

“So, if you had a high bleeding risk and are considering postprocedural DAPT or anticoagulation, I would think twice rather than administering dual antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation for a long time, or at least, I would consider the impact of this score on this choice,” he said.

Subgroup analyses showed AUCs ranging from 0.77 to 0.81 for subgroups such as age older than 80 years, diabetes, obesity, female sex, previous PCI, and New York Heart Association class III or IV.

Serum iron showed the highest AUC in the primary PREDICT-TAVR model; however, should iron levels be unavailable, a simplified score modeled without iron levels retained predictive power, yielding AUCs for 30-day bleeding of 0.78 in the derivation cohort and 0.75 in the validation cohort.

“PREDICT-TAVR score can impact clinical practice, not only selecting the optimal thrombotic regimen in certain high bleeding-risk populations but also to treat pre-TAVR anemia and iron deficiencies, which may affect outcomes,” Dr. Navarese said. “Of course, future prospective biological and clinical investigations are needed to elucidate the score and the role of the score’s treatable risk traits in reducing post-TAVR bleeding complications.”

Commenting for this news organization, Sunil Rao, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said anemia is a covariant in many risk models for bleeding and vascular complications in PCI and acute coronary syndrome, but hemoglobin and iron levels are collinear.

“The problem I think is when you throw hemoglobin and iron in the same model, just by play of chance, one variable can knock out the other one,” he said. “So I don’t know necessarily if we need to start measuring iron on everyone. We certainly should be measuring hemoglobin, which I think most people will have, and if a patient has pre-existing anemia, that should be a red flag for us.”

Age and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score did not reach statistical significance in the model – likely reflecting the high-/extremely-high-risk patient population with an average STS score of 7.7 and average age of 82 years – but may become more important as TAVR is applied more widely, Dr. Rao and Zachary Wegermann, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, write in an accompanying editorial.

They also point out that the study was limited by a low rate of bleeding events, and, importantly, the score can’t distinguish between minor or major bleeding.

“It’s worth trying to repeat the analyses in lower-risk patients because we may find other covariates that are important,” Dr. Rao said in an interview. “The other thing we need to get to is probably being a little bit more sophisticated. The variables included in these models are the ones that are measured; they’re also the ones that are clinically apparent.”

“But there’s a whole area of genomic medicine, proteomic medicine, metabolomic medicine that, as it starts developing and becomes more and more sophisticated, my suspicion is that we’re going to get even more precise and accurate about patients’ risk, and it’s going to become more individualized, rather than just measuring variables like age and lab values,” he said.

In the meantime, having variables documented in the electronic health record, with hard stops deployed if variables aren’t measured, is “a step in the right direction,” he added.

Dr. Navarese has received research grants from Abbott, Amgen, and Medtronic and received lecture fees and honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Dr. Rao and Dr. Wegermann report no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Background: Critically ill patients are often vitamin D deficient, but no large randomized trials have investigated whether early vitamin D supplementation can affect clinical outcomes.

Study design: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.Setting: 44 U.S. hospitals, during April 2017–July 2018.

Synopsis: The study enrolled 1,078 patients with 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels < 20 ng/mL who were critically ill (defined as patients being admitted to the ICU with one or more risk factor for lung injury or death). Participants were randomized to early administration of a single dose of 540,000 IUs of enteral vitamin D₃ or placebo. The authors did not identify a statistically significant difference in the 90-day all-cause mortality between the two groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences in length of stay, ventilator-free days or serious adverse outcomes between the two groups.

Bottom line: Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not decrease 90-day all-cause mortality in critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients.

Citation: Ginde A et al. Early high-dose vitamin D₃ for critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26; 281:2529-40.

Dr. Persaud is a hospitalist, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Background: Critically ill patients are often vitamin D deficient, but no large randomized trials have investigated whether early vitamin D supplementation can affect clinical outcomes.

Study design: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.Setting: 44 U.S. hospitals, during April 2017–July 2018.

Synopsis: The study enrolled 1,078 patients with 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels < 20 ng/mL who were critically ill (defined as patients being admitted to the ICU with one or more risk factor for lung injury or death). Participants were randomized to early administration of a single dose of 540,000 IUs of enteral vitamin D₃ or placebo. The authors did not identify a statistically significant difference in the 90-day all-cause mortality between the two groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences in length of stay, ventilator-free days or serious adverse outcomes between the two groups.

Bottom line: Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not decrease 90-day all-cause mortality in critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients.

Citation: Ginde A et al. Early high-dose vitamin D₃ for critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26; 281:2529-40.

Dr. Persaud is a hospitalist, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Background: Critically ill patients are often vitamin D deficient, but no large randomized trials have investigated whether early vitamin D supplementation can affect clinical outcomes.

Study design: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.Setting: 44 U.S. hospitals, during April 2017–July 2018.

Synopsis: The study enrolled 1,078 patients with 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels < 20 ng/mL who were critically ill (defined as patients being admitted to the ICU with one or more risk factor for lung injury or death). Participants were randomized to early administration of a single dose of 540,000 IUs of enteral vitamin D₃ or placebo. The authors did not identify a statistically significant difference in the 90-day all-cause mortality between the two groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences in length of stay, ventilator-free days or serious adverse outcomes between the two groups.

Bottom line: Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not decrease 90-day all-cause mortality in critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients.

Citation: Ginde A et al. Early high-dose vitamin D₃ for critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients. N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26; 281:2529-40.

Dr. Persaud is a hospitalist, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Inhibiting granulocyte/macrophage–colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) with mavrilimumab prevented some patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from needing mechanical ventilation and reduced their risk of dying versus placebo in a phase 2 study.

There was no difference in outcomes between the two doses of mavrilimumab used in the trial (6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) and combined data showed a higher percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint of being alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 29 days, at 87%, versus placebo, at 74%.

The P value was 0.12, “which achieved the prespecified evidentiary standard of 0.2,” according to Lara Pupim, MD, vice president of clinical research and development at Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals in Lexington, Mass.

Importantly, there was a 61% reduction in the risk of dying if patients had received mavrilimumab rather than placebo, she reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Mortality at day 29 was 21% in the placebo arm but just 8% in the combined mavrilimumab arms (P = .07).

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, called it a “surprising study” and that “the outcome is very spectacular” in his short appraisal of the study during the Clinical Highlights session on the final day of the congress.

Mavrilimumab was “a compound that we would not have thought that would have such an impact on the outcome of COVID-19 infected patients,” Dr. Schulze-Koops of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich added.

In this small study, “there was a consistent suggestion of a biological effect across key endpoints,” Richard Conway, MBChB, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at St. James’s Hospital in Dublin, pointed out in an interview.

“Similar to tocilizumab, the benefits with mavrilimumab appear to be in addition to those seen with glucocorticoids, as 96% of patients received dexamethasone,” Dr. Conway observed. Furthermore, nearly one-third received antiviral or remdesivir treatment.

“This study was likely underpowered to assess a clinically meaningful benefit,” he said, adding that “there is insufficient evidence at present to begin using mavrilimumab as an alternative to currently available agents.” That said, “these results are promising for future studies.”

Rationale for GM-CSF inhibition with mavrilimumab in COVID-19 pneumonia

“The cytokine GM-CSF is vital to both lung homeostasis and regulation of inflammation in autoimmunity,” Dr. Pupim explained.

She added that “GM-CSF is implicated in the mechanism of aberrant immune cell infiltration and activation in the lungs, and it may contribute to respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.”

The efficacy and safety of blocking GM-CSF with mavrilimumab have been shown previously in phase 2 studies in other diseases, Dr. Pupim noted. This includes patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with giant cell arteritis.

“It was hypothesized that GM-CSF receptor–alpha blockade may reduce infiltration of pathogenic cells into the lung and may suppress inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia in hyperinflammation,” she explained.

Study details and other outcome results

The study presented by Dr. Pupim was a phase 2/3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial predominantly conducted in Brazil, the United States, and South Africa, with some participation in Peru and Chile.

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had had a positive COVID-19 test within 14 days of randomization and had been hospitalized but not ventilated. Evidence of bilateral pneumonia on chest x-ray or CT scan and clinical laboratory evidence indicative of hyperinflammation were also prerequisites for study enrollment.

The ongoing study comprised two cohorts, Dr. Pupim explained: patients who have not been ventilated and those who have recently been ventilated. Dr. Pupim presented the data on the nonventilated cohort, noting that there was a total of 116 patients aged a mean of 57 years.

Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: two groups received a single intravenous infusion of mavrilimumab, either 6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, and the third group got a placebo.

“Using a time-to-event approach, looking at mechanical ventilation-free survival, mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death,” Dr. Pupim said (P = .0175).

“Separation in the Kaplan-Meier curves was evident very early after study drug administration,” she added.

There were trends toward a faster benefit with mavrilimumab than placebo in two other key secondary endpoints: the median time to achieving a two-point clinical improvement (7 vs. 11 days) and the median time to room air (7 vs. 9 days).

Timing of mavrilimumab administration and safety

Study coauthor and chief clinical development officer at Kiniksa, Arian Pano, MD, answered questions on the presentation. When asked about the timing of giving mavrilimumab, he said: “Based on these data it is before they go to ventilation, as soon as you have symptoms of hyperinflammation and a need for oxygen.”

Mavrilimumab is given as a single infusion “and has been well tolerated; virtually no interruptions occurred in this study.”

No serious adverse events related to mavrilimumab were seen, and adverse events, including secondary infections, which are known complications of COVID-19, occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients, compared with placebo.

Dr. Pupim reported that there was a case of tuberculosis in one patient treated with mavrilimumab (10 mg/kg). That case had occurred in an “endemic area for tuberculosis,” and the patient had been screened before entry but only via a sputum sample.

“Prior to these events, the patient received high-dose corticosteroids, a known risk factor for reactivation of TB, and thus the potential additive contribution of mavrilimumab, if any, is uncertain.” Dr. Pupim said.

“Thrombotic events, another known complication of COVID-19, occurred in the placebo arm only,” she added.

Dr. Pano commented that the study has now “seamlessly continued to phase 3. So, basically, we did not stop the study. At the end of phase 2, we just locked the database and collected the data.” Both the 6 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg are being studied, but it’s “very likely [that] 6 mg/kg could be the dose that we may bring forward to the clinic in terms of registration, but that’s at this point in time. We will need to wait for the phase 3 data,” he observed. Those findings will hopefully be available later this year.

Kiniksa funded the study. Dr. Pupim, Dr. Pano, and multiple study coinvestigators are employees of the company.

Dr. Schulze-Koops was not involved in the study and had no specific disclosures. Dr. Conway had no financial disclosures to make in relation to his comments.

Inhibiting granulocyte/macrophage–colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) with mavrilimumab prevented some patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from needing mechanical ventilation and reduced their risk of dying versus placebo in a phase 2 study.

There was no difference in outcomes between the two doses of mavrilimumab used in the trial (6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) and combined data showed a higher percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint of being alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 29 days, at 87%, versus placebo, at 74%.

The P value was 0.12, “which achieved the prespecified evidentiary standard of 0.2,” according to Lara Pupim, MD, vice president of clinical research and development at Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals in Lexington, Mass.

Importantly, there was a 61% reduction in the risk of dying if patients had received mavrilimumab rather than placebo, she reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Mortality at day 29 was 21% in the placebo arm but just 8% in the combined mavrilimumab arms (P = .07).

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, called it a “surprising study” and that “the outcome is very spectacular” in his short appraisal of the study during the Clinical Highlights session on the final day of the congress.

Mavrilimumab was “a compound that we would not have thought that would have such an impact on the outcome of COVID-19 infected patients,” Dr. Schulze-Koops of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich added.

In this small study, “there was a consistent suggestion of a biological effect across key endpoints,” Richard Conway, MBChB, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at St. James’s Hospital in Dublin, pointed out in an interview.

“Similar to tocilizumab, the benefits with mavrilimumab appear to be in addition to those seen with glucocorticoids, as 96% of patients received dexamethasone,” Dr. Conway observed. Furthermore, nearly one-third received antiviral or remdesivir treatment.

“This study was likely underpowered to assess a clinically meaningful benefit,” he said, adding that “there is insufficient evidence at present to begin using mavrilimumab as an alternative to currently available agents.” That said, “these results are promising for future studies.”

Rationale for GM-CSF inhibition with mavrilimumab in COVID-19 pneumonia

“The cytokine GM-CSF is vital to both lung homeostasis and regulation of inflammation in autoimmunity,” Dr. Pupim explained.

She added that “GM-CSF is implicated in the mechanism of aberrant immune cell infiltration and activation in the lungs, and it may contribute to respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.”

The efficacy and safety of blocking GM-CSF with mavrilimumab have been shown previously in phase 2 studies in other diseases, Dr. Pupim noted. This includes patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with giant cell arteritis.

“It was hypothesized that GM-CSF receptor–alpha blockade may reduce infiltration of pathogenic cells into the lung and may suppress inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia in hyperinflammation,” she explained.

Study details and other outcome results

The study presented by Dr. Pupim was a phase 2/3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial predominantly conducted in Brazil, the United States, and South Africa, with some participation in Peru and Chile.

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had had a positive COVID-19 test within 14 days of randomization and had been hospitalized but not ventilated. Evidence of bilateral pneumonia on chest x-ray or CT scan and clinical laboratory evidence indicative of hyperinflammation were also prerequisites for study enrollment.

The ongoing study comprised two cohorts, Dr. Pupim explained: patients who have not been ventilated and those who have recently been ventilated. Dr. Pupim presented the data on the nonventilated cohort, noting that there was a total of 116 patients aged a mean of 57 years.

Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: two groups received a single intravenous infusion of mavrilimumab, either 6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, and the third group got a placebo.

“Using a time-to-event approach, looking at mechanical ventilation-free survival, mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death,” Dr. Pupim said (P = .0175).

“Separation in the Kaplan-Meier curves was evident very early after study drug administration,” she added.

There were trends toward a faster benefit with mavrilimumab than placebo in two other key secondary endpoints: the median time to achieving a two-point clinical improvement (7 vs. 11 days) and the median time to room air (7 vs. 9 days).

Timing of mavrilimumab administration and safety

Study coauthor and chief clinical development officer at Kiniksa, Arian Pano, MD, answered questions on the presentation. When asked about the timing of giving mavrilimumab, he said: “Based on these data it is before they go to ventilation, as soon as you have symptoms of hyperinflammation and a need for oxygen.”

Mavrilimumab is given as a single infusion “and has been well tolerated; virtually no interruptions occurred in this study.”

No serious adverse events related to mavrilimumab were seen, and adverse events, including secondary infections, which are known complications of COVID-19, occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients, compared with placebo.

Dr. Pupim reported that there was a case of tuberculosis in one patient treated with mavrilimumab (10 mg/kg). That case had occurred in an “endemic area for tuberculosis,” and the patient had been screened before entry but only via a sputum sample.

“Prior to these events, the patient received high-dose corticosteroids, a known risk factor for reactivation of TB, and thus the potential additive contribution of mavrilimumab, if any, is uncertain.” Dr. Pupim said.

“Thrombotic events, another known complication of COVID-19, occurred in the placebo arm only,” she added.

Dr. Pano commented that the study has now “seamlessly continued to phase 3. So, basically, we did not stop the study. At the end of phase 2, we just locked the database and collected the data.” Both the 6 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg are being studied, but it’s “very likely [that] 6 mg/kg could be the dose that we may bring forward to the clinic in terms of registration, but that’s at this point in time. We will need to wait for the phase 3 data,” he observed. Those findings will hopefully be available later this year.

Kiniksa funded the study. Dr. Pupim, Dr. Pano, and multiple study coinvestigators are employees of the company.

Dr. Schulze-Koops was not involved in the study and had no specific disclosures. Dr. Conway had no financial disclosures to make in relation to his comments.

Inhibiting granulocyte/macrophage–colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) with mavrilimumab prevented some patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from needing mechanical ventilation and reduced their risk of dying versus placebo in a phase 2 study.

There was no difference in outcomes between the two doses of mavrilimumab used in the trial (6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) and combined data showed a higher percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint of being alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 29 days, at 87%, versus placebo, at 74%.

The P value was 0.12, “which achieved the prespecified evidentiary standard of 0.2,” according to Lara Pupim, MD, vice president of clinical research and development at Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals in Lexington, Mass.

Importantly, there was a 61% reduction in the risk of dying if patients had received mavrilimumab rather than placebo, she reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Mortality at day 29 was 21% in the placebo arm but just 8% in the combined mavrilimumab arms (P = .07).

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, called it a “surprising study” and that “the outcome is very spectacular” in his short appraisal of the study during the Clinical Highlights session on the final day of the congress.

Mavrilimumab was “a compound that we would not have thought that would have such an impact on the outcome of COVID-19 infected patients,” Dr. Schulze-Koops of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich added.

In this small study, “there was a consistent suggestion of a biological effect across key endpoints,” Richard Conway, MBChB, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at St. James’s Hospital in Dublin, pointed out in an interview.

“Similar to tocilizumab, the benefits with mavrilimumab appear to be in addition to those seen with glucocorticoids, as 96% of patients received dexamethasone,” Dr. Conway observed. Furthermore, nearly one-third received antiviral or remdesivir treatment.

“This study was likely underpowered to assess a clinically meaningful benefit,” he said, adding that “there is insufficient evidence at present to begin using mavrilimumab as an alternative to currently available agents.” That said, “these results are promising for future studies.”

Rationale for GM-CSF inhibition with mavrilimumab in COVID-19 pneumonia

“The cytokine GM-CSF is vital to both lung homeostasis and regulation of inflammation in autoimmunity,” Dr. Pupim explained.

She added that “GM-CSF is implicated in the mechanism of aberrant immune cell infiltration and activation in the lungs, and it may contribute to respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.”

The efficacy and safety of blocking GM-CSF with mavrilimumab have been shown previously in phase 2 studies in other diseases, Dr. Pupim noted. This includes patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with giant cell arteritis.

“It was hypothesized that GM-CSF receptor–alpha blockade may reduce infiltration of pathogenic cells into the lung and may suppress inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia in hyperinflammation,” she explained.

Study details and other outcome results

The study presented by Dr. Pupim was a phase 2/3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial predominantly conducted in Brazil, the United States, and South Africa, with some participation in Peru and Chile.

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had had a positive COVID-19 test within 14 days of randomization and had been hospitalized but not ventilated. Evidence of bilateral pneumonia on chest x-ray or CT scan and clinical laboratory evidence indicative of hyperinflammation were also prerequisites for study enrollment.

The ongoing study comprised two cohorts, Dr. Pupim explained: patients who have not been ventilated and those who have recently been ventilated. Dr. Pupim presented the data on the nonventilated cohort, noting that there was a total of 116 patients aged a mean of 57 years.

Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: two groups received a single intravenous infusion of mavrilimumab, either 6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, and the third group got a placebo.

“Using a time-to-event approach, looking at mechanical ventilation-free survival, mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death,” Dr. Pupim said (P = .0175).

“Separation in the Kaplan-Meier curves was evident very early after study drug administration,” she added.

There were trends toward a faster benefit with mavrilimumab than placebo in two other key secondary endpoints: the median time to achieving a two-point clinical improvement (7 vs. 11 days) and the median time to room air (7 vs. 9 days).

Timing of mavrilimumab administration and safety

Study coauthor and chief clinical development officer at Kiniksa, Arian Pano, MD, answered questions on the presentation. When asked about the timing of giving mavrilimumab, he said: “Based on these data it is before they go to ventilation, as soon as you have symptoms of hyperinflammation and a need for oxygen.”

Mavrilimumab is given as a single infusion “and has been well tolerated; virtually no interruptions occurred in this study.”

No serious adverse events related to mavrilimumab were seen, and adverse events, including secondary infections, which are known complications of COVID-19, occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients, compared with placebo.

Dr. Pupim reported that there was a case of tuberculosis in one patient treated with mavrilimumab (10 mg/kg). That case had occurred in an “endemic area for tuberculosis,” and the patient had been screened before entry but only via a sputum sample.

“Prior to these events, the patient received high-dose corticosteroids, a known risk factor for reactivation of TB, and thus the potential additive contribution of mavrilimumab, if any, is uncertain.” Dr. Pupim said.

“Thrombotic events, another known complication of COVID-19, occurred in the placebo arm only,” she added.

Dr. Pano commented that the study has now “seamlessly continued to phase 3. So, basically, we did not stop the study. At the end of phase 2, we just locked the database and collected the data.” Both the 6 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg are being studied, but it’s “very likely [that] 6 mg/kg could be the dose that we may bring forward to the clinic in terms of registration, but that’s at this point in time. We will need to wait for the phase 3 data,” he observed. Those findings will hopefully be available later this year.

Kiniksa funded the study. Dr. Pupim, Dr. Pano, and multiple study coinvestigators are employees of the company.

Dr. Schulze-Koops was not involved in the study and had no specific disclosures. Dr. Conway had no financial disclosures to make in relation to his comments.

Background: Providing hospital-level care at home for select patients has proven to reduce health care cost, usage, and readmission rates, while maintaining quality and safety in other developed countries but few studies exist in the United States.

Dr. Persaud is a hospitalist, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Background: Providing hospital-level care at home for select patients has proven to reduce health care cost, usage, and readmission rates, while maintaining quality and safety in other developed countries but few studies exist in the United States.

Dr. Persaud is a hospitalist, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Background: Providing hospital-level care at home for select patients has proven to reduce health care cost, usage, and readmission rates, while maintaining quality and safety in other developed countries but few studies exist in the United States.

Dr. Persaud is a hospitalist, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It is June and most of us are looking forward to a more normal summer than the one we had in 2020. Many Americans have been vaccinated and states are rolling back some (or all) masking requirements and restrictions on gatherings. In many sectors, including the US Department of Defense (DoD) and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), worries from public health officials about vaccine supply and how to ethically allocate demand have given way to a new set of concerns: We have the shots, but for widespread protection we have to get them into arms.

The reluctance to roll up the sleeve is known as vaccine hesitancy. The National Academies of Science comments on vaccine hesitancy in its report on COVID-19 vaccination allocation. “Potential consequences of vaccine hesitancy—which the committee views as an attitude, preference, or motivational state—are the behaviors of vaccine refusal or delay.”²

On that count, there was encouraging albeit unexpected news in waning days of May. Media reported a sharp increase in the COVID-vaccination of military personnel. Unnamed DoD officials indicated, they had seen a 55% increase in the vaccination of active-duty service members over the previous month. This news represents a dramatic turnaround in a trend of vaccine hesitancy among military members that has persisted since the vaccine became available.³ Even last month, this would have been a very different column. The DoD has not disclosed the exact number of service members who have declined COVID-19 vaccination but multiple news outlets have documented that there was widespread and significant vaccine hesitancy among military personnel. In February, Military News reported that one-third of troops who were offered the vaccine declined it; and in April, USA Today stated that 40% of Marines had refused vaccination.^4,5

Still, it is worth examining the data on vaccination among active duty service members. From December 2020 through March 2021, the military conducted the first study to evaluate rates of vaccine initiation and completion in the military in general and for service members from racial/ethnic minorities in particular. Black military personnel were 28% less likely than non-Hispanic White service members to initiate vaccination against coronavirus even after adjusting for other possible confounders. Just 29% of White, 25.5% of Hispanic, and 18.7% of Black service members had initiated the vaccine process in the survey.⁶

The authors suggest that in part, vaccine hesitancy explains the findings.⁴ Vaccine hesitancy among racial and ethnic minorities is even more tragic because these same already disadvantaged cohorts have disproportionately suffered from COVID-19 throughout the pandemic with higher rates of infection, serious illness requiring hospitalization, and infection-related morbidity.⁷

Vaccine hesitancy, delay, or refusal in Black Americans whether military or civilian often is attributed to the historical abuses like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments or the more recent example of cancer cell lines taken from Henrietta Lacks without consent.⁸ Such government sponsored betrayals no doubt are the soil in which hesitancy grows but recent commentators have opined that focusing solely on these infamous examples may ignore current systemic racism that is pervasively feeding Black Americans reluctance to consider or accept COVID-19 vaccination.⁹ Blaming infamous research also provides a convenient excuse for confronting contemporary racial discrimination in health care and taking responsibility as health care practitioners for reversing it. “Framing the conversation about distrust in COVID vaccines in terms of everyday racism rather than historical atrocities may increase underserved communities’ willingness to be vaccinated,” Bajaj and Stanford wrote in a recent recent New England Journal of Medicine commentary. “When we hyperfocus on Sims, Lacks, and Tuskegee, we ascribe the current Black health experience to past racism, rooting our present in immovable historical occurrences and undermining efforts to combat mistrust. Everyday racism, by contrast, can be tackled in the present.”⁹

The study of racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 vaccination in active-duty service members was a work product of the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division. The authors underscore several factors that support the connection between discrimination and vaccine hesitancy in the military. Lack of access to and ability to obtain COVID-19 vaccination continues to be a major barrier that disadvantaged populations must overcome.¹⁰ The COVID-19 vaccine is widely available, easily obtained, and free of charge for all military personnel. Yet the vaccine hesitancy in the military parallels that of the civilian sector. This led the study authors to opine that, “forces external to the U.S. Military, such as interpersonal and societal factors also contribute to vaccine hesitancy among military service members.”⁶

Obviously, any unvaccinated active-duty service member reduces the combat readiness of the fighting force a consideration that led some in Congress to call for mandating vaccination. The vaccine is currently being administered under an emergency use authorization (EUA), which prevents even the military from mandating it.¹¹ Even if President Joseph Biden obtained a waiver to make the vaccine mandatory, the implications of forcing service members who have volunteered to serve their country is ethically problematic. Those problems are exponentially amplified when applied to members of ethnic and racial minorities who have a past and present of health disparities and discrimination. Respecting the decision of those in uniform to decline COVID-19 vaccination is the first and perhaps most important step to rebuilding the trust that is the most promising means of reducing vaccine hesitancy.

Part of the accountability we all bear for health care inequity and racism is to continue the work of this landmark study to better understand vaccine hesitancy among military and veteran cohorts, develop counseling and education that target those attitudes, beliefs, and motivations with education, counseling, and support. All of us can in some small measure follow the ethical mandate “to dispel rumors and provide facts to people” of Secretary Austin, a Black retired 4-star Army general.¹

It is June and most of us are looking forward to a more normal summer than the one we had in 2020. Many Americans have been vaccinated and states are rolling back some (or all) masking requirements and restrictions on gatherings. In many sectors, including the US Department of Defense (DoD) and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), worries from public health officials about vaccine supply and how to ethically allocate demand have given way to a new set of concerns: We have the shots, but for widespread protection we have to get them into arms.

The reluctance to roll up the sleeve is known as vaccine hesitancy. The National Academies of Science comments on vaccine hesitancy in its report on COVID-19 vaccination allocation. “Potential consequences of vaccine hesitancy—which the committee views as an attitude, preference, or motivational state—are the behaviors of vaccine refusal or delay.”²

On that count, there was encouraging albeit unexpected news in waning days of May. Media reported a sharp increase in the COVID-vaccination of military personnel. Unnamed DoD officials indicated, they had seen a 55% increase in the vaccination of active-duty service members over the previous month. This news represents a dramatic turnaround in a trend of vaccine hesitancy among military members that has persisted since the vaccine became available.³ Even last month, this would have been a very different column. The DoD has not disclosed the exact number of service members who have declined COVID-19 vaccination but multiple news outlets have documented that there was widespread and significant vaccine hesitancy among military personnel. In February, Military News reported that one-third of troops who were offered the vaccine declined it; and in April, USA Today stated that 40% of Marines had refused vaccination.^4,5

Still, it is worth examining the data on vaccination among active duty service members. From December 2020 through March 2021, the military conducted the first study to evaluate rates of vaccine initiation and completion in the military in general and for service members from racial/ethnic minorities in particular. Black military personnel were 28% less likely than non-Hispanic White service members to initiate vaccination against coronavirus even after adjusting for other possible confounders. Just 29% of White, 25.5% of Hispanic, and 18.7% of Black service members had initiated the vaccine process in the survey.⁶

The authors suggest that in part, vaccine hesitancy explains the findings.⁴ Vaccine hesitancy among racial and ethnic minorities is even more tragic because these same already disadvantaged cohorts have disproportionately suffered from COVID-19 throughout the pandemic with higher rates of infection, serious illness requiring hospitalization, and infection-related morbidity.⁷

Vaccine hesitancy, delay, or refusal in Black Americans whether military or civilian often is attributed to the historical abuses like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments or the more recent example of cancer cell lines taken from Henrietta Lacks without consent.⁸ Such government sponsored betrayals no doubt are the soil in which hesitancy grows but recent commentators have opined that focusing solely on these infamous examples may ignore current systemic racism that is pervasively feeding Black Americans reluctance to consider or accept COVID-19 vaccination.⁹ Blaming infamous research also provides a convenient excuse for confronting contemporary racial discrimination in health care and taking responsibility as health care practitioners for reversing it. “Framing the conversation about distrust in COVID vaccines in terms of everyday racism rather than historical atrocities may increase underserved communities’ willingness to be vaccinated,” Bajaj and Stanford wrote in a recent recent New England Journal of Medicine commentary. “When we hyperfocus on Sims, Lacks, and Tuskegee, we ascribe the current Black health experience to past racism, rooting our present in immovable historical occurrences and undermining efforts to combat mistrust. Everyday racism, by contrast, can be tackled in the present.”⁹

The study of racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 vaccination in active-duty service members was a work product of the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division. The authors underscore several factors that support the connection between discrimination and vaccine hesitancy in the military. Lack of access to and ability to obtain COVID-19 vaccination continues to be a major barrier that disadvantaged populations must overcome.¹⁰ The COVID-19 vaccine is widely available, easily obtained, and free of charge for all military personnel. Yet the vaccine hesitancy in the military parallels that of the civilian sector. This led the study authors to opine that, “forces external to the U.S. Military, such as interpersonal and societal factors also contribute to vaccine hesitancy among military service members.”⁶

Obviously, any unvaccinated active-duty service member reduces the combat readiness of the fighting force a consideration that led some in Congress to call for mandating vaccination. The vaccine is currently being administered under an emergency use authorization (EUA), which prevents even the military from mandating it.¹¹ Even if President Joseph Biden obtained a waiver to make the vaccine mandatory, the implications of forcing service members who have volunteered to serve their country is ethically problematic. Those problems are exponentially amplified when applied to members of ethnic and racial minorities who have a past and present of health disparities and discrimination. Respecting the decision of those in uniform to decline COVID-19 vaccination is the first and perhaps most important step to rebuilding the trust that is the most promising means of reducing vaccine hesitancy.

Part of the accountability we all bear for health care inequity and racism is to continue the work of this landmark study to better understand vaccine hesitancy among military and veteran cohorts, develop counseling and education that target those attitudes, beliefs, and motivations with education, counseling, and support. All of us can in some small measure follow the ethical mandate “to dispel rumors and provide facts to people” of Secretary Austin, a Black retired 4-star Army general.¹

It is June and most of us are looking forward to a more normal summer than the one we had in 2020. Many Americans have been vaccinated and states are rolling back some (or all) masking requirements and restrictions on gatherings. In many sectors, including the US Department of Defense (DoD) and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), worries from public health officials about vaccine supply and how to ethically allocate demand have given way to a new set of concerns: We have the shots, but for widespread protection we have to get them into arms.

The reluctance to roll up the sleeve is known as vaccine hesitancy. The National Academies of Science comments on vaccine hesitancy in its report on COVID-19 vaccination allocation. “Potential consequences of vaccine hesitancy—which the committee views as an attitude, preference, or motivational state—are the behaviors of vaccine refusal or delay.”²

On that count, there was encouraging albeit unexpected news in waning days of May. Media reported a sharp increase in the COVID-vaccination of military personnel. Unnamed DoD officials indicated, they had seen a 55% increase in the vaccination of active-duty service members over the previous month. This news represents a dramatic turnaround in a trend of vaccine hesitancy among military members that has persisted since the vaccine became available.³ Even last month, this would have been a very different column. The DoD has not disclosed the exact number of service members who have declined COVID-19 vaccination but multiple news outlets have documented that there was widespread and significant vaccine hesitancy among military personnel. In February, Military News reported that one-third of troops who were offered the vaccine declined it; and in April, USA Today stated that 40% of Marines had refused vaccination.^4,5

Still, it is worth examining the data on vaccination among active duty service members. From December 2020 through March 2021, the military conducted the first study to evaluate rates of vaccine initiation and completion in the military in general and for service members from racial/ethnic minorities in particular. Black military personnel were 28% less likely than non-Hispanic White service members to initiate vaccination against coronavirus even after adjusting for other possible confounders. Just 29% of White, 25.5% of Hispanic, and 18.7% of Black service members had initiated the vaccine process in the survey.⁶

The authors suggest that in part, vaccine hesitancy explains the findings.⁴ Vaccine hesitancy among racial and ethnic minorities is even more tragic because these same already disadvantaged cohorts have disproportionately suffered from COVID-19 throughout the pandemic with higher rates of infection, serious illness requiring hospitalization, and infection-related morbidity.⁷

Vaccine hesitancy, delay, or refusal in Black Americans whether military or civilian often is attributed to the historical abuses like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments or the more recent example of cancer cell lines taken from Henrietta Lacks without consent.⁸ Such government sponsored betrayals no doubt are the soil in which hesitancy grows but recent commentators have opined that focusing solely on these infamous examples may ignore current systemic racism that is pervasively feeding Black Americans reluctance to consider or accept COVID-19 vaccination.⁹ Blaming infamous research also provides a convenient excuse for confronting contemporary racial discrimination in health care and taking responsibility as health care practitioners for reversing it. “Framing the conversation about distrust in COVID vaccines in terms of everyday racism rather than historical atrocities may increase underserved communities’ willingness to be vaccinated,” Bajaj and Stanford wrote in a recent recent New England Journal of Medicine commentary. “When we hyperfocus on Sims, Lacks, and Tuskegee, we ascribe the current Black health experience to past racism, rooting our present in immovable historical occurrences and undermining efforts to combat mistrust. Everyday racism, by contrast, can be tackled in the present.”⁹

The study of racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 vaccination in active-duty service members was a work product of the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division. The authors underscore several factors that support the connection between discrimination and vaccine hesitancy in the military. Lack of access to and ability to obtain COVID-19 vaccination continues to be a major barrier that disadvantaged populations must overcome.¹⁰ The COVID-19 vaccine is widely available, easily obtained, and free of charge for all military personnel. Yet the vaccine hesitancy in the military parallels that of the civilian sector. This led the study authors to opine that, “forces external to the U.S. Military, such as interpersonal and societal factors also contribute to vaccine hesitancy among military service members.”⁶

Obviously, any unvaccinated active-duty service member reduces the combat readiness of the fighting force a consideration that led some in Congress to call for mandating vaccination. The vaccine is currently being administered under an emergency use authorization (EUA), which prevents even the military from mandating it.¹¹ Even if President Joseph Biden obtained a waiver to make the vaccine mandatory, the implications of forcing service members who have volunteered to serve their country is ethically problematic. Those problems are exponentially amplified when applied to members of ethnic and racial minorities who have a past and present of health disparities and discrimination. Respecting the decision of those in uniform to decline COVID-19 vaccination is the first and perhaps most important step to rebuilding the trust that is the most promising means of reducing vaccine hesitancy.

Part of the accountability we all bear for health care inequity and racism is to continue the work of this landmark study to better understand vaccine hesitancy among military and veteran cohorts, develop counseling and education that target those attitudes, beliefs, and motivations with education, counseling, and support. All of us can in some small measure follow the ethical mandate “to dispel rumors and provide facts to people” of Secretary Austin, a Black retired 4-star Army general.¹

Background: With more than 500 cases of NSF reported during 1997-2007, a black box warning advises against use of all GBCAs in at-risk CKD patients. However, newer literature has shown that group II GBCAs may have lower risks of causing NSF. The risk to patients with CKD IV and V is not clear.

Dr. Midha is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, instructor of medicine, Boston University, and part-time instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, all in Boston.

Background: With more than 500 cases of NSF reported during 1997-2007, a black box warning advises against use of all GBCAs in at-risk CKD patients. However, newer literature has shown that group II GBCAs may have lower risks of causing NSF. The risk to patients with CKD IV and V is not clear.

Dr. Midha is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, instructor of medicine, Boston University, and part-time instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, all in Boston.

Background: With more than 500 cases of NSF reported during 1997-2007, a black box warning advises against use of all GBCAs in at-risk CKD patients. However, newer literature has shown that group II GBCAs may have lower risks of causing NSF. The risk to patients with CKD IV and V is not clear.

Dr. Midha is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, instructor of medicine, Boston University, and part-time instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, all in Boston.

The CDC director is urging parents to vaccinate their teenagers against COVID-19, citing a study that shows increasing hospitalizations rates for adolescents.

“I am deeply concerned by the numbers of hospitalized adolescents and saddened to see the number of adolescents who required treatment in intensive care units or mechanical ventilation,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said in a statement.

While urging teenagers to wear masks and take precautions around others, she asked “parents, relatives, and close friends to join me and talk with teens about the importance of these prevention strategies and to encourage them to get vaccinated.”

Dr. Walensky referred to the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that showed adolescent hospitalizations peaked at 2.1 per 100,000 in early January 2021, then dropped to 0.6 per 100,000 in mid-March.

Alarmingly, hospitalizations rose to 1.3 per 100,000 in April, and a number of teens required serious interventions.

“Among hospitalized adolescents, nearly one-third required intensive care unit admission, and 5% required invasive mechanical ventilation,” the report said. No deaths occurred.

The study looked at 376 adolescents aged 12-17 who were hospitalized and tested positive for coronavirus. Of that group, 204 were hospitalized for COVID-19 and the other 172 were hospitalized for reasons not directly related to COVID-19.

Of the 204 hospitalized for COVID-19, 70.6% had an underlying medical condition such as obesity or chronic lung disease.

The study noted that children and teenagers have lower hospitalization rates and generally show less severe symptoms than do older people.

Possible causes for the rise in adolescent COVID-19 hospitalizations include the arrival of variants, the growing number of children returning to in-person education, and the changes in mask-wearing and other safety precautions, the study said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said that as of May 27, 4 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the pandemic began, with about 34,500 new child cases reported for the week ending May 27.

The AAP said children have represented 14.1% of total cases since the pandemic began, but for the week ending May 27, children represented 24.3% of new reported weekly COVID-19 cases.

On May 10, the FDA granted emergency use authorization for the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine to be given to children aged 12-15 years. Previously, the FDA had authorized the Pfizer vaccine for people aged 16 years and up, whereas the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are authorized for people aged 18 years and up.

“Vaccination is our way out of this pandemic,” Dr. Walensky said in her statement. “I continue to see promising signs in CDC data that we are nearing the end of this pandemic in this country; however, we all have to do our part and get vaccinated to cross the finish line.”
 

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com.

The CDC director is urging parents to vaccinate their teenagers against COVID-19, citing a study that shows increasing hospitalizations rates for adolescents.

“I am deeply concerned by the numbers of hospitalized adolescents and saddened to see the number of adolescents who required treatment in intensive care units or mechanical ventilation,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said in a statement.

While urging teenagers to wear masks and take precautions around others, she asked “parents, relatives, and close friends to join me and talk with teens about the importance of these prevention strategies and to encourage them to get vaccinated.”

Dr. Walensky referred to the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that showed adolescent hospitalizations peaked at 2.1 per 100,000 in early January 2021, then dropped to 0.6 per 100,000 in mid-March.

Alarmingly, hospitalizations rose to 1.3 per 100,000 in April, and a number of teens required serious interventions.

“Among hospitalized adolescents, nearly one-third required intensive care unit admission, and 5% required invasive mechanical ventilation,” the report said. No deaths occurred.

The study looked at 376 adolescents aged 12-17 who were hospitalized and tested positive for coronavirus. Of that group, 204 were hospitalized for COVID-19 and the other 172 were hospitalized for reasons not directly related to COVID-19.

Of the 204 hospitalized for COVID-19, 70.6% had an underlying medical condition such as obesity or chronic lung disease.

The study noted that children and teenagers have lower hospitalization rates and generally show less severe symptoms than do older people.

Possible causes for the rise in adolescent COVID-19 hospitalizations include the arrival of variants, the growing number of children returning to in-person education, and the changes in mask-wearing and other safety precautions, the study said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said that as of May 27, 4 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the pandemic began, with about 34,500 new child cases reported for the week ending May 27.

The AAP said children have represented 14.1% of total cases since the pandemic began, but for the week ending May 27, children represented 24.3% of new reported weekly COVID-19 cases.

On May 10, the FDA granted emergency use authorization for the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine to be given to children aged 12-15 years. Previously, the FDA had authorized the Pfizer vaccine for people aged 16 years and up, whereas the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are authorized for people aged 18 years and up.

“Vaccination is our way out of this pandemic,” Dr. Walensky said in her statement. “I continue to see promising signs in CDC data that we are nearing the end of this pandemic in this country; however, we all have to do our part and get vaccinated to cross the finish line.”
 

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com.

The CDC director is urging parents to vaccinate their teenagers against COVID-19, citing a study that shows increasing hospitalizations rates for adolescents.

“I am deeply concerned by the numbers of hospitalized adolescents and saddened to see the number of adolescents who required treatment in intensive care units or mechanical ventilation,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said in a statement.

While urging teenagers to wear masks and take precautions around others, she asked “parents, relatives, and close friends to join me and talk with teens about the importance of these prevention strategies and to encourage them to get vaccinated.”

Dr. Walensky referred to the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that showed adolescent hospitalizations peaked at 2.1 per 100,000 in early January 2021, then dropped to 0.6 per 100,000 in mid-March.

Alarmingly, hospitalizations rose to 1.3 per 100,000 in April, and a number of teens required serious interventions.

“Among hospitalized adolescents, nearly one-third required intensive care unit admission, and 5% required invasive mechanical ventilation,” the report said. No deaths occurred.

The study looked at 376 adolescents aged 12-17 who were hospitalized and tested positive for coronavirus. Of that group, 204 were hospitalized for COVID-19 and the other 172 were hospitalized for reasons not directly related to COVID-19.

Of the 204 hospitalized for COVID-19, 70.6% had an underlying medical condition such as obesity or chronic lung disease.

The study noted that children and teenagers have lower hospitalization rates and generally show less severe symptoms than do older people.

Possible causes for the rise in adolescent COVID-19 hospitalizations include the arrival of variants, the growing number of children returning to in-person education, and the changes in mask-wearing and other safety precautions, the study said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said that as of May 27, 4 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the pandemic began, with about 34,500 new child cases reported for the week ending May 27.

The AAP said children have represented 14.1% of total cases since the pandemic began, but for the week ending May 27, children represented 24.3% of new reported weekly COVID-19 cases.

On May 10, the FDA granted emergency use authorization for the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine to be given to children aged 12-15 years. Previously, the FDA had authorized the Pfizer vaccine for people aged 16 years and up, whereas the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are authorized for people aged 18 years and up.

“Vaccination is our way out of this pandemic,” Dr. Walensky said in her statement. “I continue to see promising signs in CDC data that we are nearing the end of this pandemic in this country; however, we all have to do our part and get vaccinated to cross the finish line.”
 

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com.