Pulmonology

A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.

Thinkstock

Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.

“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.”

To compare the frequency of opioid and corticosteroid prescriptions for children with pneumonia or sinusitis in ED and ambulatory care settings, the investigators studied 2016 South Carolina Medicaid claims, examining data for patients aged 5-18 years with pneumonia or sinusitis. They excluded children with chronic conditions and acute secondary diagnoses with potentially appropriate indications for steroids, such as asthma. They also excluded children seen at more than one type of clinical location or hospitalized within a week of the visit. Only the primary diagnosis of pneumonia or sinusitis during the first visit of the year for each patient was included.

The researchers included data from 31,838 children in the study, including 2,140 children with pneumonia and 29,698 with sinusitis.

Pneumonia was linked to an opioid prescription in 6% of ED visits (34 of 542) and 1.5% of ambulatory visits (24 of 1,590) (P ≤ .0001). Pneumonia was linked to a steroid prescription in 20% of ED visits (106 of 542) and 12% of ambulatory visits (196 of 1,590) (P ≤ .0001).

Sinusitis was linked to an opioid prescription in 7.5% of ED visits (202 of 2,705) and 2% of ambulatory visits (568 of 26,866) (P ≤ .0001). Sinusitis was linked to a steroid prescription in 19% of ED visits (510 of 2,705) and 7% of ambulatory visits (1,922 of 26,866) (P ≤ .0001).

In logistic regression analyses, ED visits for pneumonia or sinusitis were more than four times more likely to result in children receiving opioids, relative to ambulatory visits (adjusted odds ratio, 4.69 and 4.02, respectively). ED visits also were more likely to result in steroid prescriptions, with aORs of 1.67 for pneumonia and 3.05 for sinusitis.

“I was disappointed to read of these results, although not necessarily surprised,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital, said in an interview.

The data suggest that improved prescribing practices may be needed, “especially in the ED,” wrote Dr. Phang and colleagues. “Although more children who are acutely ill may be seen in the ED, national practice guidelines and research remain relevant for these patients.”

Repeated or prolonged courses of systemic corticosteroids put children at risk for adrenal suppression and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysfunction. “Providers for children must also be aware of the trends in opioid abuse and diversion and must mitigate those risks while still providing adequate analgesia and symptom control,” they wrote.

The use of Medicaid data from 1 year in one state limits the generalizability of the findings. Nevertheless, the visits occurred “well after publication of relevant guidelines and after concerns of opioid prescribing had become widespread,” according to Dr. Phang and colleagues.

A post hoc evaluation identified one patient with a secondary diagnosis of fracture and 24 patients with a secondary diagnosis of pain, but none of these patients had received an opioid. “Thus, the small subset of patients who may have had secondary diagnoses that would warrant an opioid prescription would not have changed the overall results,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Phang KG et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 2. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3690.

A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.

Thinkstock

Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.

“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.”

To compare the frequency of opioid and corticosteroid prescriptions for children with pneumonia or sinusitis in ED and ambulatory care settings, the investigators studied 2016 South Carolina Medicaid claims, examining data for patients aged 5-18 years with pneumonia or sinusitis. They excluded children with chronic conditions and acute secondary diagnoses with potentially appropriate indications for steroids, such as asthma. They also excluded children seen at more than one type of clinical location or hospitalized within a week of the visit. Only the primary diagnosis of pneumonia or sinusitis during the first visit of the year for each patient was included.

The researchers included data from 31,838 children in the study, including 2,140 children with pneumonia and 29,698 with sinusitis.

Pneumonia was linked to an opioid prescription in 6% of ED visits (34 of 542) and 1.5% of ambulatory visits (24 of 1,590) (P ≤ .0001). Pneumonia was linked to a steroid prescription in 20% of ED visits (106 of 542) and 12% of ambulatory visits (196 of 1,590) (P ≤ .0001).

Sinusitis was linked to an opioid prescription in 7.5% of ED visits (202 of 2,705) and 2% of ambulatory visits (568 of 26,866) (P ≤ .0001). Sinusitis was linked to a steroid prescription in 19% of ED visits (510 of 2,705) and 7% of ambulatory visits (1,922 of 26,866) (P ≤ .0001).

In logistic regression analyses, ED visits for pneumonia or sinusitis were more than four times more likely to result in children receiving opioids, relative to ambulatory visits (adjusted odds ratio, 4.69 and 4.02, respectively). ED visits also were more likely to result in steroid prescriptions, with aORs of 1.67 for pneumonia and 3.05 for sinusitis.

“I was disappointed to read of these results, although not necessarily surprised,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital, said in an interview.

The data suggest that improved prescribing practices may be needed, “especially in the ED,” wrote Dr. Phang and colleagues. “Although more children who are acutely ill may be seen in the ED, national practice guidelines and research remain relevant for these patients.”

Repeated or prolonged courses of systemic corticosteroids put children at risk for adrenal suppression and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysfunction. “Providers for children must also be aware of the trends in opioid abuse and diversion and must mitigate those risks while still providing adequate analgesia and symptom control,” they wrote.

The use of Medicaid data from 1 year in one state limits the generalizability of the findings. Nevertheless, the visits occurred “well after publication of relevant guidelines and after concerns of opioid prescribing had become widespread,” according to Dr. Phang and colleagues.

A post hoc evaluation identified one patient with a secondary diagnosis of fracture and 24 patients with a secondary diagnosis of pain, but none of these patients had received an opioid. “Thus, the small subset of patients who may have had secondary diagnoses that would warrant an opioid prescription would not have changed the overall results,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Phang KG et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 2. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3690.

A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.

Thinkstock

Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.

“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.”

To compare the frequency of opioid and corticosteroid prescriptions for children with pneumonia or sinusitis in ED and ambulatory care settings, the investigators studied 2016 South Carolina Medicaid claims, examining data for patients aged 5-18 years with pneumonia or sinusitis. They excluded children with chronic conditions and acute secondary diagnoses with potentially appropriate indications for steroids, such as asthma. They also excluded children seen at more than one type of clinical location or hospitalized within a week of the visit. Only the primary diagnosis of pneumonia or sinusitis during the first visit of the year for each patient was included.

The researchers included data from 31,838 children in the study, including 2,140 children with pneumonia and 29,698 with sinusitis.

Pneumonia was linked to an opioid prescription in 6% of ED visits (34 of 542) and 1.5% of ambulatory visits (24 of 1,590) (P ≤ .0001). Pneumonia was linked to a steroid prescription in 20% of ED visits (106 of 542) and 12% of ambulatory visits (196 of 1,590) (P ≤ .0001).

Sinusitis was linked to an opioid prescription in 7.5% of ED visits (202 of 2,705) and 2% of ambulatory visits (568 of 26,866) (P ≤ .0001). Sinusitis was linked to a steroid prescription in 19% of ED visits (510 of 2,705) and 7% of ambulatory visits (1,922 of 26,866) (P ≤ .0001).

In logistic regression analyses, ED visits for pneumonia or sinusitis were more than four times more likely to result in children receiving opioids, relative to ambulatory visits (adjusted odds ratio, 4.69 and 4.02, respectively). ED visits also were more likely to result in steroid prescriptions, with aORs of 1.67 for pneumonia and 3.05 for sinusitis.

“I was disappointed to read of these results, although not necessarily surprised,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital, said in an interview.

The data suggest that improved prescribing practices may be needed, “especially in the ED,” wrote Dr. Phang and colleagues. “Although more children who are acutely ill may be seen in the ED, national practice guidelines and research remain relevant for these patients.”

Repeated or prolonged courses of systemic corticosteroids put children at risk for adrenal suppression and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysfunction. “Providers for children must also be aware of the trends in opioid abuse and diversion and must mitigate those risks while still providing adequate analgesia and symptom control,” they wrote.

The use of Medicaid data from 1 year in one state limits the generalizability of the findings. Nevertheless, the visits occurred “well after publication of relevant guidelines and after concerns of opioid prescribing had become widespread,” according to Dr. Phang and colleagues.

A post hoc evaluation identified one patient with a secondary diagnosis of fracture and 24 patients with a secondary diagnosis of pain, but none of these patients had received an opioid. “Thus, the small subset of patients who may have had secondary diagnoses that would warrant an opioid prescription would not have changed the overall results,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Phang KG et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 2. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3690.

New data from active surveillance of the severe inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 in previously healthy children provide further insight into the prevalence and course of the rare syndrome, but experts are concerned that current diagnostic criteria may not capture the true scope of the problem.

In separate reports published online June 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the New York State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describe the epidemiology and clinical features of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) on the basis of information derived from targeted surveillance programs in New York State and across the country.

For the New York study, Elizabeth M. Dufort, MD, from the New York Department of Health in Albany and colleagues analyzed MIS-C surveillance data from 106 hospitals across the state. Of 191 suspected MIS-C cases reported to the Department of Health from March 1 through May 10, 99 met the state’s interim case definition of the condition and were included in the analysis.

The incidence rate for MIS-C was two cases per 100,000 individuals younger than 21 years, whereas the incidence rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was 322 per 100,000. Most cases occurred approximately 1 month after the state’s COVID-19 peak.

“Among our patients, predominantly from the New York Metropolitan Region, 40% were black and 36% were Hispanic. This may be a reflection of the well-documented elevated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among black and Hispanic communities,” the authors report.

All children presented with fever or chills, and most had tachycardia (97%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (80%). Rash (60%), conjunctival infection (56%), hypotension (32%), and mucosal changes (27%) were reported. Among all of the children, levels of inflammatory markers were elevated, including levels of C-reactive protein (100%), D-dimer (91%), and troponin (71%). More than one third of the patients (36%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, and an additional 16% had clinical myocarditis.

Of the full cohort, 80% of the children required intensive care, 62% received vasopressor support, and two children died.

The high prevalence of cardiac dysfunction or depression, coagulopathy, gastrointestinal symptoms, mild respiratory symptoms, and indications for supplemental oxygen in patients with MIS-C stands in contrast to the clinical picture observed in most acute cases of COVID-19 in hospitalized children, the authors write.

“Although most children have mild or no illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, MIS-C may follow Covid-19 or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recognition of the syndrome and early identification of children with MIS-C, including early monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic evaluation, could inform appropriate supportive care and other potential therapeutic options,” they continue.

The incidence of MIS-C among children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unclear because children with COVID-19 often have mild or no symptoms and because children are not tested as frequently, the authors state. For this reason, “[i]t is crucial to establish surveillance for MIS-C cases, particularly in communities with higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

Important Differences From Kawasaki Disease

In a separate study, Leora R. Feldstein, MD, of the CDC, and colleagues report 186 cases of MIS-C collected through targeted surveillance of pediatric health centers in 26 US states from March 15 to May 20, 2020. As with the New York cohort, a disproportionate number of children in this cohort were black (25%) and Hispanic or Latino (31%).

Similar to the New York cohort, 80% of the children in this group required intensive care, 48% received vasoactive support, 20% required invasive mechanical ventilation, and four children died. Skin rashes, gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular and hematologic effects, mucous changes, and elevations of inflammatory biomarkers were also similarly observed.

The researchers note that, although many of the features of MIS-C overlap with Kawasaki disease, there are some important differences, particularly with respect to the nature of cardiovascular involvement. “Approximately 5% of children with Kawasaki’s disease in the United States present with cardiovascular shock leading to vasopressor or inotropic support, as compared with 50% of the patients in our series,” the authors write.

In addition, coronary-artery aneurysms affect approximately one quarter of Kawasaki disease patients within 21 days of disease onset. “In our series, a maximum z score of 2.5 or higher in the left anterior descending or right coronary artery was reported in 8% of the patients overall and in 9% of patients with echocardiograms,” they report.

Additional differentiating features include patient age and race/ethnicity. Kawasaki disease occurs most commonly in children younger than 5 years. The median age in the multistate study was 8.3 years, and nearly half of the children in the New York cohort were in the 6- to 12-year age group. Further, Kawasaki disease is disproportionately prevalent in children of Asian descent.

Despite the differences, “until more is known about long-term cardiac sequelae of MIS-C, providers could consider following Kawasaki’s disease guidelines for follow-up, which recommend repeat echocardiographic imaging at 1 to 2 weeks.”

As was the case in the New York series, treatment in the multistate cohort most commonly included intravenous immunoglobulin and systemic glucocorticoids. Optimal management, however, will require a better understanding of the pathogenesis of MIS-C, Feldstein and colleagues write.

Questions Remain

With the accumulating data on this syndrome, the MIS-C picture seems to be getting incrementally clearer, but there is still much uncertainty, according to Michael Levin, FMedSci, PhD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.

“The recognition and description of new diseases often resemble the parable of the blind men and the elephant, with each declaring that the part of the beast they have touched fully defines it,” he writes in an accompanying editorial.

“As the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has evolved, case reports have appeared describing children with unusual febrile illnesses that have features of Kawasaki’s disease, toxic shock syndrome, acute abdominal conditions, and encephalopathy, along with other reports of children with fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and multisystem involvement. It is now apparent that these reports were describing different clinical presentations of a new childhood inflammatory disorder.”

Although a consistent clinical picture is emerging, “[t]he published reports have used a variety of hastily developed case definitions based on the most severe cases, possibly missing less serious cases,” Levin writes. In particular, both the CDC and World Health Organization definitions require evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure, which might contribute to underrecognition and underreporting because asymptomatic infections are common and antibody testing is not universally available.

“There is concern that children meeting current diagnostic criteria for MIS-C are the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ and a bigger problem may be lurking below the waterline,” Levin states. With approximately 1000 cases of the syndrome reported worldwide, “do we now have a clear picture of the new disorder, or as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, has only part of the beast been described?”

Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, who is a coauthor of the multistate report, agrees that there is still much to learn about MIS-C before the whole beast can be understood. In an interview with Medscape Medical News, she listed the following key questions that have yet to be answered:

• Why do some children get MIS-C and not others?
• What is the long-term outcome of children with MIS-C?
• How can we differentiate MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection in children with respiratory failure?
• Does MIS-C occur in young adults?

Randolph said her team is taking the best path forward toward answering these questions, including conducting a second study to identify risk factors for MIS-C and longer-term follow-up studies with the National Institutes of Health. “We are also getting consent to collect blood samples and look at other tests to help distinguish MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection,” she said. She encouraged heightened awareness among physicians who care for young adults to consider MIS-C in patients aged 21 years and older who present with similar signs and symptoms.

On the basis of the answers to these and additional questions, the case definitions for MIS-C may need refinement to capture the wider spectrum of illness, Levin writes in his editorial. “The challenges of this new condition will now be to understand its pathophysiological mechanisms, to develop diagnostics, and to define the best treatment.”

Kleinman has received grants from the Health Services Resources Administration outside the submitted work. Maddux has received grants from the NIH/NICHD and the Francis Family Foundation outside the submitted work. Randolph has received grants from Genentech and personal fees from La Jolla Pharma outside the submitted work and others from the CDC during the conduct of the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from active surveillance of the severe inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 in previously healthy children provide further insight into the prevalence and course of the rare syndrome, but experts are concerned that current diagnostic criteria may not capture the true scope of the problem.

In separate reports published online June 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the New York State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describe the epidemiology and clinical features of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) on the basis of information derived from targeted surveillance programs in New York State and across the country.

For the New York study, Elizabeth M. Dufort, MD, from the New York Department of Health in Albany and colleagues analyzed MIS-C surveillance data from 106 hospitals across the state. Of 191 suspected MIS-C cases reported to the Department of Health from March 1 through May 10, 99 met the state’s interim case definition of the condition and were included in the analysis.

The incidence rate for MIS-C was two cases per 100,000 individuals younger than 21 years, whereas the incidence rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was 322 per 100,000. Most cases occurred approximately 1 month after the state’s COVID-19 peak.

“Among our patients, predominantly from the New York Metropolitan Region, 40% were black and 36% were Hispanic. This may be a reflection of the well-documented elevated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among black and Hispanic communities,” the authors report.

All children presented with fever or chills, and most had tachycardia (97%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (80%). Rash (60%), conjunctival infection (56%), hypotension (32%), and mucosal changes (27%) were reported. Among all of the children, levels of inflammatory markers were elevated, including levels of C-reactive protein (100%), D-dimer (91%), and troponin (71%). More than one third of the patients (36%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, and an additional 16% had clinical myocarditis.

Of the full cohort, 80% of the children required intensive care, 62% received vasopressor support, and two children died.

The high prevalence of cardiac dysfunction or depression, coagulopathy, gastrointestinal symptoms, mild respiratory symptoms, and indications for supplemental oxygen in patients with MIS-C stands in contrast to the clinical picture observed in most acute cases of COVID-19 in hospitalized children, the authors write.

“Although most children have mild or no illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, MIS-C may follow Covid-19 or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recognition of the syndrome and early identification of children with MIS-C, including early monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic evaluation, could inform appropriate supportive care and other potential therapeutic options,” they continue.

The incidence of MIS-C among children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unclear because children with COVID-19 often have mild or no symptoms and because children are not tested as frequently, the authors state. For this reason, “[i]t is crucial to establish surveillance for MIS-C cases, particularly in communities with higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

Important Differences From Kawasaki Disease

In a separate study, Leora R. Feldstein, MD, of the CDC, and colleagues report 186 cases of MIS-C collected through targeted surveillance of pediatric health centers in 26 US states from March 15 to May 20, 2020. As with the New York cohort, a disproportionate number of children in this cohort were black (25%) and Hispanic or Latino (31%).

Similar to the New York cohort, 80% of the children in this group required intensive care, 48% received vasoactive support, 20% required invasive mechanical ventilation, and four children died. Skin rashes, gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular and hematologic effects, mucous changes, and elevations of inflammatory biomarkers were also similarly observed.

The researchers note that, although many of the features of MIS-C overlap with Kawasaki disease, there are some important differences, particularly with respect to the nature of cardiovascular involvement. “Approximately 5% of children with Kawasaki’s disease in the United States present with cardiovascular shock leading to vasopressor or inotropic support, as compared with 50% of the patients in our series,” the authors write.

In addition, coronary-artery aneurysms affect approximately one quarter of Kawasaki disease patients within 21 days of disease onset. “In our series, a maximum z score of 2.5 or higher in the left anterior descending or right coronary artery was reported in 8% of the patients overall and in 9% of patients with echocardiograms,” they report.

Additional differentiating features include patient age and race/ethnicity. Kawasaki disease occurs most commonly in children younger than 5 years. The median age in the multistate study was 8.3 years, and nearly half of the children in the New York cohort were in the 6- to 12-year age group. Further, Kawasaki disease is disproportionately prevalent in children of Asian descent.

Despite the differences, “until more is known about long-term cardiac sequelae of MIS-C, providers could consider following Kawasaki’s disease guidelines for follow-up, which recommend repeat echocardiographic imaging at 1 to 2 weeks.”

As was the case in the New York series, treatment in the multistate cohort most commonly included intravenous immunoglobulin and systemic glucocorticoids. Optimal management, however, will require a better understanding of the pathogenesis of MIS-C, Feldstein and colleagues write.

Questions Remain

With the accumulating data on this syndrome, the MIS-C picture seems to be getting incrementally clearer, but there is still much uncertainty, according to Michael Levin, FMedSci, PhD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.

“The recognition and description of new diseases often resemble the parable of the blind men and the elephant, with each declaring that the part of the beast they have touched fully defines it,” he writes in an accompanying editorial.

“As the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has evolved, case reports have appeared describing children with unusual febrile illnesses that have features of Kawasaki’s disease, toxic shock syndrome, acute abdominal conditions, and encephalopathy, along with other reports of children with fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and multisystem involvement. It is now apparent that these reports were describing different clinical presentations of a new childhood inflammatory disorder.”

Although a consistent clinical picture is emerging, “[t]he published reports have used a variety of hastily developed case definitions based on the most severe cases, possibly missing less serious cases,” Levin writes. In particular, both the CDC and World Health Organization definitions require evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure, which might contribute to underrecognition and underreporting because asymptomatic infections are common and antibody testing is not universally available.

“There is concern that children meeting current diagnostic criteria for MIS-C are the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ and a bigger problem may be lurking below the waterline,” Levin states. With approximately 1000 cases of the syndrome reported worldwide, “do we now have a clear picture of the new disorder, or as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, has only part of the beast been described?”

Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, who is a coauthor of the multistate report, agrees that there is still much to learn about MIS-C before the whole beast can be understood. In an interview with Medscape Medical News, she listed the following key questions that have yet to be answered:

• Why do some children get MIS-C and not others?
• What is the long-term outcome of children with MIS-C?
• How can we differentiate MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection in children with respiratory failure?
• Does MIS-C occur in young adults?

Randolph said her team is taking the best path forward toward answering these questions, including conducting a second study to identify risk factors for MIS-C and longer-term follow-up studies with the National Institutes of Health. “We are also getting consent to collect blood samples and look at other tests to help distinguish MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection,” she said. She encouraged heightened awareness among physicians who care for young adults to consider MIS-C in patients aged 21 years and older who present with similar signs and symptoms.

On the basis of the answers to these and additional questions, the case definitions for MIS-C may need refinement to capture the wider spectrum of illness, Levin writes in his editorial. “The challenges of this new condition will now be to understand its pathophysiological mechanisms, to develop diagnostics, and to define the best treatment.”

Kleinman has received grants from the Health Services Resources Administration outside the submitted work. Maddux has received grants from the NIH/NICHD and the Francis Family Foundation outside the submitted work. Randolph has received grants from Genentech and personal fees from La Jolla Pharma outside the submitted work and others from the CDC during the conduct of the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from active surveillance of the severe inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 in previously healthy children provide further insight into the prevalence and course of the rare syndrome, but experts are concerned that current diagnostic criteria may not capture the true scope of the problem.

In separate reports published online June 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the New York State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describe the epidemiology and clinical features of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) on the basis of information derived from targeted surveillance programs in New York State and across the country.

For the New York study, Elizabeth M. Dufort, MD, from the New York Department of Health in Albany and colleagues analyzed MIS-C surveillance data from 106 hospitals across the state. Of 191 suspected MIS-C cases reported to the Department of Health from March 1 through May 10, 99 met the state’s interim case definition of the condition and were included in the analysis.

The incidence rate for MIS-C was two cases per 100,000 individuals younger than 21 years, whereas the incidence rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was 322 per 100,000. Most cases occurred approximately 1 month after the state’s COVID-19 peak.

“Among our patients, predominantly from the New York Metropolitan Region, 40% were black and 36% were Hispanic. This may be a reflection of the well-documented elevated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among black and Hispanic communities,” the authors report.

All children presented with fever or chills, and most had tachycardia (97%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (80%). Rash (60%), conjunctival infection (56%), hypotension (32%), and mucosal changes (27%) were reported. Among all of the children, levels of inflammatory markers were elevated, including levels of C-reactive protein (100%), D-dimer (91%), and troponin (71%). More than one third of the patients (36%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, and an additional 16% had clinical myocarditis.

Of the full cohort, 80% of the children required intensive care, 62% received vasopressor support, and two children died.

The high prevalence of cardiac dysfunction or depression, coagulopathy, gastrointestinal symptoms, mild respiratory symptoms, and indications for supplemental oxygen in patients with MIS-C stands in contrast to the clinical picture observed in most acute cases of COVID-19 in hospitalized children, the authors write.

“Although most children have mild or no illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, MIS-C may follow Covid-19 or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recognition of the syndrome and early identification of children with MIS-C, including early monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic evaluation, could inform appropriate supportive care and other potential therapeutic options,” they continue.

The incidence of MIS-C among children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unclear because children with COVID-19 often have mild or no symptoms and because children are not tested as frequently, the authors state. For this reason, “[i]t is crucial to establish surveillance for MIS-C cases, particularly in communities with higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

Important Differences From Kawasaki Disease

In a separate study, Leora R. Feldstein, MD, of the CDC, and colleagues report 186 cases of MIS-C collected through targeted surveillance of pediatric health centers in 26 US states from March 15 to May 20, 2020. As with the New York cohort, a disproportionate number of children in this cohort were black (25%) and Hispanic or Latino (31%).

Similar to the New York cohort, 80% of the children in this group required intensive care, 48% received vasoactive support, 20% required invasive mechanical ventilation, and four children died. Skin rashes, gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular and hematologic effects, mucous changes, and elevations of inflammatory biomarkers were also similarly observed.

The researchers note that, although many of the features of MIS-C overlap with Kawasaki disease, there are some important differences, particularly with respect to the nature of cardiovascular involvement. “Approximately 5% of children with Kawasaki’s disease in the United States present with cardiovascular shock leading to vasopressor or inotropic support, as compared with 50% of the patients in our series,” the authors write.

In addition, coronary-artery aneurysms affect approximately one quarter of Kawasaki disease patients within 21 days of disease onset. “In our series, a maximum z score of 2.5 or higher in the left anterior descending or right coronary artery was reported in 8% of the patients overall and in 9% of patients with echocardiograms,” they report.

Additional differentiating features include patient age and race/ethnicity. Kawasaki disease occurs most commonly in children younger than 5 years. The median age in the multistate study was 8.3 years, and nearly half of the children in the New York cohort were in the 6- to 12-year age group. Further, Kawasaki disease is disproportionately prevalent in children of Asian descent.

Despite the differences, “until more is known about long-term cardiac sequelae of MIS-C, providers could consider following Kawasaki’s disease guidelines for follow-up, which recommend repeat echocardiographic imaging at 1 to 2 weeks.”

As was the case in the New York series, treatment in the multistate cohort most commonly included intravenous immunoglobulin and systemic glucocorticoids. Optimal management, however, will require a better understanding of the pathogenesis of MIS-C, Feldstein and colleagues write.

Questions Remain

With the accumulating data on this syndrome, the MIS-C picture seems to be getting incrementally clearer, but there is still much uncertainty, according to Michael Levin, FMedSci, PhD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.

“The recognition and description of new diseases often resemble the parable of the blind men and the elephant, with each declaring that the part of the beast they have touched fully defines it,” he writes in an accompanying editorial.

“As the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has evolved, case reports have appeared describing children with unusual febrile illnesses that have features of Kawasaki’s disease, toxic shock syndrome, acute abdominal conditions, and encephalopathy, along with other reports of children with fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and multisystem involvement. It is now apparent that these reports were describing different clinical presentations of a new childhood inflammatory disorder.”

Although a consistent clinical picture is emerging, “[t]he published reports have used a variety of hastily developed case definitions based on the most severe cases, possibly missing less serious cases,” Levin writes. In particular, both the CDC and World Health Organization definitions require evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure, which might contribute to underrecognition and underreporting because asymptomatic infections are common and antibody testing is not universally available.

“There is concern that children meeting current diagnostic criteria for MIS-C are the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ and a bigger problem may be lurking below the waterline,” Levin states. With approximately 1000 cases of the syndrome reported worldwide, “do we now have a clear picture of the new disorder, or as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, has only part of the beast been described?”

Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, who is a coauthor of the multistate report, agrees that there is still much to learn about MIS-C before the whole beast can be understood. In an interview with Medscape Medical News, she listed the following key questions that have yet to be answered:

• Why do some children get MIS-C and not others?
• What is the long-term outcome of children with MIS-C?
• How can we differentiate MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection in children with respiratory failure?
• Does MIS-C occur in young adults?

Randolph said her team is taking the best path forward toward answering these questions, including conducting a second study to identify risk factors for MIS-C and longer-term follow-up studies with the National Institutes of Health. “We are also getting consent to collect blood samples and look at other tests to help distinguish MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection,” she said. She encouraged heightened awareness among physicians who care for young adults to consider MIS-C in patients aged 21 years and older who present with similar signs and symptoms.

On the basis of the answers to these and additional questions, the case definitions for MIS-C may need refinement to capture the wider spectrum of illness, Levin writes in his editorial. “The challenges of this new condition will now be to understand its pathophysiological mechanisms, to develop diagnostics, and to define the best treatment.”

Kleinman has received grants from the Health Services Resources Administration outside the submitted work. Maddux has received grants from the NIH/NICHD and the Francis Family Foundation outside the submitted work. Randolph has received grants from Genentech and personal fees from La Jolla Pharma outside the submitted work and others from the CDC during the conduct of the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sotatercept, a first-in-class fusion protein designed to reduce vascular remodeling, significantly decreased pulmonary vascular resistance for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in a phase 2 trial.

The mean decline change in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) after 24 weeks of treatment was significantly greater for patients treated with sotatercept at either of two doses, compared with placebo, David B. Badesch, MD, FCCP, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, reported on behalf of coinvestigators in the PULSAR trial.

“Sotatercept has a novel mechanism of action, rebalancing pro- and antiproliferative signaling through a pathway distinct from the previously approved pulmonary arterial hypertension therapies,” he said in the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

The drug is a ligand trap with high selectivity for proteins within the tumor growth factor-beta superfamily signaling pathway. Investigators propose a mechanism of action whereby sotatercept promotes a rebalancing of bone morphogenetic protein receptor–II (BMPR-II) signaling to restore vascular homeostasis.

In a preclinical study, sotatercept reduced pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary arteriolar muscularization and occlusion, right ventricular hypertrophy, and cell proliferation in the lungs of rodent models of pulmonary hypertension (Sci Transl Med. 2020 May 13. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaz5660).
 

Two dose levels

The PULSAR trial (NCT03496207) was a phase 2 randomized, double-blind study conducted in the United States, Brazil, Western Europe, and Australia comparing the efficacy and safety of sotatercept vs. placebo added to the standard of care in patients with PAH.

A total of 106 patients with World Health Organization (WHO) group 1 PAH or WHO functional class II or III disease were enrolled. All patients had baseline right-heart e4rcatheterization with PVR of 5 Wood units or more, had baseline 6-minute walk distance from 150 to 550 m, and were on stable treatment with standard-of-care mono, double, or triple therapies, including an endothelin-receptor antagonist, phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, and/or a prostacyclin, including intravenous formulations.

The median patient age was 46 years among 32 patients in the placebo group, and 48.5 years in each sotatercept dose group: 0.3 mg/kg (32 patients) and 0.7 mg/kg (42 patients).

The primary endpoint of PVR change from baseline to week 24, the end of the placebo-controlled treatment period, showed a mean decrease of 162 dynes/cm² in the 0.3-mg/kg sotatercept group (–20.5%), and a mean decrease of 256 dynes/cm² in the 0.7-mg/kg group (–33.9%), compared with a mean 16 dyne/cm² decline in the placebo group (–2,1%). Both doses were associated with significantly larger decreases, compared with placebo (P = .0027 for the 0.3-mg/kg dose, and P < .0001 for the 0.7-mg/kg dose).

Six-minute walk distance, a key secondary endpoint, improved over baseline in each active-drug arm, with a least square (LS) mean improvement of 58 m in the 0.7-mg/kg group, and 50 m in the 0.7-mg/kg group. The prespecified analysis of pooled data from the two sotatercept cohorts showed an LS-mean change of 54 m over baseline, compared with 25 m for the placebo group (nominal P = .03).

Exploratory endpoints also favoring sotatercept over placebo included a 51% reduction in amino-terminal brain natriuretic propeptide (NT-proBNP), and a 20% reduction in mean pulmonary arterial pressure.

There was no significant difference between the study arms in change in cardiac output, however.

Improvements in WHO functional class were seen in 12.5% of patients on placebo, compared with 23% of patients on sotatercept, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Two patients (6%) in the 0.3-mg/kg arm and 10 (24%) in the 0.7-mg/kg arm had a serious treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), as did three patients (9%) in the placebo arm. Serious TEAEs included leukopenia, neutropenia, pericardial infusion, tachycardia, chorioretinopathy, peripheral edema, pyrexia, bronchitis, influenza, respiratory tract infection, femur fracture, hypotension, device breakage, syncope, and red blood cell increase.

One patient in the 0.7-mg/kg arm died from cardiac arrest deemed unrelated to study treatment.

TEAEs of special interest included thrombocytopenia in two patients in 0.3– and five patients in the 0.7–mg/kg groups, vs. no patients in the placebo groups. Most patients had existing thrombocytopenia at baseline and all were on concomitant prostacyclin infusions. No patients had grade 3 thrombocytopenia or associated bleeding events.

One patient in the 0.3-mg/kg group and six patients in the 0.7-mg/kg group had an increase in hemoglobin.

“This was not a surprise,” Dr. Badesch said. “We were prepared to manage increases in hemoglobin with dose interruption or dose reduction if necessary, and phlebotomy was also an option if needed.”

One patient in the placebo arm, two in the 0.3-mg/kg and three patients in the 0.7-mg/kg arms had TEAEs leading to discontinuation.

TEAEs occurring in 10% or more of all patients in any arm and of any grade were headache, diarrhea, peripheral edema, dizziness, fatigue, hypokalemia, and nausea.
 

Why no cardiac improvement?

In the question-and-answer session following the online presentation, facilitator Steven M. Kawut MD, MS, of the University of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, remarked on the surprising lack of an apparent cardiac benefit in the study.

“You showed pretty robust decreases in NT-proBNP, decreases in pulmonary vascular resistance and right atrial pressure, and increases in 6-minute walk distance, so it’s a bit surprising that cardiac output didn’t change,” he said.

“Unlike other medications that have been tried in this field and have had a significant pulmonary vasodilatory effect, this drug is acting largely on the structure of pulmonary blood vessels,” Dr. Badesch replied. “We have thought that its primary effect is likely remodeling of the pulmonary arteries and arterioles, decreasing pulmonary vascular resistance. Unlike other drugs that have been tested in the field, it probably has no direct inotropic effect, and that may explain why cardiac output didn’t improve.”

He said that there is some echocardiographic evidence that suggests a change in right ventricular function over time. Those data are currently being analyzed, and “it’s possible that we’ll see an effect on cardiac output later.”

As of June 22, 2020, 94 of 97 patients who opted to participate in an 18-month extension period of the trial were still enrolled, and 64 patients have now been treated with sotatercept for at least 12 months.

A phase 3 trial is in the works.

The study was supported by Acceleron Pharma. Badesch disclosed research support from and consulting/advising for the company and others. Dr. Kawut has disclosed grants from several companies and travel support from ATS and the Pulmonary Hypertension Association.

Sotatercept, a first-in-class fusion protein designed to reduce vascular remodeling, significantly decreased pulmonary vascular resistance for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in a phase 2 trial.

The mean decline change in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) after 24 weeks of treatment was significantly greater for patients treated with sotatercept at either of two doses, compared with placebo, David B. Badesch, MD, FCCP, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, reported on behalf of coinvestigators in the PULSAR trial.

“Sotatercept has a novel mechanism of action, rebalancing pro- and antiproliferative signaling through a pathway distinct from the previously approved pulmonary arterial hypertension therapies,” he said in the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

The drug is a ligand trap with high selectivity for proteins within the tumor growth factor-beta superfamily signaling pathway. Investigators propose a mechanism of action whereby sotatercept promotes a rebalancing of bone morphogenetic protein receptor–II (BMPR-II) signaling to restore vascular homeostasis.

In a preclinical study, sotatercept reduced pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary arteriolar muscularization and occlusion, right ventricular hypertrophy, and cell proliferation in the lungs of rodent models of pulmonary hypertension (Sci Transl Med. 2020 May 13. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaz5660).
 

Two dose levels

The PULSAR trial (NCT03496207) was a phase 2 randomized, double-blind study conducted in the United States, Brazil, Western Europe, and Australia comparing the efficacy and safety of sotatercept vs. placebo added to the standard of care in patients with PAH.

A total of 106 patients with World Health Organization (WHO) group 1 PAH or WHO functional class II or III disease were enrolled. All patients had baseline right-heart e4rcatheterization with PVR of 5 Wood units or more, had baseline 6-minute walk distance from 150 to 550 m, and were on stable treatment with standard-of-care mono, double, or triple therapies, including an endothelin-receptor antagonist, phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, and/or a prostacyclin, including intravenous formulations.

The median patient age was 46 years among 32 patients in the placebo group, and 48.5 years in each sotatercept dose group: 0.3 mg/kg (32 patients) and 0.7 mg/kg (42 patients).

The primary endpoint of PVR change from baseline to week 24, the end of the placebo-controlled treatment period, showed a mean decrease of 162 dynes/cm² in the 0.3-mg/kg sotatercept group (–20.5%), and a mean decrease of 256 dynes/cm² in the 0.7-mg/kg group (–33.9%), compared with a mean 16 dyne/cm² decline in the placebo group (–2,1%). Both doses were associated with significantly larger decreases, compared with placebo (P = .0027 for the 0.3-mg/kg dose, and P < .0001 for the 0.7-mg/kg dose).

Six-minute walk distance, a key secondary endpoint, improved over baseline in each active-drug arm, with a least square (LS) mean improvement of 58 m in the 0.7-mg/kg group, and 50 m in the 0.7-mg/kg group. The prespecified analysis of pooled data from the two sotatercept cohorts showed an LS-mean change of 54 m over baseline, compared with 25 m for the placebo group (nominal P = .03).

Exploratory endpoints also favoring sotatercept over placebo included a 51% reduction in amino-terminal brain natriuretic propeptide (NT-proBNP), and a 20% reduction in mean pulmonary arterial pressure.

There was no significant difference between the study arms in change in cardiac output, however.

Improvements in WHO functional class were seen in 12.5% of patients on placebo, compared with 23% of patients on sotatercept, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Two patients (6%) in the 0.3-mg/kg arm and 10 (24%) in the 0.7-mg/kg arm had a serious treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), as did three patients (9%) in the placebo arm. Serious TEAEs included leukopenia, neutropenia, pericardial infusion, tachycardia, chorioretinopathy, peripheral edema, pyrexia, bronchitis, influenza, respiratory tract infection, femur fracture, hypotension, device breakage, syncope, and red blood cell increase.

One patient in the 0.7-mg/kg arm died from cardiac arrest deemed unrelated to study treatment.

TEAEs of special interest included thrombocytopenia in two patients in 0.3– and five patients in the 0.7–mg/kg groups, vs. no patients in the placebo groups. Most patients had existing thrombocytopenia at baseline and all were on concomitant prostacyclin infusions. No patients had grade 3 thrombocytopenia or associated bleeding events.

One patient in the 0.3-mg/kg group and six patients in the 0.7-mg/kg group had an increase in hemoglobin.

“This was not a surprise,” Dr. Badesch said. “We were prepared to manage increases in hemoglobin with dose interruption or dose reduction if necessary, and phlebotomy was also an option if needed.”

One patient in the placebo arm, two in the 0.3-mg/kg and three patients in the 0.7-mg/kg arms had TEAEs leading to discontinuation.

TEAEs occurring in 10% or more of all patients in any arm and of any grade were headache, diarrhea, peripheral edema, dizziness, fatigue, hypokalemia, and nausea.
 

Why no cardiac improvement?

In the question-and-answer session following the online presentation, facilitator Steven M. Kawut MD, MS, of the University of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, remarked on the surprising lack of an apparent cardiac benefit in the study.

“You showed pretty robust decreases in NT-proBNP, decreases in pulmonary vascular resistance and right atrial pressure, and increases in 6-minute walk distance, so it’s a bit surprising that cardiac output didn’t change,” he said.

“Unlike other medications that have been tried in this field and have had a significant pulmonary vasodilatory effect, this drug is acting largely on the structure of pulmonary blood vessels,” Dr. Badesch replied. “We have thought that its primary effect is likely remodeling of the pulmonary arteries and arterioles, decreasing pulmonary vascular resistance. Unlike other drugs that have been tested in the field, it probably has no direct inotropic effect, and that may explain why cardiac output didn’t improve.”

He said that there is some echocardiographic evidence that suggests a change in right ventricular function over time. Those data are currently being analyzed, and “it’s possible that we’ll see an effect on cardiac output later.”

As of June 22, 2020, 94 of 97 patients who opted to participate in an 18-month extension period of the trial were still enrolled, and 64 patients have now been treated with sotatercept for at least 12 months.

A phase 3 trial is in the works.

The study was supported by Acceleron Pharma. Badesch disclosed research support from and consulting/advising for the company and others. Dr. Kawut has disclosed grants from several companies and travel support from ATS and the Pulmonary Hypertension Association.

Sotatercept, a first-in-class fusion protein designed to reduce vascular remodeling, significantly decreased pulmonary vascular resistance for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in a phase 2 trial.

The mean decline change in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) after 24 weeks of treatment was significantly greater for patients treated with sotatercept at either of two doses, compared with placebo, David B. Badesch, MD, FCCP, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, reported on behalf of coinvestigators in the PULSAR trial.

“Sotatercept has a novel mechanism of action, rebalancing pro- and antiproliferative signaling through a pathway distinct from the previously approved pulmonary arterial hypertension therapies,” he said in the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

The drug is a ligand trap with high selectivity for proteins within the tumor growth factor-beta superfamily signaling pathway. Investigators propose a mechanism of action whereby sotatercept promotes a rebalancing of bone morphogenetic protein receptor–II (BMPR-II) signaling to restore vascular homeostasis.

In a preclinical study, sotatercept reduced pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary arteriolar muscularization and occlusion, right ventricular hypertrophy, and cell proliferation in the lungs of rodent models of pulmonary hypertension (Sci Transl Med. 2020 May 13. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaz5660).
 

Two dose levels

The PULSAR trial (NCT03496207) was a phase 2 randomized, double-blind study conducted in the United States, Brazil, Western Europe, and Australia comparing the efficacy and safety of sotatercept vs. placebo added to the standard of care in patients with PAH.

A total of 106 patients with World Health Organization (WHO) group 1 PAH or WHO functional class II or III disease were enrolled. All patients had baseline right-heart e4rcatheterization with PVR of 5 Wood units or more, had baseline 6-minute walk distance from 150 to 550 m, and were on stable treatment with standard-of-care mono, double, or triple therapies, including an endothelin-receptor antagonist, phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, and/or a prostacyclin, including intravenous formulations.

The median patient age was 46 years among 32 patients in the placebo group, and 48.5 years in each sotatercept dose group: 0.3 mg/kg (32 patients) and 0.7 mg/kg (42 patients).

The primary endpoint of PVR change from baseline to week 24, the end of the placebo-controlled treatment period, showed a mean decrease of 162 dynes/cm² in the 0.3-mg/kg sotatercept group (–20.5%), and a mean decrease of 256 dynes/cm² in the 0.7-mg/kg group (–33.9%), compared with a mean 16 dyne/cm² decline in the placebo group (–2,1%). Both doses were associated with significantly larger decreases, compared with placebo (P = .0027 for the 0.3-mg/kg dose, and P < .0001 for the 0.7-mg/kg dose).

Six-minute walk distance, a key secondary endpoint, improved over baseline in each active-drug arm, with a least square (LS) mean improvement of 58 m in the 0.7-mg/kg group, and 50 m in the 0.7-mg/kg group. The prespecified analysis of pooled data from the two sotatercept cohorts showed an LS-mean change of 54 m over baseline, compared with 25 m for the placebo group (nominal P = .03).

Exploratory endpoints also favoring sotatercept over placebo included a 51% reduction in amino-terminal brain natriuretic propeptide (NT-proBNP), and a 20% reduction in mean pulmonary arterial pressure.

There was no significant difference between the study arms in change in cardiac output, however.

Improvements in WHO functional class were seen in 12.5% of patients on placebo, compared with 23% of patients on sotatercept, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Two patients (6%) in the 0.3-mg/kg arm and 10 (24%) in the 0.7-mg/kg arm had a serious treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), as did three patients (9%) in the placebo arm. Serious TEAEs included leukopenia, neutropenia, pericardial infusion, tachycardia, chorioretinopathy, peripheral edema, pyrexia, bronchitis, influenza, respiratory tract infection, femur fracture, hypotension, device breakage, syncope, and red blood cell increase.

One patient in the 0.7-mg/kg arm died from cardiac arrest deemed unrelated to study treatment.

TEAEs of special interest included thrombocytopenia in two patients in 0.3– and five patients in the 0.7–mg/kg groups, vs. no patients in the placebo groups. Most patients had existing thrombocytopenia at baseline and all were on concomitant prostacyclin infusions. No patients had grade 3 thrombocytopenia or associated bleeding events.

One patient in the 0.3-mg/kg group and six patients in the 0.7-mg/kg group had an increase in hemoglobin.

“This was not a surprise,” Dr. Badesch said. “We were prepared to manage increases in hemoglobin with dose interruption or dose reduction if necessary, and phlebotomy was also an option if needed.”

One patient in the placebo arm, two in the 0.3-mg/kg and three patients in the 0.7-mg/kg arms had TEAEs leading to discontinuation.

TEAEs occurring in 10% or more of all patients in any arm and of any grade were headache, diarrhea, peripheral edema, dizziness, fatigue, hypokalemia, and nausea.
 

Why no cardiac improvement?

In the question-and-answer session following the online presentation, facilitator Steven M. Kawut MD, MS, of the University of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, remarked on the surprising lack of an apparent cardiac benefit in the study.

“You showed pretty robust decreases in NT-proBNP, decreases in pulmonary vascular resistance and right atrial pressure, and increases in 6-minute walk distance, so it’s a bit surprising that cardiac output didn’t change,” he said.

“Unlike other medications that have been tried in this field and have had a significant pulmonary vasodilatory effect, this drug is acting largely on the structure of pulmonary blood vessels,” Dr. Badesch replied. “We have thought that its primary effect is likely remodeling of the pulmonary arteries and arterioles, decreasing pulmonary vascular resistance. Unlike other drugs that have been tested in the field, it probably has no direct inotropic effect, and that may explain why cardiac output didn’t improve.”

He said that there is some echocardiographic evidence that suggests a change in right ventricular function over time. Those data are currently being analyzed, and “it’s possible that we’ll see an effect on cardiac output later.”

As of June 22, 2020, 94 of 97 patients who opted to participate in an 18-month extension period of the trial were still enrolled, and 64 patients have now been treated with sotatercept for at least 12 months.

A phase 3 trial is in the works.

The study was supported by Acceleron Pharma. Badesch disclosed research support from and consulting/advising for the company and others. Dr. Kawut has disclosed grants from several companies and travel support from ATS and the Pulmonary Hypertension Association.

Phase 3 trial findings compared outcomes for COPD patients who had triple fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting beta₂ agonist with patients who received one of two dual-therapy combinations. The results were presented at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

A total of 8,509 patients were randomized on a 1:1:1:1 basis to receive twice daily:

• Single-inhaler combinations of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) budesonide at one of two doses, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrrolate, and the long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA) formoterol.
• Dual-therapy combination glycopyrrolate and formoterol.
• Dual-therapy combination budesonide and formoterol.

The annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was 1.08 and 1.07 for the triple combinations with 320 mcg and 180 mcg doses of budesonide, respectively, compared with 1.42 for glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and 1.24 for budesonide-formoterol.

Both triple combinations were significantly superior to the dual therapies for controlling exacerbations, reported Klaus F. Rabe, MD, PhD, from LungenClinic Grosshansdorf and Christian-Albrechts University Kiel (Germany), and colleagues in the ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial (NCT02465567).

“Our findings show the benefits of triple therapy with a budesonide-glycopyrrolate-formoterol combination over dual therapy with a LAMA-LABA or an inhaled glucocorticoid-LABA combination with respect to the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations, symptoms, and health-related quality of life in patients with moderate to very-severe COPD who are at risk of exacerbations,” they wrote in a study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine..

The trial showed for the first time that “triple therapy that has half the dose of steroid compared to a standard ICS/LABA combination has had greater efficacy for the exacerbation endpoint,” Dr. Rabe said during his presentation.

Triple-therapy combinations with an ICS, LAMA, and LABA are recommended for patients with COPD who remain symptomatic or experience further exacerbations on dual–ICS/LABA or –LAMA/LABA combinations. The triple combinations have been shown in several studies to lower risk of exacerbations and are associated with both better lung function and health-related quality of life, compared with dual therapies, the investigators noted.

However, concerns about adverse events associated with long-term ICS use – including pneumonia, cataracts, and increased fracture risk, possibly related to treatment duration, dose level, or type of corticosteroid used – spurred the ETHOS investigators to compare triple and dual fixed-dose combinations for efficacy and safety over 1 year.
 

Large study

They enrolled 8,509 adults aged 40-80 years with symptomatic COPD (defined as score of 10 or higher on the 40-point COPD Assessment Test). All patients were receiving at least two inhaled maintenance therapies at the time of screening, and had a postbronchodilator ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) to forced vital capacity of less than 0.7, with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 25%-65% of the predicted normal value. The patients all had a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a documented history of at least one moderate or severe COPD exacerbation in the year before screening.

The patients were randomized in equal proportions to receive triple therapy with budesonide at 320- or 160-mcg doses plus glycopyrrolate 18 mcg, and formoterol 9.6 mcg twice daily, or to dual therapy with either glycopyrrolate plus formoterol at the same doses, or 320 mcg budesonide plus 9.6 mcg formoterol.

As noted, for the primary endpoint of the estimated annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations, the triple combinations were associated with significantly lower rates, with a 24% lower rate (rate ratio, 0.76) with 320 mcg budesonide triple therapy, compared with glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and a 13% lower rate (RR, 0.87), compared with budesonide formoterol (P < .001 and P = .003, respectively).

The triple combination with the 160-mcg budesonide dose was associated with a 25% lower annual rate of exacerbations (RR, 0.75) vs. glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and a 14% lower rate (RR, 0.86) vs. budesonide-formoterol (P < .001 and P = .002, respectively).

Secondary efficacy endpoints also favored the triple combination, including a 20% lower rate ratio of severe exacerbations over 52 weeks for the 320-mcg budesonide group, compared with the budesonide-formoterol group (P = .02).

The 320-mcg dose combination was also associated with a 46% lower risk for all-cause mortality, compared with glycopyrrolate-formoterol (hazard ratio, 0.54; P = .0111).

Confirmed pneumonia was seen in 4.2% of patients on the 320-mcg budesonide dose, 3.5% of those in the 160-mcg group, and 4.5% of patients treated with budesonide-formoterol. The incidence of any adverse effect was similar across the treatment groups, ranging from 61.7% to 64.5%.
 

Balance exacerbation, pneumonia risk

In the question-and-answer session following his online presentation, Dr. Rabe was asked how the investigators reconciled their data showing increased incidence of pneumonia in budenoside-containing formulations with claims by the maker of the budesonide-formoterol (Symbicort, AstraZeneca) that budesonide is not associated with increased risk of pneumonia.

“We have to say that there are individuals that we have to balance the benefit of [less] exacerbation against the risk of pneumonia,” he replied, but noted that the size of the effect, observed both in ETHOS and in the KRONOS trial, was relatively small.

“This definitely adds some information for us to think about when we’re trying to do risk-benefit analysis,” commented MeiLan K. Han, MD, MS, from the University of Michigan, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study.

The ETHOS trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Rabe disclosed consulting/advisory board activity with that company and others. Dr. Han has previously disclosed consulting/advising and research funding relationships with other companies.

SOURCE: Rabe KF et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916046.

Phase 3 trial findings compared outcomes for COPD patients who had triple fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting beta₂ agonist with patients who received one of two dual-therapy combinations. The results were presented at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

A total of 8,509 patients were randomized on a 1:1:1:1 basis to receive twice daily:

• Single-inhaler combinations of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) budesonide at one of two doses, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrrolate, and the long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA) formoterol.
• Dual-therapy combination glycopyrrolate and formoterol.
• Dual-therapy combination budesonide and formoterol.

The annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was 1.08 and 1.07 for the triple combinations with 320 mcg and 180 mcg doses of budesonide, respectively, compared with 1.42 for glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and 1.24 for budesonide-formoterol.

Both triple combinations were significantly superior to the dual therapies for controlling exacerbations, reported Klaus F. Rabe, MD, PhD, from LungenClinic Grosshansdorf and Christian-Albrechts University Kiel (Germany), and colleagues in the ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial (NCT02465567).

“Our findings show the benefits of triple therapy with a budesonide-glycopyrrolate-formoterol combination over dual therapy with a LAMA-LABA or an inhaled glucocorticoid-LABA combination with respect to the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations, symptoms, and health-related quality of life in patients with moderate to very-severe COPD who are at risk of exacerbations,” they wrote in a study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine..

The trial showed for the first time that “triple therapy that has half the dose of steroid compared to a standard ICS/LABA combination has had greater efficacy for the exacerbation endpoint,” Dr. Rabe said during his presentation.

Triple-therapy combinations with an ICS, LAMA, and LABA are recommended for patients with COPD who remain symptomatic or experience further exacerbations on dual–ICS/LABA or –LAMA/LABA combinations. The triple combinations have been shown in several studies to lower risk of exacerbations and are associated with both better lung function and health-related quality of life, compared with dual therapies, the investigators noted.

However, concerns about adverse events associated with long-term ICS use – including pneumonia, cataracts, and increased fracture risk, possibly related to treatment duration, dose level, or type of corticosteroid used – spurred the ETHOS investigators to compare triple and dual fixed-dose combinations for efficacy and safety over 1 year.
 

Large study

They enrolled 8,509 adults aged 40-80 years with symptomatic COPD (defined as score of 10 or higher on the 40-point COPD Assessment Test). All patients were receiving at least two inhaled maintenance therapies at the time of screening, and had a postbronchodilator ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) to forced vital capacity of less than 0.7, with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 25%-65% of the predicted normal value. The patients all had a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a documented history of at least one moderate or severe COPD exacerbation in the year before screening.

The patients were randomized in equal proportions to receive triple therapy with budesonide at 320- or 160-mcg doses plus glycopyrrolate 18 mcg, and formoterol 9.6 mcg twice daily, or to dual therapy with either glycopyrrolate plus formoterol at the same doses, or 320 mcg budesonide plus 9.6 mcg formoterol.

As noted, for the primary endpoint of the estimated annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations, the triple combinations were associated with significantly lower rates, with a 24% lower rate (rate ratio, 0.76) with 320 mcg budesonide triple therapy, compared with glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and a 13% lower rate (RR, 0.87), compared with budesonide formoterol (P < .001 and P = .003, respectively).

The triple combination with the 160-mcg budesonide dose was associated with a 25% lower annual rate of exacerbations (RR, 0.75) vs. glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and a 14% lower rate (RR, 0.86) vs. budesonide-formoterol (P < .001 and P = .002, respectively).

Secondary efficacy endpoints also favored the triple combination, including a 20% lower rate ratio of severe exacerbations over 52 weeks for the 320-mcg budesonide group, compared with the budesonide-formoterol group (P = .02).

The 320-mcg dose combination was also associated with a 46% lower risk for all-cause mortality, compared with glycopyrrolate-formoterol (hazard ratio, 0.54; P = .0111).

Confirmed pneumonia was seen in 4.2% of patients on the 320-mcg budesonide dose, 3.5% of those in the 160-mcg group, and 4.5% of patients treated with budesonide-formoterol. The incidence of any adverse effect was similar across the treatment groups, ranging from 61.7% to 64.5%.
 

Balance exacerbation, pneumonia risk

In the question-and-answer session following his online presentation, Dr. Rabe was asked how the investigators reconciled their data showing increased incidence of pneumonia in budenoside-containing formulations with claims by the maker of the budesonide-formoterol (Symbicort, AstraZeneca) that budesonide is not associated with increased risk of pneumonia.

“We have to say that there are individuals that we have to balance the benefit of [less] exacerbation against the risk of pneumonia,” he replied, but noted that the size of the effect, observed both in ETHOS and in the KRONOS trial, was relatively small.

“This definitely adds some information for us to think about when we’re trying to do risk-benefit analysis,” commented MeiLan K. Han, MD, MS, from the University of Michigan, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study.

The ETHOS trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Rabe disclosed consulting/advisory board activity with that company and others. Dr. Han has previously disclosed consulting/advising and research funding relationships with other companies.

SOURCE: Rabe KF et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916046.

Phase 3 trial findings compared outcomes for COPD patients who had triple fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting beta₂ agonist with patients who received one of two dual-therapy combinations. The results were presented at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

A total of 8,509 patients were randomized on a 1:1:1:1 basis to receive twice daily:

• Single-inhaler combinations of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) budesonide at one of two doses, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrrolate, and the long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA) formoterol.
• Dual-therapy combination glycopyrrolate and formoterol.
• Dual-therapy combination budesonide and formoterol.

The annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was 1.08 and 1.07 for the triple combinations with 320 mcg and 180 mcg doses of budesonide, respectively, compared with 1.42 for glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and 1.24 for budesonide-formoterol.

Both triple combinations were significantly superior to the dual therapies for controlling exacerbations, reported Klaus F. Rabe, MD, PhD, from LungenClinic Grosshansdorf and Christian-Albrechts University Kiel (Germany), and colleagues in the ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial (NCT02465567).

“Our findings show the benefits of triple therapy with a budesonide-glycopyrrolate-formoterol combination over dual therapy with a LAMA-LABA or an inhaled glucocorticoid-LABA combination with respect to the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations, symptoms, and health-related quality of life in patients with moderate to very-severe COPD who are at risk of exacerbations,” they wrote in a study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine..

The trial showed for the first time that “triple therapy that has half the dose of steroid compared to a standard ICS/LABA combination has had greater efficacy for the exacerbation endpoint,” Dr. Rabe said during his presentation.

Triple-therapy combinations with an ICS, LAMA, and LABA are recommended for patients with COPD who remain symptomatic or experience further exacerbations on dual–ICS/LABA or –LAMA/LABA combinations. The triple combinations have been shown in several studies to lower risk of exacerbations and are associated with both better lung function and health-related quality of life, compared with dual therapies, the investigators noted.

However, concerns about adverse events associated with long-term ICS use – including pneumonia, cataracts, and increased fracture risk, possibly related to treatment duration, dose level, or type of corticosteroid used – spurred the ETHOS investigators to compare triple and dual fixed-dose combinations for efficacy and safety over 1 year.
 

Large study

They enrolled 8,509 adults aged 40-80 years with symptomatic COPD (defined as score of 10 or higher on the 40-point COPD Assessment Test). All patients were receiving at least two inhaled maintenance therapies at the time of screening, and had a postbronchodilator ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) to forced vital capacity of less than 0.7, with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 25%-65% of the predicted normal value. The patients all had a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a documented history of at least one moderate or severe COPD exacerbation in the year before screening.

The patients were randomized in equal proportions to receive triple therapy with budesonide at 320- or 160-mcg doses plus glycopyrrolate 18 mcg, and formoterol 9.6 mcg twice daily, or to dual therapy with either glycopyrrolate plus formoterol at the same doses, or 320 mcg budesonide plus 9.6 mcg formoterol.

As noted, for the primary endpoint of the estimated annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations, the triple combinations were associated with significantly lower rates, with a 24% lower rate (rate ratio, 0.76) with 320 mcg budesonide triple therapy, compared with glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and a 13% lower rate (RR, 0.87), compared with budesonide formoterol (P < .001 and P = .003, respectively).

The triple combination with the 160-mcg budesonide dose was associated with a 25% lower annual rate of exacerbations (RR, 0.75) vs. glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and a 14% lower rate (RR, 0.86) vs. budesonide-formoterol (P < .001 and P = .002, respectively).

Secondary efficacy endpoints also favored the triple combination, including a 20% lower rate ratio of severe exacerbations over 52 weeks for the 320-mcg budesonide group, compared with the budesonide-formoterol group (P = .02).

The 320-mcg dose combination was also associated with a 46% lower risk for all-cause mortality, compared with glycopyrrolate-formoterol (hazard ratio, 0.54; P = .0111).

Confirmed pneumonia was seen in 4.2% of patients on the 320-mcg budesonide dose, 3.5% of those in the 160-mcg group, and 4.5% of patients treated with budesonide-formoterol. The incidence of any adverse effect was similar across the treatment groups, ranging from 61.7% to 64.5%.
 

Balance exacerbation, pneumonia risk

In the question-and-answer session following his online presentation, Dr. Rabe was asked how the investigators reconciled their data showing increased incidence of pneumonia in budenoside-containing formulations with claims by the maker of the budesonide-formoterol (Symbicort, AstraZeneca) that budesonide is not associated with increased risk of pneumonia.

“We have to say that there are individuals that we have to balance the benefit of [less] exacerbation against the risk of pneumonia,” he replied, but noted that the size of the effect, observed both in ETHOS and in the KRONOS trial, was relatively small.

“This definitely adds some information for us to think about when we’re trying to do risk-benefit analysis,” commented MeiLan K. Han, MD, MS, from the University of Michigan, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study.

The ETHOS trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Rabe disclosed consulting/advisory board activity with that company and others. Dr. Han has previously disclosed consulting/advising and research funding relationships with other companies.

SOURCE: Rabe KF et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916046.

It’s been about two months since I volunteered in a hospital in Brooklyn, working in an ICU taking care of patients with COVID-19. I’m back home in California now but with new perspectives, not only on the pandemic, but on those who are affected by it the most.

Courtesy Dr. Arghavan Salles

Everyone seems to have forgotten the early days of the pandemic – the time when the ICUs were overrun, we were using FEMA ventilators, and endocrinologists and psychiatrists were acting as intensivists.

Even though things are opening up and people are taking summer vacations in a seemingly amnestic state, having witnessed multiple daily deaths remains a part of my daily consciousness. As I see the case numbers climbing juxtaposed against people being out and about without masks, my anxiety level is rising.

A virus doesn’t discriminate. It can fly through the air, landing on the next available surface. If that virus is SARS-CoV-2 and that surface is a human mucosal membrane, the virus makes itself at home. It orders furniture, buys a fancy mattress and a large high definition TV, hangs art on the walls, and settles in for the long haul. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

Even as an equal opportunity virus, what SARS-CoV-2 has done is to hold a mirror up to the healthcare system. It has shown us what was here all along. When people first started noticing that underrepresented minorities were more likely to contract the virus and get sick from it, I heard musings that this was likely because of their preexisting health conditions. For example, commentators on cable news were quick to point out that black people are more likely than other people to have hypertension or diabetes. So doesn’t that explain why they are more affected by this virus?

That certainly is part of the story, but it doesn’t entirely explain the discrepancies we’ve seen. For example, in New York 14% of the population is black, and 25% of those who had a COVID-related death were black patients. Similarly, 19% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, and they made up 26% of COVID-related deaths. On the other hand, 55% of the population in New York is white, and white people account for only 34% of COVID-related deaths.

Working in Brooklyn, I didn’t need to be a keen observer to notice that, out of our entire unit of about 20-25 patients, there was only one patient in a 2-week period who was neither black nor Hispanic.

As others have written, there are other factors at play. I’m not sure how many of those commentators back in March stopped to think about why black patients are more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but the chronic stress of facing racism on a daily basis surely contributes. Beyond those medical problems, minorities are more likely to live in multigenerational housing, which means that it is harder for them to isolate from others. In addition, their living quarters tend to be further from health care centers and grocery stores, which makes it harder for them to access medical care and healthy food.

As if that weren’t enough to put their health at risk, people of color are also affected by environmental racism . Factories with toxic waste are more likely to be built in or near neighborhoods filled with people of color than in other communities. On top of that, black and Hispanic people are also more likely to be under- or uninsured, meaning they often delay seeking care in order to avoid astronomic healthcare costs.

Black and Hispanic people are also more likely than others to be working in the service industry or other essential services, which means they are less likely to be able to work from home. Consequently, they have to risk more exposures to other people and the virus than do those who have the privilege of working safely from home. They also are less likely to have available paid leave and, therefore, are more likely to work while sick.

With the deck completely stacked against them, underrepresented minorities also face systemic bias and racism when interacting with the health care system. Physicians mistakenly believe black patients experience less pain than other patients, according to some research. Black mothers have significantly worse health care outcomes than do their non-black counterparts, and the infant mortality rate for Black infants is much higher as well.

Dr. Salles is a bariatric surgeon and is currently a Scholar in Residence at Stanford (Calif.) University. Find her on Twitter @arghavan_salles.

It’s been about two months since I volunteered in a hospital in Brooklyn, working in an ICU taking care of patients with COVID-19. I’m back home in California now but with new perspectives, not only on the pandemic, but on those who are affected by it the most.

Courtesy Dr. Arghavan Salles

Everyone seems to have forgotten the early days of the pandemic – the time when the ICUs were overrun, we were using FEMA ventilators, and endocrinologists and psychiatrists were acting as intensivists.

Even though things are opening up and people are taking summer vacations in a seemingly amnestic state, having witnessed multiple daily deaths remains a part of my daily consciousness. As I see the case numbers climbing juxtaposed against people being out and about without masks, my anxiety level is rising.

A virus doesn’t discriminate. It can fly through the air, landing on the next available surface. If that virus is SARS-CoV-2 and that surface is a human mucosal membrane, the virus makes itself at home. It orders furniture, buys a fancy mattress and a large high definition TV, hangs art on the walls, and settles in for the long haul. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

Even as an equal opportunity virus, what SARS-CoV-2 has done is to hold a mirror up to the healthcare system. It has shown us what was here all along. When people first started noticing that underrepresented minorities were more likely to contract the virus and get sick from it, I heard musings that this was likely because of their preexisting health conditions. For example, commentators on cable news were quick to point out that black people are more likely than other people to have hypertension or diabetes. So doesn’t that explain why they are more affected by this virus?

That certainly is part of the story, but it doesn’t entirely explain the discrepancies we’ve seen. For example, in New York 14% of the population is black, and 25% of those who had a COVID-related death were black patients. Similarly, 19% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, and they made up 26% of COVID-related deaths. On the other hand, 55% of the population in New York is white, and white people account for only 34% of COVID-related deaths.

Working in Brooklyn, I didn’t need to be a keen observer to notice that, out of our entire unit of about 20-25 patients, there was only one patient in a 2-week period who was neither black nor Hispanic.

As others have written, there are other factors at play. I’m not sure how many of those commentators back in March stopped to think about why black patients are more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but the chronic stress of facing racism on a daily basis surely contributes. Beyond those medical problems, minorities are more likely to live in multigenerational housing, which means that it is harder for them to isolate from others. In addition, their living quarters tend to be further from health care centers and grocery stores, which makes it harder for them to access medical care and healthy food.

As if that weren’t enough to put their health at risk, people of color are also affected by environmental racism . Factories with toxic waste are more likely to be built in or near neighborhoods filled with people of color than in other communities. On top of that, black and Hispanic people are also more likely to be under- or uninsured, meaning they often delay seeking care in order to avoid astronomic healthcare costs.

Black and Hispanic people are also more likely than others to be working in the service industry or other essential services, which means they are less likely to be able to work from home. Consequently, they have to risk more exposures to other people and the virus than do those who have the privilege of working safely from home. They also are less likely to have available paid leave and, therefore, are more likely to work while sick.

With the deck completely stacked against them, underrepresented minorities also face systemic bias and racism when interacting with the health care system. Physicians mistakenly believe black patients experience less pain than other patients, according to some research. Black mothers have significantly worse health care outcomes than do their non-black counterparts, and the infant mortality rate for Black infants is much higher as well.

Dr. Salles is a bariatric surgeon and is currently a Scholar in Residence at Stanford (Calif.) University. Find her on Twitter @arghavan_salles.

It’s been about two months since I volunteered in a hospital in Brooklyn, working in an ICU taking care of patients with COVID-19. I’m back home in California now but with new perspectives, not only on the pandemic, but on those who are affected by it the most.

Courtesy Dr. Arghavan Salles

Everyone seems to have forgotten the early days of the pandemic – the time when the ICUs were overrun, we were using FEMA ventilators, and endocrinologists and psychiatrists were acting as intensivists.

Even though things are opening up and people are taking summer vacations in a seemingly amnestic state, having witnessed multiple daily deaths remains a part of my daily consciousness. As I see the case numbers climbing juxtaposed against people being out and about without masks, my anxiety level is rising.

A virus doesn’t discriminate. It can fly through the air, landing on the next available surface. If that virus is SARS-CoV-2 and that surface is a human mucosal membrane, the virus makes itself at home. It orders furniture, buys a fancy mattress and a large high definition TV, hangs art on the walls, and settles in for the long haul. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

Even as an equal opportunity virus, what SARS-CoV-2 has done is to hold a mirror up to the healthcare system. It has shown us what was here all along. When people first started noticing that underrepresented minorities were more likely to contract the virus and get sick from it, I heard musings that this was likely because of their preexisting health conditions. For example, commentators on cable news were quick to point out that black people are more likely than other people to have hypertension or diabetes. So doesn’t that explain why they are more affected by this virus?

That certainly is part of the story, but it doesn’t entirely explain the discrepancies we’ve seen. For example, in New York 14% of the population is black, and 25% of those who had a COVID-related death were black patients. Similarly, 19% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, and they made up 26% of COVID-related deaths. On the other hand, 55% of the population in New York is white, and white people account for only 34% of COVID-related deaths.

Working in Brooklyn, I didn’t need to be a keen observer to notice that, out of our entire unit of about 20-25 patients, there was only one patient in a 2-week period who was neither black nor Hispanic.

As others have written, there are other factors at play. I’m not sure how many of those commentators back in March stopped to think about why black patients are more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but the chronic stress of facing racism on a daily basis surely contributes. Beyond those medical problems, minorities are more likely to live in multigenerational housing, which means that it is harder for them to isolate from others. In addition, their living quarters tend to be further from health care centers and grocery stores, which makes it harder for them to access medical care and healthy food.

As if that weren’t enough to put their health at risk, people of color are also affected by environmental racism . Factories with toxic waste are more likely to be built in or near neighborhoods filled with people of color than in other communities. On top of that, black and Hispanic people are also more likely to be under- or uninsured, meaning they often delay seeking care in order to avoid astronomic healthcare costs.

Black and Hispanic people are also more likely than others to be working in the service industry or other essential services, which means they are less likely to be able to work from home. Consequently, they have to risk more exposures to other people and the virus than do those who have the privilege of working safely from home. They also are less likely to have available paid leave and, therefore, are more likely to work while sick.

With the deck completely stacked against them, underrepresented minorities also face systemic bias and racism when interacting with the health care system. Physicians mistakenly believe black patients experience less pain than other patients, according to some research. Black mothers have significantly worse health care outcomes than do their non-black counterparts, and the infant mortality rate for Black infants is much higher as well.

Dr. Salles is a bariatric surgeon and is currently a Scholar in Residence at Stanford (Calif.) University. Find her on Twitter @arghavan_salles.

Background: OSA is a key modifiable risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and is increasingly prevalent in older populations. PAP improves OSA severity, increases oxygenation, and reduces daytime sleepiness. Its effect on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes remains uncertain.

Dr. Anderson is chief, hospital medicine section, and deputy chief, medicine service, at the Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Aurora.

Background: OSA is a key modifiable risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and is increasingly prevalent in older populations. PAP improves OSA severity, increases oxygenation, and reduces daytime sleepiness. Its effect on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes remains uncertain.

Dr. Anderson is chief, hospital medicine section, and deputy chief, medicine service, at the Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Aurora.

Background: OSA is a key modifiable risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and is increasingly prevalent in older populations. PAP improves OSA severity, increases oxygenation, and reduces daytime sleepiness. Its effect on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes remains uncertain.

Dr. Anderson is chief, hospital medicine section, and deputy chief, medicine service, at the Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Aurora.

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A combined subtype of pulmonary hypertension was significantly associated with higher mortality in adults with chronic kidney disease, based on data from a retrospective study of 12,618 patients.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) occurs in up to 41% of chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, but most studies of PH in this population have not examined PH subtypes, wrote Daniel L. Edmonston, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

“Among patients with CKD with PH, the combined pre- and postcapillary PH subtype (elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure with increased pulmonary vascular resistance) may be a substantial contributor to the overall PH burden in CKD” because of factors including chronic volume overload, pulmonary vascular remodeling, inflammation, and comorbid lung disease, they wrote.

In a study published in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases, The researchers investigated subtypes of precapillary, postcapillary, and combination PH, and their associations with all-cause mortality for different levels of CKD severity. The study population included 12,618 adults aged 18 years and older with qualifying right-heart catheterizations. Of these, 4,772 had chronic kidney disease. The average age was 57 years in patients without CKD and 69 years in patients with CKD.

Overall, 73.4% of patients with CKD and 56.9% of patients without CKD had PH. For CKD patients, the most common PH subtypes were isolated postcapillary (39.0%) and combined pre- and postcapillary (38.3%).

Combined pre- and postcapillary PH was associated with higher mortality risk, compared with no PH in CKD patients, with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.89, 1.87, 2.13, and 1.63 for glomerular filtration rate categories G3a, G3b, G4, and G5/G5D, respectively.

For patients without CKD, precapillary PH was the most common subtype (35.9%) and was associated with the highest mortality risk, compared with no PH (HR, 2.27).

Relationships between mortality and specific PH features of mean pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and right atrial pressure were similar for patients with and without CKD.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, potential lack of generalizability because of the use of data from a single center, and lack of data on vascular access for hemodialysis, and exclusion of patients with heart or lung transplants, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that “processes that increase pulmonary vascular resistance and/ or remodeling represent a prominent mechanism and potential therapeutic target for patients with CKD that is complicated by PH,” they said.

Patients with CKD and combined pre- and postcapillary PH are at increased risk for mortality and “recognition of this large combined pre- and postcapillary PH cohort in CKD may present new therapeutic options,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the American Society of Nephrology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Edmonston DL et al. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019;75:713-24.

.

A combined subtype of pulmonary hypertension was significantly associated with higher mortality in adults with chronic kidney disease, based on data from a retrospective study of 12,618 patients.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) occurs in up to 41% of chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, but most studies of PH in this population have not examined PH subtypes, wrote Daniel L. Edmonston, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

“Among patients with CKD with PH, the combined pre- and postcapillary PH subtype (elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure with increased pulmonary vascular resistance) may be a substantial contributor to the overall PH burden in CKD” because of factors including chronic volume overload, pulmonary vascular remodeling, inflammation, and comorbid lung disease, they wrote.

In a study published in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases, The researchers investigated subtypes of precapillary, postcapillary, and combination PH, and their associations with all-cause mortality for different levels of CKD severity. The study population included 12,618 adults aged 18 years and older with qualifying right-heart catheterizations. Of these, 4,772 had chronic kidney disease. The average age was 57 years in patients without CKD and 69 years in patients with CKD.

Overall, 73.4% of patients with CKD and 56.9% of patients without CKD had PH. For CKD patients, the most common PH subtypes were isolated postcapillary (39.0%) and combined pre- and postcapillary (38.3%).

Combined pre- and postcapillary PH was associated with higher mortality risk, compared with no PH in CKD patients, with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.89, 1.87, 2.13, and 1.63 for glomerular filtration rate categories G3a, G3b, G4, and G5/G5D, respectively.

For patients without CKD, precapillary PH was the most common subtype (35.9%) and was associated with the highest mortality risk, compared with no PH (HR, 2.27).

Relationships between mortality and specific PH features of mean pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and right atrial pressure were similar for patients with and without CKD.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, potential lack of generalizability because of the use of data from a single center, and lack of data on vascular access for hemodialysis, and exclusion of patients with heart or lung transplants, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that “processes that increase pulmonary vascular resistance and/ or remodeling represent a prominent mechanism and potential therapeutic target for patients with CKD that is complicated by PH,” they said.

Patients with CKD and combined pre- and postcapillary PH are at increased risk for mortality and “recognition of this large combined pre- and postcapillary PH cohort in CKD may present new therapeutic options,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the American Society of Nephrology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Edmonston DL et al. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019;75:713-24.

.

A combined subtype of pulmonary hypertension was significantly associated with higher mortality in adults with chronic kidney disease, based on data from a retrospective study of 12,618 patients.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) occurs in up to 41% of chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, but most studies of PH in this population have not examined PH subtypes, wrote Daniel L. Edmonston, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

“Among patients with CKD with PH, the combined pre- and postcapillary PH subtype (elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure with increased pulmonary vascular resistance) may be a substantial contributor to the overall PH burden in CKD” because of factors including chronic volume overload, pulmonary vascular remodeling, inflammation, and comorbid lung disease, they wrote.

In a study published in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases, The researchers investigated subtypes of precapillary, postcapillary, and combination PH, and their associations with all-cause mortality for different levels of CKD severity. The study population included 12,618 adults aged 18 years and older with qualifying right-heart catheterizations. Of these, 4,772 had chronic kidney disease. The average age was 57 years in patients without CKD and 69 years in patients with CKD.

Overall, 73.4% of patients with CKD and 56.9% of patients without CKD had PH. For CKD patients, the most common PH subtypes were isolated postcapillary (39.0%) and combined pre- and postcapillary (38.3%).

Combined pre- and postcapillary PH was associated with higher mortality risk, compared with no PH in CKD patients, with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.89, 1.87, 2.13, and 1.63 for glomerular filtration rate categories G3a, G3b, G4, and G5/G5D, respectively.

For patients without CKD, precapillary PH was the most common subtype (35.9%) and was associated with the highest mortality risk, compared with no PH (HR, 2.27).

Relationships between mortality and specific PH features of mean pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and right atrial pressure were similar for patients with and without CKD.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, potential lack of generalizability because of the use of data from a single center, and lack of data on vascular access for hemodialysis, and exclusion of patients with heart or lung transplants, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that “processes that increase pulmonary vascular resistance and/ or remodeling represent a prominent mechanism and potential therapeutic target for patients with CKD that is complicated by PH,” they said.

Patients with CKD and combined pre- and postcapillary PH are at increased risk for mortality and “recognition of this large combined pre- and postcapillary PH cohort in CKD may present new therapeutic options,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the American Society of Nephrology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Edmonston DL et al. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019;75:713-24.

.

As we reopen our offices we are faced with the challenge of determining the best way to do it safely – protecting ourselves, our staff, and our patients. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recently issued an evidence-based guideline to help clinicians in developing a sound approach to this issue, and this guideline, along with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should allow us to move ahead safely.

In this column we will focus on selected details of the recommendations from IDSA and the CDC that may be helpful in primary care offices.
 

Face masks

Many clinicians have asked whether a physician should use a mask while seeing patients without COVID-19 in the office, and if yes, which type. The IDSA guideline states that mask usage is imperative for reducing the risk of health care workers contracting COVID-19.¹ The evidence is derived from a number of sources, including a retrospective study from Wuhan (China) University that examined two groups of health care workers during the outbreak. The first group wore N95 masks and washed their hands frequently, while the second group did not wear masks and washed their hands less frequently. In the group that took greater actions to protect themselves, none of the 493 staff members contracted COVID-19, compared with 10 of 213 staff members in the other group. The decrease in infection rate occurred in the group that wore masks despite the fact that this group had 733% more exposure to COVID-19 patients.² Further evidence came from a case-control study done in hospitals in Hong Kong during the 2003 SARS-CoV outbreak.³ This study showed that mask wearing was the most significant intervention for reducing infection, followed by gowning, and then handwashing. These findings make it clear that mask usage is a must for all health care providers who may be caring for patients who could have COVID-19.

The guideline also reviews evidence about the use of surgical masks versus N95 masks. On reviewing indirect evidence from the SARS-CoV epidemic, IDSA found that wearing any mask – surgical or N95 – led to a large reduction in the risk of developing an infection. In this systematic review of five observational studies in health care personnel, for those wearing surgical masks, the odds ratio for developing an infection was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.03-0.62), and for those wearing N95 masks, the odds ratio was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.06-0.26). There was not a significant difference between risk reductions for those who wore surgical masks and N95 masks, respectively.^1,4 The IDSA guideline panel recommended “that health care personnel caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19 use either a surgical mask or N95 respirator ... as part of appropriate PPE.” Since there is not a significant difference in outcomes between those who use surgical masks and those who use N95 respirators, and the IDSA guideline states either type of mask is considered appropriate when taking care of patients with suspected or known COVID-19, in our opinion, use of surgical masks rather than N95s is sufficient when performing low-risk activities. Such activities include seeing patients who do not have a high likelihood of COVID-19 in the office setting.

The IDSA recommendation also discusses universal masking, defined as both patients and clinicians wearing masks. The recommendation is supported by the findings of a study in which universal mask usage was used to prevent the spread of H1N 1 during the 2009 outbreak. In this study of staff members and patients exposed to H1N1 who all wore masks, only 0.48% of 836 acquired infection. In the same study, not wearing a mask by either the provider or patient increased the risk of infection.⁵ Also, in a prospective study of hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients, universal masking caused infection rates to drop from 10.3% to 4.4%.⁶

The IDSA guideline states the following: “There may be some, albeit uncertain, benefit to universal masking in the absence of resource constraints. However, the benefits of universal masking with surgical masks should be weighed against the risk of increasing the PPE burn rate and contextualized to the background COVID-19 prevalence rate for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic HCPs [health care providers] and visitors.”¹

The CDC’s guidance statement says the following: “Continued community transmission has increased the number of individuals potentially exposed to and infectious with SARS-CoV-2. Fever and symptom screening have proven to be relatively ineffective in identifying all infected individuals, including HCPs. Symptom screening also will not identify individuals who are infected but otherwise asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic; additional interventions are needed to limit the unrecognized introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into healthcare settings by these individuals. As part of aggressive source control measures, healthcare facilities should consider implementing policies requiring everyone entering the facility to wear a cloth face covering (if tolerated) while in the building, regardless of symptoms.”⁷

It is our opinion, based on the CDC and IDSA recommendations, that both clinicians and patients should be required to wear masks when patients are seen in the office if possible. Many offices have instituted a policy that says, if a patient refuses to wear a mask during an office visit, then the patient will not be seen.
 

Eye protection

Many clinicians are uncertain about whether eye protection needs to be used when seeing asymptomatic patients. The IDSA acknowledges that there are not studies that have looked critically at eye protection, but the society also acknowledges “appropriate personal protective equipment includes, in addition to a mask or respirator, eye protection, gown and gloves.”¹ In addition, the CDC recommends that, for healthcare workers located in areas with moderate or higher prevalence of COVID-19, HCPs should wear eye protection in addition to facemasks since they may encounter asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.

Gowns and gloves

Gowns and gloves are recommended as a part of personal protective gear when caring for patients who have COVID-19. The IDSA guideline is clear in its recommendations, but does not cite evidence for having no gloves versus having gloves. Furthermore, they state that the evidence is insufficient to recommend double gloves, with the top glove used to take off a personal protective gown, and the inner glove discarded after the gown is removed. The CDC do not make recommendations for routine use of gloves in the care of patients who do not have COVID-19, even in areas where there may be asymptomatic COVID-19, and recommends standard precautions, specifically practicing hand hygiene before and after patient contact.⁸
 

The Bottom Line

When seeing patients with COVID-19, N-95 masks, goggles or face shields, gowns, and gloves should be used, with hand hygiene routinely practiced before and after seeing patients. For offices seeing patients not suspected of having COVID-19, the IDSA guideline clarifies that there is not a statistical difference in acquisition of infection with the use of surgical face masks vs N95 respirators. According to the CDC recommendations, eye protection in addition to facemasks should be used by the health care provider, and masks should be worn by patients. Hand hygiene should be used routinely before and after all patient contact. With use of these approaches, it should be safe for offices to reopen and see patients.
 

Neil Skolnik, MD, is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Jeffrey Matthews, DO, is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency at Abington Jefferson Health. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Lynch JB, Davitkov P, Anderson DJ, et al. COVID-19 Guideline, Part 2: Infection Prevention. IDSA Home. https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-infection-prevention/. April 27, 2020. Accessed June 10, 2020.

2. J Hosp Infect. 2020 May;105(1):104-5.

3. Lancet. 2003;361(9368):1519-20.

4. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020 Apr 4. doi: 2020;10.1111/irv.12745.

5. J Hosp Infect. 2010;74(3):271-7.

6. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(8):999-1006.

7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html. Accessed Jun 16, 2020.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control FAQs for COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-faq.html. Accessed June 15, 2020.
 

As we reopen our offices we are faced with the challenge of determining the best way to do it safely – protecting ourselves, our staff, and our patients. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recently issued an evidence-based guideline to help clinicians in developing a sound approach to this issue, and this guideline, along with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should allow us to move ahead safely.

In this column we will focus on selected details of the recommendations from IDSA and the CDC that may be helpful in primary care offices.
 

Face masks

Many clinicians have asked whether a physician should use a mask while seeing patients without COVID-19 in the office, and if yes, which type. The IDSA guideline states that mask usage is imperative for reducing the risk of health care workers contracting COVID-19.¹ The evidence is derived from a number of sources, including a retrospective study from Wuhan (China) University that examined two groups of health care workers during the outbreak. The first group wore N95 masks and washed their hands frequently, while the second group did not wear masks and washed their hands less frequently. In the group that took greater actions to protect themselves, none of the 493 staff members contracted COVID-19, compared with 10 of 213 staff members in the other group. The decrease in infection rate occurred in the group that wore masks despite the fact that this group had 733% more exposure to COVID-19 patients.² Further evidence came from a case-control study done in hospitals in Hong Kong during the 2003 SARS-CoV outbreak.³ This study showed that mask wearing was the most significant intervention for reducing infection, followed by gowning, and then handwashing. These findings make it clear that mask usage is a must for all health care providers who may be caring for patients who could have COVID-19.

The guideline also reviews evidence about the use of surgical masks versus N95 masks. On reviewing indirect evidence from the SARS-CoV epidemic, IDSA found that wearing any mask – surgical or N95 – led to a large reduction in the risk of developing an infection. In this systematic review of five observational studies in health care personnel, for those wearing surgical masks, the odds ratio for developing an infection was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.03-0.62), and for those wearing N95 masks, the odds ratio was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.06-0.26). There was not a significant difference between risk reductions for those who wore surgical masks and N95 masks, respectively.^1,4 The IDSA guideline panel recommended “that health care personnel caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19 use either a surgical mask or N95 respirator ... as part of appropriate PPE.” Since there is not a significant difference in outcomes between those who use surgical masks and those who use N95 respirators, and the IDSA guideline states either type of mask is considered appropriate when taking care of patients with suspected or known COVID-19, in our opinion, use of surgical masks rather than N95s is sufficient when performing low-risk activities. Such activities include seeing patients who do not have a high likelihood of COVID-19 in the office setting.

The IDSA recommendation also discusses universal masking, defined as both patients and clinicians wearing masks. The recommendation is supported by the findings of a study in which universal mask usage was used to prevent the spread of H1N 1 during the 2009 outbreak. In this study of staff members and patients exposed to H1N1 who all wore masks, only 0.48% of 836 acquired infection. In the same study, not wearing a mask by either the provider or patient increased the risk of infection.⁵ Also, in a prospective study of hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients, universal masking caused infection rates to drop from 10.3% to 4.4%.⁶

The IDSA guideline states the following: “There may be some, albeit uncertain, benefit to universal masking in the absence of resource constraints. However, the benefits of universal masking with surgical masks should be weighed against the risk of increasing the PPE burn rate and contextualized to the background COVID-19 prevalence rate for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic HCPs [health care providers] and visitors.”¹

The CDC’s guidance statement says the following: “Continued community transmission has increased the number of individuals potentially exposed to and infectious with SARS-CoV-2. Fever and symptom screening have proven to be relatively ineffective in identifying all infected individuals, including HCPs. Symptom screening also will not identify individuals who are infected but otherwise asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic; additional interventions are needed to limit the unrecognized introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into healthcare settings by these individuals. As part of aggressive source control measures, healthcare facilities should consider implementing policies requiring everyone entering the facility to wear a cloth face covering (if tolerated) while in the building, regardless of symptoms.”⁷

It is our opinion, based on the CDC and IDSA recommendations, that both clinicians and patients should be required to wear masks when patients are seen in the office if possible. Many offices have instituted a policy that says, if a patient refuses to wear a mask during an office visit, then the patient will not be seen.
 

Eye protection

Many clinicians are uncertain about whether eye protection needs to be used when seeing asymptomatic patients. The IDSA acknowledges that there are not studies that have looked critically at eye protection, but the society also acknowledges “appropriate personal protective equipment includes, in addition to a mask or respirator, eye protection, gown and gloves.”¹ In addition, the CDC recommends that, for healthcare workers located in areas with moderate or higher prevalence of COVID-19, HCPs should wear eye protection in addition to facemasks since they may encounter asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.

Gowns and gloves

Gowns and gloves are recommended as a part of personal protective gear when caring for patients who have COVID-19. The IDSA guideline is clear in its recommendations, but does not cite evidence for having no gloves versus having gloves. Furthermore, they state that the evidence is insufficient to recommend double gloves, with the top glove used to take off a personal protective gown, and the inner glove discarded after the gown is removed. The CDC do not make recommendations for routine use of gloves in the care of patients who do not have COVID-19, even in areas where there may be asymptomatic COVID-19, and recommends standard precautions, specifically practicing hand hygiene before and after patient contact.⁸
 

The Bottom Line

When seeing patients with COVID-19, N-95 masks, goggles or face shields, gowns, and gloves should be used, with hand hygiene routinely practiced before and after seeing patients. For offices seeing patients not suspected of having COVID-19, the IDSA guideline clarifies that there is not a statistical difference in acquisition of infection with the use of surgical face masks vs N95 respirators. According to the CDC recommendations, eye protection in addition to facemasks should be used by the health care provider, and masks should be worn by patients. Hand hygiene should be used routinely before and after all patient contact. With use of these approaches, it should be safe for offices to reopen and see patients.
 

Neil Skolnik, MD, is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Jeffrey Matthews, DO, is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency at Abington Jefferson Health. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Lynch JB, Davitkov P, Anderson DJ, et al. COVID-19 Guideline, Part 2: Infection Prevention. IDSA Home. https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-infection-prevention/. April 27, 2020. Accessed June 10, 2020.

2. J Hosp Infect. 2020 May;105(1):104-5.

3. Lancet. 2003;361(9368):1519-20.

4. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020 Apr 4. doi: 2020;10.1111/irv.12745.

5. J Hosp Infect. 2010;74(3):271-7.

6. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(8):999-1006.

7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html. Accessed Jun 16, 2020.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control FAQs for COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-faq.html. Accessed June 15, 2020.
 

As we reopen our offices we are faced with the challenge of determining the best way to do it safely – protecting ourselves, our staff, and our patients. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recently issued an evidence-based guideline to help clinicians in developing a sound approach to this issue, and this guideline, along with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should allow us to move ahead safely.

In this column we will focus on selected details of the recommendations from IDSA and the CDC that may be helpful in primary care offices.
 

Face masks

Many clinicians have asked whether a physician should use a mask while seeing patients without COVID-19 in the office, and if yes, which type. The IDSA guideline states that mask usage is imperative for reducing the risk of health care workers contracting COVID-19.¹ The evidence is derived from a number of sources, including a retrospective study from Wuhan (China) University that examined two groups of health care workers during the outbreak. The first group wore N95 masks and washed their hands frequently, while the second group did not wear masks and washed their hands less frequently. In the group that took greater actions to protect themselves, none of the 493 staff members contracted COVID-19, compared with 10 of 213 staff members in the other group. The decrease in infection rate occurred in the group that wore masks despite the fact that this group had 733% more exposure to COVID-19 patients.² Further evidence came from a case-control study done in hospitals in Hong Kong during the 2003 SARS-CoV outbreak.³ This study showed that mask wearing was the most significant intervention for reducing infection, followed by gowning, and then handwashing. These findings make it clear that mask usage is a must for all health care providers who may be caring for patients who could have COVID-19.

The guideline also reviews evidence about the use of surgical masks versus N95 masks. On reviewing indirect evidence from the SARS-CoV epidemic, IDSA found that wearing any mask – surgical or N95 – led to a large reduction in the risk of developing an infection. In this systematic review of five observational studies in health care personnel, for those wearing surgical masks, the odds ratio for developing an infection was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.03-0.62), and for those wearing N95 masks, the odds ratio was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.06-0.26). There was not a significant difference between risk reductions for those who wore surgical masks and N95 masks, respectively.^1,4 The IDSA guideline panel recommended “that health care personnel caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19 use either a surgical mask or N95 respirator ... as part of appropriate PPE.” Since there is not a significant difference in outcomes between those who use surgical masks and those who use N95 respirators, and the IDSA guideline states either type of mask is considered appropriate when taking care of patients with suspected or known COVID-19, in our opinion, use of surgical masks rather than N95s is sufficient when performing low-risk activities. Such activities include seeing patients who do not have a high likelihood of COVID-19 in the office setting.

The IDSA recommendation also discusses universal masking, defined as both patients and clinicians wearing masks. The recommendation is supported by the findings of a study in which universal mask usage was used to prevent the spread of H1N 1 during the 2009 outbreak. In this study of staff members and patients exposed to H1N1 who all wore masks, only 0.48% of 836 acquired infection. In the same study, not wearing a mask by either the provider or patient increased the risk of infection.⁵ Also, in a prospective study of hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients, universal masking caused infection rates to drop from 10.3% to 4.4%.⁶

The IDSA guideline states the following: “There may be some, albeit uncertain, benefit to universal masking in the absence of resource constraints. However, the benefits of universal masking with surgical masks should be weighed against the risk of increasing the PPE burn rate and contextualized to the background COVID-19 prevalence rate for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic HCPs [health care providers] and visitors.”¹

The CDC’s guidance statement says the following: “Continued community transmission has increased the number of individuals potentially exposed to and infectious with SARS-CoV-2. Fever and symptom screening have proven to be relatively ineffective in identifying all infected individuals, including HCPs. Symptom screening also will not identify individuals who are infected but otherwise asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic; additional interventions are needed to limit the unrecognized introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into healthcare settings by these individuals. As part of aggressive source control measures, healthcare facilities should consider implementing policies requiring everyone entering the facility to wear a cloth face covering (if tolerated) while in the building, regardless of symptoms.”⁷

It is our opinion, based on the CDC and IDSA recommendations, that both clinicians and patients should be required to wear masks when patients are seen in the office if possible. Many offices have instituted a policy that says, if a patient refuses to wear a mask during an office visit, then the patient will not be seen.
 

Eye protection

Many clinicians are uncertain about whether eye protection needs to be used when seeing asymptomatic patients. The IDSA acknowledges that there are not studies that have looked critically at eye protection, but the society also acknowledges “appropriate personal protective equipment includes, in addition to a mask or respirator, eye protection, gown and gloves.”¹ In addition, the CDC recommends that, for healthcare workers located in areas with moderate or higher prevalence of COVID-19, HCPs should wear eye protection in addition to facemasks since they may encounter asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.

Gowns and gloves

Gowns and gloves are recommended as a part of personal protective gear when caring for patients who have COVID-19. The IDSA guideline is clear in its recommendations, but does not cite evidence for having no gloves versus having gloves. Furthermore, they state that the evidence is insufficient to recommend double gloves, with the top glove used to take off a personal protective gown, and the inner glove discarded after the gown is removed. The CDC do not make recommendations for routine use of gloves in the care of patients who do not have COVID-19, even in areas where there may be asymptomatic COVID-19, and recommends standard precautions, specifically practicing hand hygiene before and after patient contact.⁸
 

The Bottom Line

When seeing patients with COVID-19, N-95 masks, goggles or face shields, gowns, and gloves should be used, with hand hygiene routinely practiced before and after seeing patients. For offices seeing patients not suspected of having COVID-19, the IDSA guideline clarifies that there is not a statistical difference in acquisition of infection with the use of surgical face masks vs N95 respirators. According to the CDC recommendations, eye protection in addition to facemasks should be used by the health care provider, and masks should be worn by patients. Hand hygiene should be used routinely before and after all patient contact. With use of these approaches, it should be safe for offices to reopen and see patients.
 

Neil Skolnik, MD, is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Jeffrey Matthews, DO, is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency at Abington Jefferson Health. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Lynch JB, Davitkov P, Anderson DJ, et al. COVID-19 Guideline, Part 2: Infection Prevention. IDSA Home. https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-infection-prevention/. April 27, 2020. Accessed June 10, 2020.

2. J Hosp Infect. 2020 May;105(1):104-5.

3. Lancet. 2003;361(9368):1519-20.

4. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020 Apr 4. doi: 2020;10.1111/irv.12745.

5. J Hosp Infect. 2010;74(3):271-7.

6. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(8):999-1006.

7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html. Accessed Jun 16, 2020.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control FAQs for COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-faq.html. Accessed June 15, 2020.
 

There is concern that the COVID-19 pandemic may be inflicting collateral damage on vulnerable patients with chronic conditions, in particular, those with COPD, according to a commentary published in CHEST (2020 May 28. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.05.549) by a group of physicians who study COPD.

Not only is COPD among the most prevalent underlying diseases among hospitalized COVID-19 patients (Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Jun 8. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.05.041), but other unanticipated factors of treatment put these patients at extra risk. Valerie Press, MD, assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of Chicago, and colleagues aimed to alert physicians to be aware of potential negative effects, or collateral damage, that the pandemic can have on their patients with COPD, even those without a COVID-19 diagnosis.

These concerns include that patients may delay presenting to the ED with acute exacerbations of COPD and once they present they may be at later stages of the exacerbation. Further, evaluation for COVID-19 as a possible trigger of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) is essential; however, implementing proven AECOPD therapies remains challenging. For instance, routine therapy with corticosteroids for AECOPD may be delayed due to diagnostic uncertainty and hesitation to treat COVID-19 with steroids while COVID-19 testing is pending,” Dr. Press and her colleagues stated.

Shortages and scarcity of medications such as albuterol inhalers to treat COPD have been reported. In addition, patients with COPD are currently less likely to access their health care providers because of fear of COVID-19 infection. This barrier to care and the current higher threshold for presenting to the hospital may to lead to more cases of AECOPD and worsening health in these patients, according to the authors.

Dr. Press said in an interview: “Access to medications delivered through inhalers is challenging even without the pandemic due to high cost of medications. Generic medications are key to improving access for patients with chronic lung disease, so once the generic albuterol becomes available, this should help with access. In the meantime, some companies help provide medications at reduced cost, but usually only on a short time basis. In addition, some pharmacies have lower-cost albuterol inhalers, but these are often not supplied with a full month of dosing.”

In addition to all these concerns is the economic toll this pandemic is taking on patients. The association between COPD and socioeconomic status has been studied in depth (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019; 199[8]:961-69) and would indicate that low-income patients with COPD would face an increased burden during an economic downturn. The authors noted, “Historic rapid job loss and unemployment in the U.S., coupled with a health system of employment-integrated health insurance coverage, makes it more likely that people with COPD will not be able to afford their medication.”

Dr. Press stressed that the COVID pandemic has highlighted critically important disparities in access to health care and disparities in health. “Many of the recommendations regarding stay-at-home and other safety mechanisms to prevent contracting and spreading COVID-19 have not been feasible for all sub-populations in the United States. Those that were essential workers did not have the ability to stay home. Further, those that rely on public transportation had less opportunities to social distance. Finally, while telemedicine opportunities have advanced for clinical care, not all patients have equal access to these capabilities and health disparities could widen in this regard as well. Clinicians have a responsibility to identify social determinants of health that increase risks to our patients’ health and limit their safety.”*

The authors offer some concrete suggestions of how physicians can address some of these concerns, including the following:

• Be alert to potential barriers to accessing medication and be aware of generic albuterol inhaler recently approved by the FDA in response to COVID-19–related shortages.
• Use telemedicine to monitor patients and improvement of home self-management. Clinicians should help patients “seek care with worsening symptoms and have clear management guidelines regarding seeking phone/video visits; implementing therapy with corticosteroids, antibiotics, or inhalers and nebulizers; COVID-19 testing recommendations; and thresholds for seeking emergent, urgent, or outpatient care in person,” Dr. Press added, “Building on the work of nurse advice lines and case management and other support services for high-risk patients with COPD may continue via telehealth and telephone visits.”
• Ensure that untried therapy for COVID-19 “does not displace proven and necessary treatments for patients with COPD, hence placing them at increased risk for poor outcomes.”

Dr. Press is also concerned about the post–COVID-19 period for patients with COPD. “It is too early to know if there are specific after effects of the COVID infection on patients with COPD, but given the damage the virus does to even healthy lungs, there is reason to have concern that COVID could cause worsening damage to the lungs of individuals with COPD.”

She noted, “Post-ICU [PICU] syndrome has been recognized in patients with ARDS generally, and patients who recover from critical illness may have long-lasting (and permanent) effects on strength, cognition, disability, and pulmonary function. Whether the PICU syndrome in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 specifically is different from the PICU syndrome due to other causes remains unknown. But clinicians whose patients with COPD survive COVID-19 may expect long-lasting effects and slow recovery in cases where COVID-19 led to severe ARDS and a prolonged ICU stay. Assessment of overall patient recovery and functional capacity (beyond lung function and dyspnea symptoms) including deconditioning, anxiety, PTSD, weakness, and malnutrition will need to be addressed. Additionally, clinicians may help patients and their families understand the expected recovery and help facilitate family conversations about residual effects of COVID-19.”

The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Press V et al. Chest. 2020 May 28. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.05.549.

CORRECTION: *This story was updated with further comments and clarifications from Dr. Press. 6/23/2020

There is concern that the COVID-19 pandemic may be inflicting collateral damage on vulnerable patients with chronic conditions, in particular, those with COPD, according to a commentary published in CHEST (2020 May 28. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.05.549) by a group of physicians who study COPD.

Not only is COPD among the most prevalent underlying diseases among hospitalized COVID-19 patients (Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Jun 8. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.05.041), but other unanticipated factors of treatment put these patients at extra risk. Valerie Press, MD, assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of Chicago, and colleagues aimed to alert physicians to be aware of potential negative effects, or collateral damage, that the pandemic can have on their patients with COPD, even those without a COVID-19 diagnosis.

These concerns include that patients may delay presenting to the ED with acute exacerbations of COPD and once they present they may be at later stages of the exacerbation. Further, evaluation for COVID-19 as a possible trigger of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) is essential; however, implementing proven AECOPD therapies remains challenging. For instance, routine therapy with corticosteroids for AECOPD may be delayed due to diagnostic uncertainty and hesitation to treat COVID-19 with steroids while COVID-19 testing is pending,” Dr. Press and her colleagues stated.

Shortages and scarcity of medications such as albuterol inhalers to treat COPD have been reported. In addition, patients with COPD are currently less likely to access their health care providers because of fear of COVID-19 infection. This barrier to care and the current higher threshold for presenting to the hospital may to lead to more cases of AECOPD and worsening health in these patients, according to the authors.

Dr. Press said in an interview: “Access to medications delivered through inhalers is challenging even without the pandemic due to high cost of medications. Generic medications are key to improving access for patients with chronic lung disease, so once the generic albuterol becomes available, this should help with access. In the meantime, some companies help provide medications at reduced cost, but usually only on a short time basis. In addition, some pharmacies have lower-cost albuterol inhalers, but these are often not supplied with a full month of dosing.”

In addition to all these concerns is the economic toll this pandemic is taking on patients. The association between COPD and socioeconomic status has been studied in depth (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019; 199[8]:961-69) and would indicate that low-income patients with COPD would face an increased burden during an economic downturn. The authors noted, “Historic rapid job loss and unemployment in the U.S., coupled with a health system of employment-integrated health insurance coverage, makes it more likely that people with COPD will not be able to afford their medication.”

Dr. Press stressed that the COVID pandemic has highlighted critically important disparities in access to health care and disparities in health. “Many of the recommendations regarding stay-at-home and other safety mechanisms to prevent contracting and spreading COVID-19 have not been feasible for all sub-populations in the United States. Those that were essential workers did not have the ability to stay home. Further, those that rely on public transportation had less opportunities to social distance. Finally, while telemedicine opportunities have advanced for clinical care, not all patients have equal access to these capabilities and health disparities could widen in this regard as well. Clinicians have a responsibility to identify social determinants of health that increase risks to our patients’ health and limit their safety.”*

The authors offer some concrete suggestions of how physicians can address some of these concerns, including the following:

• Be alert to potential barriers to accessing medication and be aware of generic albuterol inhaler recently approved by the FDA in response to COVID-19–related shortages.
• Use telemedicine to monitor patients and improvement of home self-management. Clinicians should help patients “seek care with worsening symptoms and have clear management guidelines regarding seeking phone/video visits; implementing therapy with corticosteroids, antibiotics, or inhalers and nebulizers; COVID-19 testing recommendations; and thresholds for seeking emergent, urgent, or outpatient care in person,” Dr. Press added, “Building on the work of nurse advice lines and case management and other support services for high-risk patients with COPD may continue via telehealth and telephone visits.”
• Ensure that untried therapy for COVID-19 “does not displace proven and necessary treatments for patients with COPD, hence placing them at increased risk for poor outcomes.”

Dr. Press is also concerned about the post–COVID-19 period for patients with COPD. “It is too early to know if there are specific after effects of the COVID infection on patients with COPD, but given the damage the virus does to even healthy lungs, there is reason to have concern that COVID could cause worsening damage to the lungs of individuals with COPD.”

She noted, “Post-ICU [PICU] syndrome has been recognized in patients with ARDS generally, and patients who recover from critical illness may have long-lasting (and permanent) effects on strength, cognition, disability, and pulmonary function. Whether the PICU syndrome in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 specifically is different from the PICU syndrome due to other causes remains unknown. But clinicians whose patients with COPD survive COVID-19 may expect long-lasting effects and slow recovery in cases where COVID-19 led to severe ARDS and a prolonged ICU stay. Assessment of overall patient recovery and functional capacity (beyond lung function and dyspnea symptoms) including deconditioning, anxiety, PTSD, weakness, and malnutrition will need to be addressed. Additionally, clinicians may help patients and their families understand the expected recovery and help facilitate family conversations about residual effects of COVID-19.”

The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Press V et al. Chest. 2020 May 28. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.05.549.

CORRECTION: *This story was updated with further comments and clarifications from Dr. Press. 6/23/2020

There is concern that the COVID-19 pandemic may be inflicting collateral damage on vulnerable patients with chronic conditions, in particular, those with COPD, according to a commentary published in CHEST (2020 May 28. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.05.549) by a group of physicians who study COPD.

Not only is COPD among the most prevalent underlying diseases among hospitalized COVID-19 patients (Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Jun 8. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.05.041), but other unanticipated factors of treatment put these patients at extra risk. Valerie Press, MD, assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of Chicago, and colleagues aimed to alert physicians to be aware of potential negative effects, or collateral damage, that the pandemic can have on their patients with COPD, even those without a COVID-19 diagnosis.

These concerns include that patients may delay presenting to the ED with acute exacerbations of COPD and once they present they may be at later stages of the exacerbation. Further, evaluation for COVID-19 as a possible trigger of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) is essential; however, implementing proven AECOPD therapies remains challenging. For instance, routine therapy with corticosteroids for AECOPD may be delayed due to diagnostic uncertainty and hesitation to treat COVID-19 with steroids while COVID-19 testing is pending,” Dr. Press and her colleagues stated.

Shortages and scarcity of medications such as albuterol inhalers to treat COPD have been reported. In addition, patients with COPD are currently less likely to access their health care providers because of fear of COVID-19 infection. This barrier to care and the current higher threshold for presenting to the hospital may to lead to more cases of AECOPD and worsening health in these patients, according to the authors.

Dr. Press said in an interview: “Access to medications delivered through inhalers is challenging even without the pandemic due to high cost of medications. Generic medications are key to improving access for patients with chronic lung disease, so once the generic albuterol becomes available, this should help with access. In the meantime, some companies help provide medications at reduced cost, but usually only on a short time basis. In addition, some pharmacies have lower-cost albuterol inhalers, but these are often not supplied with a full month of dosing.”

In addition to all these concerns is the economic toll this pandemic is taking on patients. The association between COPD and socioeconomic status has been studied in depth (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019; 199[8]:961-69) and would indicate that low-income patients with COPD would face an increased burden during an economic downturn. The authors noted, “Historic rapid job loss and unemployment in the U.S., coupled with a health system of employment-integrated health insurance coverage, makes it more likely that people with COPD will not be able to afford their medication.”

Dr. Press stressed that the COVID pandemic has highlighted critically important disparities in access to health care and disparities in health. “Many of the recommendations regarding stay-at-home and other safety mechanisms to prevent contracting and spreading COVID-19 have not been feasible for all sub-populations in the United States. Those that were essential workers did not have the ability to stay home. Further, those that rely on public transportation had less opportunities to social distance. Finally, while telemedicine opportunities have advanced for clinical care, not all patients have equal access to these capabilities and health disparities could widen in this regard as well. Clinicians have a responsibility to identify social determinants of health that increase risks to our patients’ health and limit their safety.”*

The authors offer some concrete suggestions of how physicians can address some of these concerns, including the following:

• Be alert to potential barriers to accessing medication and be aware of generic albuterol inhaler recently approved by the FDA in response to COVID-19–related shortages.
• Use telemedicine to monitor patients and improvement of home self-management. Clinicians should help patients “seek care with worsening symptoms and have clear management guidelines regarding seeking phone/video visits; implementing therapy with corticosteroids, antibiotics, or inhalers and nebulizers; COVID-19 testing recommendations; and thresholds for seeking emergent, urgent, or outpatient care in person,” Dr. Press added, “Building on the work of nurse advice lines and case management and other support services for high-risk patients with COPD may continue via telehealth and telephone visits.”
• Ensure that untried therapy for COVID-19 “does not displace proven and necessary treatments for patients with COPD, hence placing them at increased risk for poor outcomes.”

Dr. Press is also concerned about the post–COVID-19 period for patients with COPD. “It is too early to know if there are specific after effects of the COVID infection on patients with COPD, but given the damage the virus does to even healthy lungs, there is reason to have concern that COVID could cause worsening damage to the lungs of individuals with COPD.”

She noted, “Post-ICU [PICU] syndrome has been recognized in patients with ARDS generally, and patients who recover from critical illness may have long-lasting (and permanent) effects on strength, cognition, disability, and pulmonary function. Whether the PICU syndrome in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 specifically is different from the PICU syndrome due to other causes remains unknown. But clinicians whose patients with COPD survive COVID-19 may expect long-lasting effects and slow recovery in cases where COVID-19 led to severe ARDS and a prolonged ICU stay. Assessment of overall patient recovery and functional capacity (beyond lung function and dyspnea symptoms) including deconditioning, anxiety, PTSD, weakness, and malnutrition will need to be addressed. Additionally, clinicians may help patients and their families understand the expected recovery and help facilitate family conversations about residual effects of COVID-19.”

The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Press V et al. Chest. 2020 May 28. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.05.549.

CORRECTION: *This story was updated with further comments and clarifications from Dr. Press. 6/23/2020