Pulmonology

Exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment is significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, according to a Finnish population-based study published in JAMA. The findings may lead to changes in clinical practice, particularly for infants who may be born full term.

After adjustment for variables such as maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, any lifetime mental disorder diagnosis, and gestational age at birth, exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, with a hazard ratio of 1.33. Among children born at term, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.47. Among preterm children, the hazard ratio was not significant.

“Although benefits of this therapy outweigh risks in the most vulnerable infants, this may not be true for all infants,” wrote Sara B. DeMauro, MD, an attending neonatologist and program director of the neonatal follow-up program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an editorial also published in JAMA. “Recommendations to administer this therapy to broader populations of pregnant women may need to be reexamined until sufficient safety data, particularly among more mature infants, are available.”

Corticosteroid treatment to accelerate fetal maturation is standard care before 34 weeks’ gestation when there is a likelihood of delivery within 7 days, and studies have found that providing this therapy reduces the risk for respiratory problems when administered beyond 34 weeks. In 2016, updates to U.S. guidelines allowed for the use of corticosteroid treatment between 34 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days when women are at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days and have not received a previous course of antenatal corticosteroids.

The data from Finland indicate that “a significant number of very preterm children who might have benefited from this treatment did not receive it,” Dr. DeMauro wrote. At the same time, “45% of steroid-exposed infants were delivered at term. In these infants, minor short-term benefit may have been outweighed by significant longer-term risks. These data elucidate both the continuing struggle to accurately predict preterm birth and the incomplete uptake of an effective therapy that is beneficial when administered to the correct patients.”
 

Pause expanded use?

“Since the recommendations came out to expand the use of corticosteroids for preterm labor up until 37 weeks gestational age, my practice has incorporated these guidelines,” said Santina Wheat, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “We have incorporated the guidelines though with the understanding that the benefits outweigh the risk. This article indicates that we may have been wrong in that understanding.” Although the association does not establish that the treatment causes mental and behavioral disorders, it “raises the question of whether we should halt this practice until additional information can be gathered,” noted Dr. Wheat, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

When administered before delivery of a very premature infant, corticosteroid therapy accelerates fetal lung maturation and helps prevent neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome, and brain injury. Investigators demonstrated the benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in 1972, and the treatment – “one of the most important advances in perinatal care” – became widely used in the 1990s, Dr. DeMauro said.

To examine whether treatment exposure is associated with a risk of childhood mental and behavioral disorders and whether the risk is similar in infants born at term and preterm, Katri Räikkönen, PhD, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective study of more than 670,000 children.

The researchers identified all singleton pregnancies ending in a live birth in Finland during Jan. 1, 2006–Dec.31, 2017. In addition, they identified all consecutive maternal sibling pairs born at term, including sibling pairs discordant for maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment exposure and sibling pairs concordant for treatment exposure or nonexposure. The investigators identified diagnoses of childhood mental and behavioral disorders using the Finnish Care Register for Health Care using ICD-10 codes on hospital inpatient and outpatient treatments by physicians in specialized medical care.
 

A range of disorders

In all, 670,097 infants with a median follow-up duration of 5.8 years were included in the analysis, and 14,868 (2.22%) were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. Of the treatment-exposed children, about 45% were born at term. Of the nonexposed children, approximately 97% were born at term. Cumulative incidence rates for any mental and behavioral disorder were significantly higher for treatment-exposed children, compared with nonexposed children, in the entire cohort (12.01% vs. 6.45%; P less than .001) and in term-born children (8.89% vs. 6.31%; P less than .001).

In preterm children, the incidence rate of any mental and behavioral disorder was significantly higher among those with treatment exposure (14.59% vs. 10.71%; P less than .001). Associations persisted when the investigators focused on 241,621 sibling pairs, “suggesting that unmeasured familial confounding did not explain these associations,” the authors said.

“[In] the entire cohort and term-born children, treatment exposure ... was significantly associated with psychological development disorders; attention-deficit/hyperactivity or conduct disorders; mixed disorders of conduct and emotions, emotional disorders, disorders of social functioning or tic disorders; other behavioral or emotional disorders; and sleep disorders,” Dr. Räikkönen and colleagues reported. Among preterm-born, treatment-exposed children, the adjusted hazard ratio was significantly lower for intellectual disability and higher for sleep disorders.

Dr. DeMauro noted potential confounders in this observational study, including abnormal pregnancy events that lead clinicians to administer steroids. Such events “predispose the exposed children to adverse cognitive outcomes,” suggests some research. “Alternately, after a pregnancy at high risk for preterm delivery, families may perceive their children as vulnerable and therefore may be more likely to seek care and earlier diagnosis of mental or behavioral disorders,” Dr. DeMauro said.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, European Commission, Foundation for Pediatric Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. The investigators and Dr. DeMauro had no conflict of interest disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Räikkönen K et al. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1924-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3937.

Exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment is significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, according to a Finnish population-based study published in JAMA. The findings may lead to changes in clinical practice, particularly for infants who may be born full term.

After adjustment for variables such as maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, any lifetime mental disorder diagnosis, and gestational age at birth, exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, with a hazard ratio of 1.33. Among children born at term, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.47. Among preterm children, the hazard ratio was not significant.

“Although benefits of this therapy outweigh risks in the most vulnerable infants, this may not be true for all infants,” wrote Sara B. DeMauro, MD, an attending neonatologist and program director of the neonatal follow-up program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an editorial also published in JAMA. “Recommendations to administer this therapy to broader populations of pregnant women may need to be reexamined until sufficient safety data, particularly among more mature infants, are available.”

Corticosteroid treatment to accelerate fetal maturation is standard care before 34 weeks’ gestation when there is a likelihood of delivery within 7 days, and studies have found that providing this therapy reduces the risk for respiratory problems when administered beyond 34 weeks. In 2016, updates to U.S. guidelines allowed for the use of corticosteroid treatment between 34 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days when women are at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days and have not received a previous course of antenatal corticosteroids.

The data from Finland indicate that “a significant number of very preterm children who might have benefited from this treatment did not receive it,” Dr. DeMauro wrote. At the same time, “45% of steroid-exposed infants were delivered at term. In these infants, minor short-term benefit may have been outweighed by significant longer-term risks. These data elucidate both the continuing struggle to accurately predict preterm birth and the incomplete uptake of an effective therapy that is beneficial when administered to the correct patients.”
 

Pause expanded use?

“Since the recommendations came out to expand the use of corticosteroids for preterm labor up until 37 weeks gestational age, my practice has incorporated these guidelines,” said Santina Wheat, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “We have incorporated the guidelines though with the understanding that the benefits outweigh the risk. This article indicates that we may have been wrong in that understanding.” Although the association does not establish that the treatment causes mental and behavioral disorders, it “raises the question of whether we should halt this practice until additional information can be gathered,” noted Dr. Wheat, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

When administered before delivery of a very premature infant, corticosteroid therapy accelerates fetal lung maturation and helps prevent neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome, and brain injury. Investigators demonstrated the benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in 1972, and the treatment – “one of the most important advances in perinatal care” – became widely used in the 1990s, Dr. DeMauro said.

To examine whether treatment exposure is associated with a risk of childhood mental and behavioral disorders and whether the risk is similar in infants born at term and preterm, Katri Räikkönen, PhD, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective study of more than 670,000 children.

The researchers identified all singleton pregnancies ending in a live birth in Finland during Jan. 1, 2006–Dec.31, 2017. In addition, they identified all consecutive maternal sibling pairs born at term, including sibling pairs discordant for maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment exposure and sibling pairs concordant for treatment exposure or nonexposure. The investigators identified diagnoses of childhood mental and behavioral disorders using the Finnish Care Register for Health Care using ICD-10 codes on hospital inpatient and outpatient treatments by physicians in specialized medical care.
 

A range of disorders

In all, 670,097 infants with a median follow-up duration of 5.8 years were included in the analysis, and 14,868 (2.22%) were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. Of the treatment-exposed children, about 45% were born at term. Of the nonexposed children, approximately 97% were born at term. Cumulative incidence rates for any mental and behavioral disorder were significantly higher for treatment-exposed children, compared with nonexposed children, in the entire cohort (12.01% vs. 6.45%; P less than .001) and in term-born children (8.89% vs. 6.31%; P less than .001).

In preterm children, the incidence rate of any mental and behavioral disorder was significantly higher among those with treatment exposure (14.59% vs. 10.71%; P less than .001). Associations persisted when the investigators focused on 241,621 sibling pairs, “suggesting that unmeasured familial confounding did not explain these associations,” the authors said.

“[In] the entire cohort and term-born children, treatment exposure ... was significantly associated with psychological development disorders; attention-deficit/hyperactivity or conduct disorders; mixed disorders of conduct and emotions, emotional disorders, disorders of social functioning or tic disorders; other behavioral or emotional disorders; and sleep disorders,” Dr. Räikkönen and colleagues reported. Among preterm-born, treatment-exposed children, the adjusted hazard ratio was significantly lower for intellectual disability and higher for sleep disorders.

Dr. DeMauro noted potential confounders in this observational study, including abnormal pregnancy events that lead clinicians to administer steroids. Such events “predispose the exposed children to adverse cognitive outcomes,” suggests some research. “Alternately, after a pregnancy at high risk for preterm delivery, families may perceive their children as vulnerable and therefore may be more likely to seek care and earlier diagnosis of mental or behavioral disorders,” Dr. DeMauro said.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, European Commission, Foundation for Pediatric Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. The investigators and Dr. DeMauro had no conflict of interest disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Räikkönen K et al. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1924-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3937.

Exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment is significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, according to a Finnish population-based study published in JAMA. The findings may lead to changes in clinical practice, particularly for infants who may be born full term.

After adjustment for variables such as maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, any lifetime mental disorder diagnosis, and gestational age at birth, exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, with a hazard ratio of 1.33. Among children born at term, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.47. Among preterm children, the hazard ratio was not significant.

“Although benefits of this therapy outweigh risks in the most vulnerable infants, this may not be true for all infants,” wrote Sara B. DeMauro, MD, an attending neonatologist and program director of the neonatal follow-up program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an editorial also published in JAMA. “Recommendations to administer this therapy to broader populations of pregnant women may need to be reexamined until sufficient safety data, particularly among more mature infants, are available.”

Corticosteroid treatment to accelerate fetal maturation is standard care before 34 weeks’ gestation when there is a likelihood of delivery within 7 days, and studies have found that providing this therapy reduces the risk for respiratory problems when administered beyond 34 weeks. In 2016, updates to U.S. guidelines allowed for the use of corticosteroid treatment between 34 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days when women are at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days and have not received a previous course of antenatal corticosteroids.

The data from Finland indicate that “a significant number of very preterm children who might have benefited from this treatment did not receive it,” Dr. DeMauro wrote. At the same time, “45% of steroid-exposed infants were delivered at term. In these infants, minor short-term benefit may have been outweighed by significant longer-term risks. These data elucidate both the continuing struggle to accurately predict preterm birth and the incomplete uptake of an effective therapy that is beneficial when administered to the correct patients.”
 

Pause expanded use?

“Since the recommendations came out to expand the use of corticosteroids for preterm labor up until 37 weeks gestational age, my practice has incorporated these guidelines,” said Santina Wheat, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “We have incorporated the guidelines though with the understanding that the benefits outweigh the risk. This article indicates that we may have been wrong in that understanding.” Although the association does not establish that the treatment causes mental and behavioral disorders, it “raises the question of whether we should halt this practice until additional information can be gathered,” noted Dr. Wheat, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

When administered before delivery of a very premature infant, corticosteroid therapy accelerates fetal lung maturation and helps prevent neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome, and brain injury. Investigators demonstrated the benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in 1972, and the treatment – “one of the most important advances in perinatal care” – became widely used in the 1990s, Dr. DeMauro said.

To examine whether treatment exposure is associated with a risk of childhood mental and behavioral disorders and whether the risk is similar in infants born at term and preterm, Katri Räikkönen, PhD, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective study of more than 670,000 children.

The researchers identified all singleton pregnancies ending in a live birth in Finland during Jan. 1, 2006–Dec.31, 2017. In addition, they identified all consecutive maternal sibling pairs born at term, including sibling pairs discordant for maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment exposure and sibling pairs concordant for treatment exposure or nonexposure. The investigators identified diagnoses of childhood mental and behavioral disorders using the Finnish Care Register for Health Care using ICD-10 codes on hospital inpatient and outpatient treatments by physicians in specialized medical care.
 

A range of disorders

In all, 670,097 infants with a median follow-up duration of 5.8 years were included in the analysis, and 14,868 (2.22%) were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. Of the treatment-exposed children, about 45% were born at term. Of the nonexposed children, approximately 97% were born at term. Cumulative incidence rates for any mental and behavioral disorder were significantly higher for treatment-exposed children, compared with nonexposed children, in the entire cohort (12.01% vs. 6.45%; P less than .001) and in term-born children (8.89% vs. 6.31%; P less than .001).

In preterm children, the incidence rate of any mental and behavioral disorder was significantly higher among those with treatment exposure (14.59% vs. 10.71%; P less than .001). Associations persisted when the investigators focused on 241,621 sibling pairs, “suggesting that unmeasured familial confounding did not explain these associations,” the authors said.

“[In] the entire cohort and term-born children, treatment exposure ... was significantly associated with psychological development disorders; attention-deficit/hyperactivity or conduct disorders; mixed disorders of conduct and emotions, emotional disorders, disorders of social functioning or tic disorders; other behavioral or emotional disorders; and sleep disorders,” Dr. Räikkönen and colleagues reported. Among preterm-born, treatment-exposed children, the adjusted hazard ratio was significantly lower for intellectual disability and higher for sleep disorders.

Dr. DeMauro noted potential confounders in this observational study, including abnormal pregnancy events that lead clinicians to administer steroids. Such events “predispose the exposed children to adverse cognitive outcomes,” suggests some research. “Alternately, after a pregnancy at high risk for preterm delivery, families may perceive their children as vulnerable and therefore may be more likely to seek care and earlier diagnosis of mental or behavioral disorders,” Dr. DeMauro said.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, European Commission, Foundation for Pediatric Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. The investigators and Dr. DeMauro had no conflict of interest disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Räikkönen K et al. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1924-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3937.

For well over a decade the elevated risk of pneumonia from inhaled corticosteroids for moderate to very severe COPD has been well documented, although the pneumonia risks from different types of ICSs have not been well understood.

Researchers from Taiwan have taken a step in to investigate this question with a nationwide cohort study that reported inhalers with budesonide and beclomethasone may have a lower pneumonia risk than that of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol inhalers (CHEST. 2020;157:117-29).

The study is the first to include beclomethasone-containing inhalers in a comparison of ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) fixed combinations to evaluate pneumonia risk, along with dose and drug properties, wrote Ting-Yu Chang, MS, of the Graduate Institute of Clinical Pharmacology at the College of Medicine, National Taiwan University in Taipei, and colleagues.

The study evaluated 42,393 people with COPD in the National Health Insurance Research Database who got at least two continuous prescriptions for three different types of inhalers:

• Budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR).
• Beclomethasone/formoterol (BEC/FOR).
• Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FLU/SAL).

The study included patients aged 40 years and older who used a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or dry-powder inhaler (DPI) between January 2011 and June 2015.

Patient experience with adverse events (AEs) was a factor in risk stratification, Mr. Chang and colleagues noted. “For the comparison between the BEC/FOR MDI and FLU/SAL MDI, the lower risk associated with the BEC/FOR MDI was more prominent in patients without severe AE in the past year,” they wrote.

The study found that BUD/FOR DPI users had a 17% lower risk of severe pneumonia and a 12% lower risk of severe AEs than that of FLU/SAL DPI users. The risk difference in pneumonia remained significant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose, but the spread for AEs didn’t.

BEC/FOR MDI users were 31% less likely to get severe pneumonia and 18% less likely to have severe AEs than were FLU/SAL MDI users, but that difference declined and became nonsignificant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose.

The study also found that a high average daily dose (> 500 mcg/d) of FLU/SAL MDI carried a 66% greater risk of severe pneumonia, compared with that of low-dose users. Also, medium-dose BEC/FOR MDI users (FLU equivalent 299-499 mcg/d) had a 38% greater risk of severe pneumonia than low-dose (< 200 mcg/d) users.

The variable pneumonia risks may be linked to each ICS’s pharmacokinetics, specifically their distinct lipophilic properties, Mr. Chang and colleagues wrote. Fluticasone propionate is known to be more lipophilic than budesonide, and while beclomethasone is more lipophilic than both, as a prodrug it rapidly converts to lower lipophilicity upon contact with bronchial secretions. “In general, a lipophilic ICS has a longer retention time within the airway or lung tissue to exert local immunosuppression and reduce inflammation,” Mr. Chang and colleagues stated.

The Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology provided partial support for the study. Mr. Chang and colleagues have no relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Chang TY et al. CHEST. 2020;157:117-29.

For well over a decade the elevated risk of pneumonia from inhaled corticosteroids for moderate to very severe COPD has been well documented, although the pneumonia risks from different types of ICSs have not been well understood.

Researchers from Taiwan have taken a step in to investigate this question with a nationwide cohort study that reported inhalers with budesonide and beclomethasone may have a lower pneumonia risk than that of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol inhalers (CHEST. 2020;157:117-29).

The study is the first to include beclomethasone-containing inhalers in a comparison of ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) fixed combinations to evaluate pneumonia risk, along with dose and drug properties, wrote Ting-Yu Chang, MS, of the Graduate Institute of Clinical Pharmacology at the College of Medicine, National Taiwan University in Taipei, and colleagues.

The study evaluated 42,393 people with COPD in the National Health Insurance Research Database who got at least two continuous prescriptions for three different types of inhalers:

• Budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR).
• Beclomethasone/formoterol (BEC/FOR).
• Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FLU/SAL).

The study included patients aged 40 years and older who used a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or dry-powder inhaler (DPI) between January 2011 and June 2015.

Patient experience with adverse events (AEs) was a factor in risk stratification, Mr. Chang and colleagues noted. “For the comparison between the BEC/FOR MDI and FLU/SAL MDI, the lower risk associated with the BEC/FOR MDI was more prominent in patients without severe AE in the past year,” they wrote.

The study found that BUD/FOR DPI users had a 17% lower risk of severe pneumonia and a 12% lower risk of severe AEs than that of FLU/SAL DPI users. The risk difference in pneumonia remained significant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose, but the spread for AEs didn’t.

BEC/FOR MDI users were 31% less likely to get severe pneumonia and 18% less likely to have severe AEs than were FLU/SAL MDI users, but that difference declined and became nonsignificant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose.

The study also found that a high average daily dose (> 500 mcg/d) of FLU/SAL MDI carried a 66% greater risk of severe pneumonia, compared with that of low-dose users. Also, medium-dose BEC/FOR MDI users (FLU equivalent 299-499 mcg/d) had a 38% greater risk of severe pneumonia than low-dose (< 200 mcg/d) users.

The variable pneumonia risks may be linked to each ICS’s pharmacokinetics, specifically their distinct lipophilic properties, Mr. Chang and colleagues wrote. Fluticasone propionate is known to be more lipophilic than budesonide, and while beclomethasone is more lipophilic than both, as a prodrug it rapidly converts to lower lipophilicity upon contact with bronchial secretions. “In general, a lipophilic ICS has a longer retention time within the airway or lung tissue to exert local immunosuppression and reduce inflammation,” Mr. Chang and colleagues stated.

The Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology provided partial support for the study. Mr. Chang and colleagues have no relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Chang TY et al. CHEST. 2020;157:117-29.

For well over a decade the elevated risk of pneumonia from inhaled corticosteroids for moderate to very severe COPD has been well documented, although the pneumonia risks from different types of ICSs have not been well understood.

Researchers from Taiwan have taken a step in to investigate this question with a nationwide cohort study that reported inhalers with budesonide and beclomethasone may have a lower pneumonia risk than that of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol inhalers (CHEST. 2020;157:117-29).

The study is the first to include beclomethasone-containing inhalers in a comparison of ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) fixed combinations to evaluate pneumonia risk, along with dose and drug properties, wrote Ting-Yu Chang, MS, of the Graduate Institute of Clinical Pharmacology at the College of Medicine, National Taiwan University in Taipei, and colleagues.

The study evaluated 42,393 people with COPD in the National Health Insurance Research Database who got at least two continuous prescriptions for three different types of inhalers:

• Budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR).
• Beclomethasone/formoterol (BEC/FOR).
• Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FLU/SAL).

The study included patients aged 40 years and older who used a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or dry-powder inhaler (DPI) between January 2011 and June 2015.

Patient experience with adverse events (AEs) was a factor in risk stratification, Mr. Chang and colleagues noted. “For the comparison between the BEC/FOR MDI and FLU/SAL MDI, the lower risk associated with the BEC/FOR MDI was more prominent in patients without severe AE in the past year,” they wrote.

The study found that BUD/FOR DPI users had a 17% lower risk of severe pneumonia and a 12% lower risk of severe AEs than that of FLU/SAL DPI users. The risk difference in pneumonia remained significant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose, but the spread for AEs didn’t.

BEC/FOR MDI users were 31% less likely to get severe pneumonia and 18% less likely to have severe AEs than were FLU/SAL MDI users, but that difference declined and became nonsignificant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose.

The study also found that a high average daily dose (> 500 mcg/d) of FLU/SAL MDI carried a 66% greater risk of severe pneumonia, compared with that of low-dose users. Also, medium-dose BEC/FOR MDI users (FLU equivalent 299-499 mcg/d) had a 38% greater risk of severe pneumonia than low-dose (< 200 mcg/d) users.

The variable pneumonia risks may be linked to each ICS’s pharmacokinetics, specifically their distinct lipophilic properties, Mr. Chang and colleagues wrote. Fluticasone propionate is known to be more lipophilic than budesonide, and while beclomethasone is more lipophilic than both, as a prodrug it rapidly converts to lower lipophilicity upon contact with bronchial secretions. “In general, a lipophilic ICS has a longer retention time within the airway or lung tissue to exert local immunosuppression and reduce inflammation,” Mr. Chang and colleagues stated.

The Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology provided partial support for the study. Mr. Chang and colleagues have no relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Chang TY et al. CHEST. 2020;157:117-29.

Among patients with COPD, the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia confers a nearly 30% increased risk of hospitalization, results from a pooled analysis of four studies showed.

“Mechanistic studies are still warranted to better elucidate how IgG and other immunoglobulins, in particular IgA, may contribute to the local airway host defense,” researchers led by Fernando Sergio Leitao Filho, MD, PhD, wrote in a study published in Chest (2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058). “Nevertheless, our results raise the possibility that, in select COPD patients, IgG replacement therapy may be effective in reducing the risk of COPD hospitalizations. Given the growing rate of COPD hospitalization in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is a pressing need for a large well-designed trial to test this hypothesis.”

In an effort to evaluate the effect of IgG levels on the cumulative incidence of COPD hospitalizations, Dr. Leitao Filho, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues drew from 2,259 patients who participated in four different trials: Azithromycin for Prevention of Exacerbations of COPD (MACRO), Simvastatin for the Prevention of Exacerbations in Moderate and Severe COPD (STATCOPE), the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT), and COPD Activity: Serotonin Transporter, Cytokines and Depression (CASCADE). The mean baseline age of study participants was 66 years, and 641 (28.4%) had hypogammaglobulinemia, which was defined as having a serum IgG levels of less than 7.0 g/L, while the remainder had normal IgG levels.

The pooled meta-analysis, which is believed to be the largest of its kind, revealed that the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia was associated with an incidence of COPD hospitalizations that was 1.29-fold higher than that observed among participants who had normal IgG levels (P = .01). The incidence was even higher among patients with prior COPD admissions (pooled subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.58; P < .01), yet the risk of COPD admissions was similar between IgG groups in patients with no prior hospitalizations (pooled SHR, 1.15; P = .34). Patients with hypogammaglobulinemia also showed significantly higher rates of COPD hospitalizations per person-year, compared with their counterparts who had normal IgG levels (0.48 vs. 0.29, respectively; P < .001.)

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that they measured serum IgG levels only at baseline “when participants were clinically stable; thus, the variability of IgG levels in a given individual over time and during the course of an AECOPD [severe acute exacerbation of COPD] is uncertain. Secondly, clinical data on corticosteroid use (formulations, dose, and length of use) were not readily available. However, systemic steroid use (one or more courses due to AECOPD prior to study entry) was accounted for in our analyses.”

The MACRO, STATCOPE, LOTT trials, and the CASCADE cohort were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and Department of Health & Human Services. The current study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and BC Lung Association. The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Leitao Filho SF et al. Chest. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058.

Among patients with COPD, the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia confers a nearly 30% increased risk of hospitalization, results from a pooled analysis of four studies showed.

“Mechanistic studies are still warranted to better elucidate how IgG and other immunoglobulins, in particular IgA, may contribute to the local airway host defense,” researchers led by Fernando Sergio Leitao Filho, MD, PhD, wrote in a study published in Chest (2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058). “Nevertheless, our results raise the possibility that, in select COPD patients, IgG replacement therapy may be effective in reducing the risk of COPD hospitalizations. Given the growing rate of COPD hospitalization in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is a pressing need for a large well-designed trial to test this hypothesis.”

In an effort to evaluate the effect of IgG levels on the cumulative incidence of COPD hospitalizations, Dr. Leitao Filho, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues drew from 2,259 patients who participated in four different trials: Azithromycin for Prevention of Exacerbations of COPD (MACRO), Simvastatin for the Prevention of Exacerbations in Moderate and Severe COPD (STATCOPE), the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT), and COPD Activity: Serotonin Transporter, Cytokines and Depression (CASCADE). The mean baseline age of study participants was 66 years, and 641 (28.4%) had hypogammaglobulinemia, which was defined as having a serum IgG levels of less than 7.0 g/L, while the remainder had normal IgG levels.

The pooled meta-analysis, which is believed to be the largest of its kind, revealed that the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia was associated with an incidence of COPD hospitalizations that was 1.29-fold higher than that observed among participants who had normal IgG levels (P = .01). The incidence was even higher among patients with prior COPD admissions (pooled subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.58; P < .01), yet the risk of COPD admissions was similar between IgG groups in patients with no prior hospitalizations (pooled SHR, 1.15; P = .34). Patients with hypogammaglobulinemia also showed significantly higher rates of COPD hospitalizations per person-year, compared with their counterparts who had normal IgG levels (0.48 vs. 0.29, respectively; P < .001.)

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that they measured serum IgG levels only at baseline “when participants were clinically stable; thus, the variability of IgG levels in a given individual over time and during the course of an AECOPD [severe acute exacerbation of COPD] is uncertain. Secondly, clinical data on corticosteroid use (formulations, dose, and length of use) were not readily available. However, systemic steroid use (one or more courses due to AECOPD prior to study entry) was accounted for in our analyses.”

The MACRO, STATCOPE, LOTT trials, and the CASCADE cohort were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and Department of Health & Human Services. The current study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and BC Lung Association. The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Leitao Filho SF et al. Chest. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058.

Among patients with COPD, the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia confers a nearly 30% increased risk of hospitalization, results from a pooled analysis of four studies showed.

“Mechanistic studies are still warranted to better elucidate how IgG and other immunoglobulins, in particular IgA, may contribute to the local airway host defense,” researchers led by Fernando Sergio Leitao Filho, MD, PhD, wrote in a study published in Chest (2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058). “Nevertheless, our results raise the possibility that, in select COPD patients, IgG replacement therapy may be effective in reducing the risk of COPD hospitalizations. Given the growing rate of COPD hospitalization in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is a pressing need for a large well-designed trial to test this hypothesis.”

In an effort to evaluate the effect of IgG levels on the cumulative incidence of COPD hospitalizations, Dr. Leitao Filho, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues drew from 2,259 patients who participated in four different trials: Azithromycin for Prevention of Exacerbations of COPD (MACRO), Simvastatin for the Prevention of Exacerbations in Moderate and Severe COPD (STATCOPE), the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT), and COPD Activity: Serotonin Transporter, Cytokines and Depression (CASCADE). The mean baseline age of study participants was 66 years, and 641 (28.4%) had hypogammaglobulinemia, which was defined as having a serum IgG levels of less than 7.0 g/L, while the remainder had normal IgG levels.

The pooled meta-analysis, which is believed to be the largest of its kind, revealed that the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia was associated with an incidence of COPD hospitalizations that was 1.29-fold higher than that observed among participants who had normal IgG levels (P = .01). The incidence was even higher among patients with prior COPD admissions (pooled subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.58; P < .01), yet the risk of COPD admissions was similar between IgG groups in patients with no prior hospitalizations (pooled SHR, 1.15; P = .34). Patients with hypogammaglobulinemia also showed significantly higher rates of COPD hospitalizations per person-year, compared with their counterparts who had normal IgG levels (0.48 vs. 0.29, respectively; P < .001.)

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that they measured serum IgG levels only at baseline “when participants were clinically stable; thus, the variability of IgG levels in a given individual over time and during the course of an AECOPD [severe acute exacerbation of COPD] is uncertain. Secondly, clinical data on corticosteroid use (formulations, dose, and length of use) were not readily available. However, systemic steroid use (one or more courses due to AECOPD prior to study entry) was accounted for in our analyses.”

The MACRO, STATCOPE, LOTT trials, and the CASCADE cohort were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and Department of Health & Human Services. The current study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and BC Lung Association. The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Leitao Filho SF et al. Chest. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058.

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.

“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.

It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.

“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”

Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.

The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.

The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.

The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.

Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.

“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.

It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.

“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”

Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.

The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.

The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.

The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.

Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.

“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.

It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.

“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”

Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.

The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.

The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.

The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.

Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.

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

Not only does the use of e-cigarettes not help cigarette smokers who are unmotivated to quit, it has the opposite effect, according to results from a new study.

6okean/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“In our study, people vaping in addition to smoking actually started smoking more,” said study lead investigator Nancy Anoruo, MD, from the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester.

This is “completely contradictory to what the e-cigarette manufacturers are telling us,” she told this news organization.

In their study, Dr. Anoruo and her colleagues looked at whether people were more likely to quit if they smoked e-cigarettes in addition to conventional cigarettes. The research is a substudy of the ongoing Take a Break project, funded by the National Institutes of Health, which is assessing whether a smoking-cessation motivation app helps smokers quit.

In a cohort of 405 smokers who were unmotivated to quit, 248 were defined as dual smokers after responding “yes” to “ever having used” e-cigarettes, and 157 were defined as traditional smokers who only smoked combustible cigarettes. The majority of participants, 82%, were white; 8.8% were black; and 49% were women.

More dual smokers than traditional smokers were younger than 40 years (27% vs. 16%; (P = .02), Dr. Anoruo reported during her virtual presentation at the American Thoracic Society 2020 International Conference.

The dual smokers reported smoking an average of 16 cigarettes a day, compared with 14 a day for the traditional smokers.

All the smokers were encouraged to consider a 3-week period of abstinence from combustible cigarettes. At the end of that period, the researchers compared outcomes reported by participants.
 

Abstinence challenge

Average abstinence intervals were shorter for dual smokers than for traditional smokers (0.93 vs. 1.8 days; P = .01). And dual smokers reported having a harder time quitting completely (6.3% vs. 13.0%; P = .02).

At 6-month follow-up, dual smokers were smoking more cigarettes than traditional smokers (daily average, 12.0 vs. 9.4; P = .04). And the reduction in cigarette use from baseline was smaller for dual smokers than for traditional smokers (21% vs. 33%; P = .04).

“E-cigarettes are not a special magic bullet to get people to quit smoking,” said Dr. Anoruo.

In this study, smoking cessation was defined as abstinence from combustible cigarettes, but that did not mean participants were abstinent from nicotine.

“If, at the end, they stopped smoking traditional cigarettes, we considered that successful smoking cessation,” Dr. Anoruo explained. This definition is in line with the school of thought that e-cigarettes are a harm-reduction tool.

“But we now know that e-cigarettes are not necessarily safe,” she added.

Still, it might be the lesser evil. “You end up taking in less dangerous chemicals, so we consider it quitting if you get off regular cigarettes,” she said.

“We would like to study the psychology of cigarette smokers to find out if they see e-cigarettes as a smoking-cessation aid,” Dr. Anoruo said, and to see if “their belief is driven by the advertising they see about e-cigarette use.”
 

A meager reduction

Similar results were shown last month in a study by Megan Piper, PhD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison and her colleagues, who reported that dual e-cigarette and combustible cigarette use “did not appear to be an effective path to cessation of combustible cigarettes.”

After 1 year, dual smokers smoked three cigarettes less each day than traditional smokers, which is “a meager reduction,” Dr. Piper said in a news release.

“Typically, you can’t have one foot in both camps. Most can’t be vaping and smoking and hope to quit smoking,” she added. “That sustained pattern is not going to help most people quit.”

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

Not only does the use of e-cigarettes not help cigarette smokers who are unmotivated to quit, it has the opposite effect, according to results from a new study.

6okean/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“In our study, people vaping in addition to smoking actually started smoking more,” said study lead investigator Nancy Anoruo, MD, from the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester.

This is “completely contradictory to what the e-cigarette manufacturers are telling us,” she told this news organization.

In their study, Dr. Anoruo and her colleagues looked at whether people were more likely to quit if they smoked e-cigarettes in addition to conventional cigarettes. The research is a substudy of the ongoing Take a Break project, funded by the National Institutes of Health, which is assessing whether a smoking-cessation motivation app helps smokers quit.

In a cohort of 405 smokers who were unmotivated to quit, 248 were defined as dual smokers after responding “yes” to “ever having used” e-cigarettes, and 157 were defined as traditional smokers who only smoked combustible cigarettes. The majority of participants, 82%, were white; 8.8% were black; and 49% were women.

More dual smokers than traditional smokers were younger than 40 years (27% vs. 16%; (P = .02), Dr. Anoruo reported during her virtual presentation at the American Thoracic Society 2020 International Conference.

The dual smokers reported smoking an average of 16 cigarettes a day, compared with 14 a day for the traditional smokers.

All the smokers were encouraged to consider a 3-week period of abstinence from combustible cigarettes. At the end of that period, the researchers compared outcomes reported by participants.
 

Abstinence challenge

Average abstinence intervals were shorter for dual smokers than for traditional smokers (0.93 vs. 1.8 days; P = .01). And dual smokers reported having a harder time quitting completely (6.3% vs. 13.0%; P = .02).

At 6-month follow-up, dual smokers were smoking more cigarettes than traditional smokers (daily average, 12.0 vs. 9.4; P = .04). And the reduction in cigarette use from baseline was smaller for dual smokers than for traditional smokers (21% vs. 33%; P = .04).

“E-cigarettes are not a special magic bullet to get people to quit smoking,” said Dr. Anoruo.

In this study, smoking cessation was defined as abstinence from combustible cigarettes, but that did not mean participants were abstinent from nicotine.

“If, at the end, they stopped smoking traditional cigarettes, we considered that successful smoking cessation,” Dr. Anoruo explained. This definition is in line with the school of thought that e-cigarettes are a harm-reduction tool.

“But we now know that e-cigarettes are not necessarily safe,” she added.

Still, it might be the lesser evil. “You end up taking in less dangerous chemicals, so we consider it quitting if you get off regular cigarettes,” she said.

“We would like to study the psychology of cigarette smokers to find out if they see e-cigarettes as a smoking-cessation aid,” Dr. Anoruo said, and to see if “their belief is driven by the advertising they see about e-cigarette use.”
 

A meager reduction

Similar results were shown last month in a study by Megan Piper, PhD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison and her colleagues, who reported that dual e-cigarette and combustible cigarette use “did not appear to be an effective path to cessation of combustible cigarettes.”

After 1 year, dual smokers smoked three cigarettes less each day than traditional smokers, which is “a meager reduction,” Dr. Piper said in a news release.

“Typically, you can’t have one foot in both camps. Most can’t be vaping and smoking and hope to quit smoking,” she added. “That sustained pattern is not going to help most people quit.”

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

Not only does the use of e-cigarettes not help cigarette smokers who are unmotivated to quit, it has the opposite effect, according to results from a new study.

6okean/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“In our study, people vaping in addition to smoking actually started smoking more,” said study lead investigator Nancy Anoruo, MD, from the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester.

This is “completely contradictory to what the e-cigarette manufacturers are telling us,” she told this news organization.

In their study, Dr. Anoruo and her colleagues looked at whether people were more likely to quit if they smoked e-cigarettes in addition to conventional cigarettes. The research is a substudy of the ongoing Take a Break project, funded by the National Institutes of Health, which is assessing whether a smoking-cessation motivation app helps smokers quit.

In a cohort of 405 smokers who were unmotivated to quit, 248 were defined as dual smokers after responding “yes” to “ever having used” e-cigarettes, and 157 were defined as traditional smokers who only smoked combustible cigarettes. The majority of participants, 82%, were white; 8.8% were black; and 49% were women.

More dual smokers than traditional smokers were younger than 40 years (27% vs. 16%; (P = .02), Dr. Anoruo reported during her virtual presentation at the American Thoracic Society 2020 International Conference.

The dual smokers reported smoking an average of 16 cigarettes a day, compared with 14 a day for the traditional smokers.

All the smokers were encouraged to consider a 3-week period of abstinence from combustible cigarettes. At the end of that period, the researchers compared outcomes reported by participants.
 

Abstinence challenge

Average abstinence intervals were shorter for dual smokers than for traditional smokers (0.93 vs. 1.8 days; P = .01). And dual smokers reported having a harder time quitting completely (6.3% vs. 13.0%; P = .02).

At 6-month follow-up, dual smokers were smoking more cigarettes than traditional smokers (daily average, 12.0 vs. 9.4; P = .04). And the reduction in cigarette use from baseline was smaller for dual smokers than for traditional smokers (21% vs. 33%; P = .04).

“E-cigarettes are not a special magic bullet to get people to quit smoking,” said Dr. Anoruo.

In this study, smoking cessation was defined as abstinence from combustible cigarettes, but that did not mean participants were abstinent from nicotine.

“If, at the end, they stopped smoking traditional cigarettes, we considered that successful smoking cessation,” Dr. Anoruo explained. This definition is in line with the school of thought that e-cigarettes are a harm-reduction tool.

“But we now know that e-cigarettes are not necessarily safe,” she added.

Still, it might be the lesser evil. “You end up taking in less dangerous chemicals, so we consider it quitting if you get off regular cigarettes,” she said.

“We would like to study the psychology of cigarette smokers to find out if they see e-cigarettes as a smoking-cessation aid,” Dr. Anoruo said, and to see if “their belief is driven by the advertising they see about e-cigarette use.”
 

A meager reduction

Similar results were shown last month in a study by Megan Piper, PhD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison and her colleagues, who reported that dual e-cigarette and combustible cigarette use “did not appear to be an effective path to cessation of combustible cigarettes.”

After 1 year, dual smokers smoked three cigarettes less each day than traditional smokers, which is “a meager reduction,” Dr. Piper said in a news release.

“Typically, you can’t have one foot in both camps. Most can’t be vaping and smoking and hope to quit smoking,” she added. “That sustained pattern is not going to help most people quit.”

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

Background: Multidrug-resistant TB is more difficult to treat than is drug-susceptible TB. The 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, based on very-low-quality and conditional evidence, consists of an intensive treatment phase of 8 months and total treatment duration of 20 months. Although cohort studies have shown promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant TB who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the WHO, data from phase 3 randomized trials were lacking.

Bottom line: Short medication regimen (9-11 months) is noninferior to the traditional WHO-­recommended long regimen (20 months) for treating rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.

Citation: Nunn AJ et al. A trial of a shorter regimen for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28; 380:1201-13.

Dr. Kamath is an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Background: Multidrug-resistant TB is more difficult to treat than is drug-susceptible TB. The 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, based on very-low-quality and conditional evidence, consists of an intensive treatment phase of 8 months and total treatment duration of 20 months. Although cohort studies have shown promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant TB who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the WHO, data from phase 3 randomized trials were lacking.

Bottom line: Short medication regimen (9-11 months) is noninferior to the traditional WHO-­recommended long regimen (20 months) for treating rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.

Citation: Nunn AJ et al. A trial of a shorter regimen for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28; 380:1201-13.

Dr. Kamath is an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Background: Multidrug-resistant TB is more difficult to treat than is drug-susceptible TB. The 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, based on very-low-quality and conditional evidence, consists of an intensive treatment phase of 8 months and total treatment duration of 20 months. Although cohort studies have shown promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant TB who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the WHO, data from phase 3 randomized trials were lacking.

Bottom line: Short medication regimen (9-11 months) is noninferior to the traditional WHO-­recommended long regimen (20 months) for treating rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.

Citation: Nunn AJ et al. A trial of a shorter regimen for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28; 380:1201-13.

Dr. Kamath is an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Three main reasons have been put forth for using corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19, but only one – the hope of preventing lung fibrosis in patients with unresolved acute respiratory distress syndrome – is reasonable to employ now outside of formal randomized trials, Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, asserted at a webinar on COVID-19 sponsored by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

The most commonly invoked rationale for giving steroids in patients with severe COVID-19 is to modulate the destructive inflammatory immune response that occurs with advancing disease. Another justification cited for giving steroids is to treat suspected adrenal insufficiency in those with refractory shock. Of note, both practices are endorsed in the recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines on management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 (Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46[5]:854-87).

But those recommendations – numbers 22 and 42 out of a total of 50 recommendations included in the guidelines – should never have been made, according to Dr. Pickkers, professor of experimental intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
 

Dueling guidelines

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, which were developed by a panel comprising 36 experts in 12 countries, are quite frank in conceding that the guidance in favor of corticosteroids are weak recommendations based on low-quality evidence.

The guidelines recommend against using corticosteroids to try to modulate the immune system in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but do recommend steroids in those with COVID-19 and ARDS. However, the guidelines also note that, because of the very low quality of the evidence, some experts on the panel preferred not to issue a pro-steroids recommendation at all until higher-quality evidence becomes available. Dr. Pickkers said he believes that the minority view should have prevailed. Moreover, current COVID-19 guidance from the World Health Organization is at odds with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations; the WHO advises against corticosteroids unless the treatment is indicated for a reason other than immunomodulation, he noted.

The evidence in favor of steroids in an effort to blunt the immune response in COVID patients with ARDS is based largely upon a single small, retrospective, non–peer-reviewed report that 5-7 days of treatment with 1-2 mg/kg per day of methylprednisolone was associated with shortened fever duration and need for supplemental oxygen.

The evidence against steroids for immunomodulation comes mainly from earlier studies of the SARS and MERS novel coronaviruses. For example, in a multicenter study of 309 patients with the MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) virus, those who received corticosteroids received no benefit and experienced delayed viral clearance (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Mar 15;197[6]:757-67).

“The thing is, virtually all COVID-19 patients in the ICU fulfill the criteria for ARDS, so following the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines would have far-reaching consequences,” Dr. Pickkers said.

Those consequences include a theoretic potential for serious harm arising from dampening the immune response at a point in the course of COVID-19 when the virus is still present, which could result in slowed viral clearance and prolonged viral shedding. Moreover so far no one has been able to identify a sweet spot in the disease course where the viral load has waned and the immune response is sufficiently early that intervention with corticosteroids might have an optimal benefit/risk ratio, he continued.

“My opinion is that at this moment there is no benefit at all for corticosteroids for immunomodulation in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Pickkers said. “My personal recommendation, in contrast to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation, is not to use this therapy outside of a study.”

He added that randomized, controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are ongoing in Europe and the United States, including the large RECOVERY study of dexamethasone in the United Kingdom.

As for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation to use corticosteroids to treat refractory shock in COVID-19, Dr. Pickkers dismissed this guidance as largely irrelevant. That’s because few patients with COVID-19 who need mechanical ventilation have refractory shock as evidenced by the need for a high infusion rate of norepinephrine. Anyway, he noted, that Surviving Sepsis recommendation is based upon extrapolation from evidence of benefit in bacterial septic shock patients, which he deemed to be of questionable relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Attacking the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS

First off, Dr. Pickkers conceded, there is no evidence that treatment with corticosteroids to prevent lung fibrosis in COVID-19 patients with nonresolving ARDS is an effective strategy; the pandemic is simply too new at this point for the appropriate studies to have been done. But this much is known: Postmortem pathologic studies show fibroplastic proliferation is present in the lungs of COVID-19 patients, as in those who die of ARDS of other causes. Also, COVID-19 patients typically aren’t admitted to the ICU until day 11 or 12 after developing their first symptoms, so by the time they display indications that their ARDS is not resolving, the virus has typically left the scene; thus, there is little risk at that point that corticosteroids will promote viral proliferation. Additionally, studies in critically ill patients with nonresolving ARDS of other causes show clinically meaningful benefits for corticosteroid therapy.

Dr. Pickkers cited as “must reading” an analysis of five randomized trials of corticosteroid therapy in a total of 518 patients with acute lung injury ARDS of non–COVID-19 origin. The analysis by investigators at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, concluded that treatment resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Moreover, in the 400 patients whose steroid therapy commenced before day 14 of ARDS, there was a statistically significant 22% reduction in risk of death, compared with patients in whom corticosteroids were started later (Intensive Care Med. 2008 Jan;34[1]:61-9).

Session cochair Jan De Waele, MD, PhD, struck a cautious note, remarking, “It’s my perception that we’re using the evidence that we’ve gathered in other conditions and are now trying to apply it in COVID-19. But quality data on patients with COVID-19 itself is pretty scare, and it’s really hard to say whether this disease behaves similarly to bacterial septic shock or to other viral infections.”

“We need more information about the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19, although I think a lot of people are using it at this moment,” added Dr. De Waele, a surgical intensivist at Ghent (Belgium) University.

That being said, he asked Dr. Pickkers when he considers using corticosteroids to prevent pulmonary fibrosis.

Dr. Pickkers said that when he notices that a COVID-19 patient’s lung compliance is worsening, that stiff lung is a clue that fibrosis is occurring and is having clinical consequences. “We also measure blood procollagen, a not very sensitive but moderately specific marker of fibroproliferation. If we see an increase in this biomarker and the lung mechanics are changing, then we do treat these patients with corticosteroids,” Dr. Pickkers replied.

He and his colleagues try to start steroids before day 14 of ARDS, and they continue treatment for longer than 7 days in order to prevent a rebound inflammatory response upon treatment discontinuation. They also avoid using neuromuscular agents and engage in meticulous infection surveillance in order to minimize potential complications of corticosteroid therapy in the ICU.

Dr. Pickkers reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

Three main reasons have been put forth for using corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19, but only one – the hope of preventing lung fibrosis in patients with unresolved acute respiratory distress syndrome – is reasonable to employ now outside of formal randomized trials, Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, asserted at a webinar on COVID-19 sponsored by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

The most commonly invoked rationale for giving steroids in patients with severe COVID-19 is to modulate the destructive inflammatory immune response that occurs with advancing disease. Another justification cited for giving steroids is to treat suspected adrenal insufficiency in those with refractory shock. Of note, both practices are endorsed in the recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines on management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 (Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46[5]:854-87).

But those recommendations – numbers 22 and 42 out of a total of 50 recommendations included in the guidelines – should never have been made, according to Dr. Pickkers, professor of experimental intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
 

Dueling guidelines

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, which were developed by a panel comprising 36 experts in 12 countries, are quite frank in conceding that the guidance in favor of corticosteroids are weak recommendations based on low-quality evidence.

The guidelines recommend against using corticosteroids to try to modulate the immune system in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but do recommend steroids in those with COVID-19 and ARDS. However, the guidelines also note that, because of the very low quality of the evidence, some experts on the panel preferred not to issue a pro-steroids recommendation at all until higher-quality evidence becomes available. Dr. Pickkers said he believes that the minority view should have prevailed. Moreover, current COVID-19 guidance from the World Health Organization is at odds with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations; the WHO advises against corticosteroids unless the treatment is indicated for a reason other than immunomodulation, he noted.

The evidence in favor of steroids in an effort to blunt the immune response in COVID patients with ARDS is based largely upon a single small, retrospective, non–peer-reviewed report that 5-7 days of treatment with 1-2 mg/kg per day of methylprednisolone was associated with shortened fever duration and need for supplemental oxygen.

The evidence against steroids for immunomodulation comes mainly from earlier studies of the SARS and MERS novel coronaviruses. For example, in a multicenter study of 309 patients with the MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) virus, those who received corticosteroids received no benefit and experienced delayed viral clearance (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Mar 15;197[6]:757-67).

“The thing is, virtually all COVID-19 patients in the ICU fulfill the criteria for ARDS, so following the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines would have far-reaching consequences,” Dr. Pickkers said.

Those consequences include a theoretic potential for serious harm arising from dampening the immune response at a point in the course of COVID-19 when the virus is still present, which could result in slowed viral clearance and prolonged viral shedding. Moreover so far no one has been able to identify a sweet spot in the disease course where the viral load has waned and the immune response is sufficiently early that intervention with corticosteroids might have an optimal benefit/risk ratio, he continued.

“My opinion is that at this moment there is no benefit at all for corticosteroids for immunomodulation in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Pickkers said. “My personal recommendation, in contrast to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation, is not to use this therapy outside of a study.”

He added that randomized, controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are ongoing in Europe and the United States, including the large RECOVERY study of dexamethasone in the United Kingdom.

As for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation to use corticosteroids to treat refractory shock in COVID-19, Dr. Pickkers dismissed this guidance as largely irrelevant. That’s because few patients with COVID-19 who need mechanical ventilation have refractory shock as evidenced by the need for a high infusion rate of norepinephrine. Anyway, he noted, that Surviving Sepsis recommendation is based upon extrapolation from evidence of benefit in bacterial septic shock patients, which he deemed to be of questionable relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Attacking the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS

First off, Dr. Pickkers conceded, there is no evidence that treatment with corticosteroids to prevent lung fibrosis in COVID-19 patients with nonresolving ARDS is an effective strategy; the pandemic is simply too new at this point for the appropriate studies to have been done. But this much is known: Postmortem pathologic studies show fibroplastic proliferation is present in the lungs of COVID-19 patients, as in those who die of ARDS of other causes. Also, COVID-19 patients typically aren’t admitted to the ICU until day 11 or 12 after developing their first symptoms, so by the time they display indications that their ARDS is not resolving, the virus has typically left the scene; thus, there is little risk at that point that corticosteroids will promote viral proliferation. Additionally, studies in critically ill patients with nonresolving ARDS of other causes show clinically meaningful benefits for corticosteroid therapy.

Dr. Pickkers cited as “must reading” an analysis of five randomized trials of corticosteroid therapy in a total of 518 patients with acute lung injury ARDS of non–COVID-19 origin. The analysis by investigators at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, concluded that treatment resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Moreover, in the 400 patients whose steroid therapy commenced before day 14 of ARDS, there was a statistically significant 22% reduction in risk of death, compared with patients in whom corticosteroids were started later (Intensive Care Med. 2008 Jan;34[1]:61-9).

Session cochair Jan De Waele, MD, PhD, struck a cautious note, remarking, “It’s my perception that we’re using the evidence that we’ve gathered in other conditions and are now trying to apply it in COVID-19. But quality data on patients with COVID-19 itself is pretty scare, and it’s really hard to say whether this disease behaves similarly to bacterial septic shock or to other viral infections.”

“We need more information about the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19, although I think a lot of people are using it at this moment,” added Dr. De Waele, a surgical intensivist at Ghent (Belgium) University.

That being said, he asked Dr. Pickkers when he considers using corticosteroids to prevent pulmonary fibrosis.

Dr. Pickkers said that when he notices that a COVID-19 patient’s lung compliance is worsening, that stiff lung is a clue that fibrosis is occurring and is having clinical consequences. “We also measure blood procollagen, a not very sensitive but moderately specific marker of fibroproliferation. If we see an increase in this biomarker and the lung mechanics are changing, then we do treat these patients with corticosteroids,” Dr. Pickkers replied.

He and his colleagues try to start steroids before day 14 of ARDS, and they continue treatment for longer than 7 days in order to prevent a rebound inflammatory response upon treatment discontinuation. They also avoid using neuromuscular agents and engage in meticulous infection surveillance in order to minimize potential complications of corticosteroid therapy in the ICU.

Dr. Pickkers reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

Three main reasons have been put forth for using corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19, but only one – the hope of preventing lung fibrosis in patients with unresolved acute respiratory distress syndrome – is reasonable to employ now outside of formal randomized trials, Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, asserted at a webinar on COVID-19 sponsored by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

The most commonly invoked rationale for giving steroids in patients with severe COVID-19 is to modulate the destructive inflammatory immune response that occurs with advancing disease. Another justification cited for giving steroids is to treat suspected adrenal insufficiency in those with refractory shock. Of note, both practices are endorsed in the recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines on management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 (Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46[5]:854-87).

But those recommendations – numbers 22 and 42 out of a total of 50 recommendations included in the guidelines – should never have been made, according to Dr. Pickkers, professor of experimental intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
 

Dueling guidelines

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, which were developed by a panel comprising 36 experts in 12 countries, are quite frank in conceding that the guidance in favor of corticosteroids are weak recommendations based on low-quality evidence.

The guidelines recommend against using corticosteroids to try to modulate the immune system in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but do recommend steroids in those with COVID-19 and ARDS. However, the guidelines also note that, because of the very low quality of the evidence, some experts on the panel preferred not to issue a pro-steroids recommendation at all until higher-quality evidence becomes available. Dr. Pickkers said he believes that the minority view should have prevailed. Moreover, current COVID-19 guidance from the World Health Organization is at odds with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations; the WHO advises against corticosteroids unless the treatment is indicated for a reason other than immunomodulation, he noted.

The evidence in favor of steroids in an effort to blunt the immune response in COVID patients with ARDS is based largely upon a single small, retrospective, non–peer-reviewed report that 5-7 days of treatment with 1-2 mg/kg per day of methylprednisolone was associated with shortened fever duration and need for supplemental oxygen.

The evidence against steroids for immunomodulation comes mainly from earlier studies of the SARS and MERS novel coronaviruses. For example, in a multicenter study of 309 patients with the MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) virus, those who received corticosteroids received no benefit and experienced delayed viral clearance (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Mar 15;197[6]:757-67).

“The thing is, virtually all COVID-19 patients in the ICU fulfill the criteria for ARDS, so following the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines would have far-reaching consequences,” Dr. Pickkers said.

Those consequences include a theoretic potential for serious harm arising from dampening the immune response at a point in the course of COVID-19 when the virus is still present, which could result in slowed viral clearance and prolonged viral shedding. Moreover so far no one has been able to identify a sweet spot in the disease course where the viral load has waned and the immune response is sufficiently early that intervention with corticosteroids might have an optimal benefit/risk ratio, he continued.

“My opinion is that at this moment there is no benefit at all for corticosteroids for immunomodulation in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Pickkers said. “My personal recommendation, in contrast to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation, is not to use this therapy outside of a study.”

He added that randomized, controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are ongoing in Europe and the United States, including the large RECOVERY study of dexamethasone in the United Kingdom.

As for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation to use corticosteroids to treat refractory shock in COVID-19, Dr. Pickkers dismissed this guidance as largely irrelevant. That’s because few patients with COVID-19 who need mechanical ventilation have refractory shock as evidenced by the need for a high infusion rate of norepinephrine. Anyway, he noted, that Surviving Sepsis recommendation is based upon extrapolation from evidence of benefit in bacterial septic shock patients, which he deemed to be of questionable relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Attacking the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS

First off, Dr. Pickkers conceded, there is no evidence that treatment with corticosteroids to prevent lung fibrosis in COVID-19 patients with nonresolving ARDS is an effective strategy; the pandemic is simply too new at this point for the appropriate studies to have been done. But this much is known: Postmortem pathologic studies show fibroplastic proliferation is present in the lungs of COVID-19 patients, as in those who die of ARDS of other causes. Also, COVID-19 patients typically aren’t admitted to the ICU until day 11 or 12 after developing their first symptoms, so by the time they display indications that their ARDS is not resolving, the virus has typically left the scene; thus, there is little risk at that point that corticosteroids will promote viral proliferation. Additionally, studies in critically ill patients with nonresolving ARDS of other causes show clinically meaningful benefits for corticosteroid therapy.

Dr. Pickkers cited as “must reading” an analysis of five randomized trials of corticosteroid therapy in a total of 518 patients with acute lung injury ARDS of non–COVID-19 origin. The analysis by investigators at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, concluded that treatment resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Moreover, in the 400 patients whose steroid therapy commenced before day 14 of ARDS, there was a statistically significant 22% reduction in risk of death, compared with patients in whom corticosteroids were started later (Intensive Care Med. 2008 Jan;34[1]:61-9).

Session cochair Jan De Waele, MD, PhD, struck a cautious note, remarking, “It’s my perception that we’re using the evidence that we’ve gathered in other conditions and are now trying to apply it in COVID-19. But quality data on patients with COVID-19 itself is pretty scare, and it’s really hard to say whether this disease behaves similarly to bacterial septic shock or to other viral infections.”

“We need more information about the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19, although I think a lot of people are using it at this moment,” added Dr. De Waele, a surgical intensivist at Ghent (Belgium) University.

That being said, he asked Dr. Pickkers when he considers using corticosteroids to prevent pulmonary fibrosis.

Dr. Pickkers said that when he notices that a COVID-19 patient’s lung compliance is worsening, that stiff lung is a clue that fibrosis is occurring and is having clinical consequences. “We also measure blood procollagen, a not very sensitive but moderately specific marker of fibroproliferation. If we see an increase in this biomarker and the lung mechanics are changing, then we do treat these patients with corticosteroids,” Dr. Pickkers replied.

He and his colleagues try to start steroids before day 14 of ARDS, and they continue treatment for longer than 7 days in order to prevent a rebound inflammatory response upon treatment discontinuation. They also avoid using neuromuscular agents and engage in meticulous infection surveillance in order to minimize potential complications of corticosteroid therapy in the ICU.

Dr. Pickkers reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

On March 9 my team was given a directive by the chief medical officer of our health system. We were charged with opening a drive-through COVID-19 testing center for our community in just 2 days’ time. It seemed like an impossible task, involving the mobilization of people, processes, and technology at a scale and speed we had never before achieved. It turned out getting this done was impossible. In spite of our best efforts, we failed to meet the deadline – it actually took us 3 days. Still, by March 12, we had opened the doors on the first community testing site in our area and gained the attention of local and national news outlets for our accomplishment.

Now more than 2 months later, I’m quite proud of what our team was able to achieve for the health system, but I’m still quite frustrated at the state of COVID-19 testing nationwide – there’s simply not enough available, and there is tremendous variability in the reliability of the tests. In this column, we’d like to highlight some of the challenges we’ve faced and reflect on how the shortcomings of modern technology have once again proven that medicine is both a science and an art.
 

Our dangerous lack of preparation

Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, I had never considered surgical masks, face shields, and nasal swabs to be critical components of medical technology. My opinion quickly changed after opening our drive-through COVID-19 site. I now have a much greater appreciation for the importance of personal protective equipment and basic testing supplies.

I was shocked by how difficult obtaining it has been during the past few months. It seems that no one anticipated the possibility of a pandemic on this grand a scale, so stockpiles of equipment were depleted quickly and couldn’t be replenished. Also, most manufacturing occurs outside the United States, which creates additional barriers to controlling the supply chain. One need not look far to find stories of widespread price-gouging, black market racketeering, and even hijackings that have stood in the way of accessing the necessary supplies. Sadly, the lack of equipment is far from the only challenge we’ve faced. In some cases, it has been a mistrust of results that has prevented widespread testing and mitigation.
 

The risks of flying blind

When President Trump touted the introduction of a rapid COVID-19 test at the end of March, many people were excited. Promising positive results in as few as 5 minutes, the assay was granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration in order to expedite its availability in the market. According to the FDA’s website, an EUA allows “unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.” This rapid (though untested) approval was all that many health care providers needed to hear – immediately hospitals and physicians scrambled to get their hands on the testing devices. Unfortunately, on May 14th, the FDA issued a press release that raised concerns about that same test because it seemed to be reporting a high number of false-negative results. Just as quickly as the devices had been adopted, health care providers began backing away from them in favor of other assays, and a serious truth about COVID-19 testing was revealed: In many ways, we’re flying blind.

Laboratory manufacturers have been working overtime to create assays for SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) and have used different technologies for detection. The most commonly used are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. In these assays, viral RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase, then amplified through the addition of primers that enable detection. PCR technology has been available for years and is a reliable method for identifying DNA and RNA, but the required heating and cooling process takes time and results can take several hours to return. To address this and expedite testing, other methods of detection have been tried, such as the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technique employed by the rapid assay mentioned above. Regardless of methodology, all laboratory tests have one thing in common: None of them is perfect.

Every assay has a different level of reliability. When screening for a disease such as COVID-19, we are particularly interested in a test’s sensitivity (that is, it’s ability to detect disease); we’d love such a screening test to be 100% sensitive and thereby not miss a single case. In truth, no test’s sensitivity is 100%, and in this particular case even the best assays only score around 98%. This means that out of every 100 patients with COVID-19 who are evaluated, two might test negative for the virus. In a pandemic this can have dire consequences, so health care providers – unable to fully trust their instruments – must employ clinical acumen and years of experience to navigate these cloudy skies. We are hopeful that additional tools will complement our current methods, but with new assays also come new questions.
 

Is anyone safe?

We receive regular questions from physicians about the value of antibody testing, but it’s not yet clear how best to respond. While the assays seem to be reliable, the utility of the results are still ill defined. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (both IgG and IgM) appear to peak about 2-3 weeks after symptom onset, but we don’t yet know if the presence of those antibodies confers long-term immunity. Therefore, patients should not use the information to change their masking or social-distancing practices, nor should they presume that they are safe from becoming reinfected with COVID-19. While new research looks promising, there are still too many unknowns to be able to confidently reassure providers or patients of the true value of antibody testing. This underscores our final point: Medicine remains an art.

As we are regularly reminded, we’ll never fully anticipate the challenges or barriers to success, and technology will never replace the value of clinical judgment and human experience. While the situation is unsettling in many ways, we are reassured and encouraged by the role we still get to play in keeping our patients healthy in this health care crisis, and we’ll continue to do so through whatever the future holds.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington Lansdale (Pa.) Hospital - Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.
 

On March 9 my team was given a directive by the chief medical officer of our health system. We were charged with opening a drive-through COVID-19 testing center for our community in just 2 days’ time. It seemed like an impossible task, involving the mobilization of people, processes, and technology at a scale and speed we had never before achieved. It turned out getting this done was impossible. In spite of our best efforts, we failed to meet the deadline – it actually took us 3 days. Still, by March 12, we had opened the doors on the first community testing site in our area and gained the attention of local and national news outlets for our accomplishment.

Now more than 2 months later, I’m quite proud of what our team was able to achieve for the health system, but I’m still quite frustrated at the state of COVID-19 testing nationwide – there’s simply not enough available, and there is tremendous variability in the reliability of the tests. In this column, we’d like to highlight some of the challenges we’ve faced and reflect on how the shortcomings of modern technology have once again proven that medicine is both a science and an art.
 

Our dangerous lack of preparation

Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, I had never considered surgical masks, face shields, and nasal swabs to be critical components of medical technology. My opinion quickly changed after opening our drive-through COVID-19 site. I now have a much greater appreciation for the importance of personal protective equipment and basic testing supplies.

I was shocked by how difficult obtaining it has been during the past few months. It seems that no one anticipated the possibility of a pandemic on this grand a scale, so stockpiles of equipment were depleted quickly and couldn’t be replenished. Also, most manufacturing occurs outside the United States, which creates additional barriers to controlling the supply chain. One need not look far to find stories of widespread price-gouging, black market racketeering, and even hijackings that have stood in the way of accessing the necessary supplies. Sadly, the lack of equipment is far from the only challenge we’ve faced. In some cases, it has been a mistrust of results that has prevented widespread testing and mitigation.
 

The risks of flying blind

When President Trump touted the introduction of a rapid COVID-19 test at the end of March, many people were excited. Promising positive results in as few as 5 minutes, the assay was granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration in order to expedite its availability in the market. According to the FDA’s website, an EUA allows “unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.” This rapid (though untested) approval was all that many health care providers needed to hear – immediately hospitals and physicians scrambled to get their hands on the testing devices. Unfortunately, on May 14th, the FDA issued a press release that raised concerns about that same test because it seemed to be reporting a high number of false-negative results. Just as quickly as the devices had been adopted, health care providers began backing away from them in favor of other assays, and a serious truth about COVID-19 testing was revealed: In many ways, we’re flying blind.

Laboratory manufacturers have been working overtime to create assays for SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) and have used different technologies for detection. The most commonly used are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. In these assays, viral RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase, then amplified through the addition of primers that enable detection. PCR technology has been available for years and is a reliable method for identifying DNA and RNA, but the required heating and cooling process takes time and results can take several hours to return. To address this and expedite testing, other methods of detection have been tried, such as the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technique employed by the rapid assay mentioned above. Regardless of methodology, all laboratory tests have one thing in common: None of them is perfect.

Every assay has a different level of reliability. When screening for a disease such as COVID-19, we are particularly interested in a test’s sensitivity (that is, it’s ability to detect disease); we’d love such a screening test to be 100% sensitive and thereby not miss a single case. In truth, no test’s sensitivity is 100%, and in this particular case even the best assays only score around 98%. This means that out of every 100 patients with COVID-19 who are evaluated, two might test negative for the virus. In a pandemic this can have dire consequences, so health care providers – unable to fully trust their instruments – must employ clinical acumen and years of experience to navigate these cloudy skies. We are hopeful that additional tools will complement our current methods, but with new assays also come new questions.
 

Is anyone safe?

We receive regular questions from physicians about the value of antibody testing, but it’s not yet clear how best to respond. While the assays seem to be reliable, the utility of the results are still ill defined. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (both IgG and IgM) appear to peak about 2-3 weeks after symptom onset, but we don’t yet know if the presence of those antibodies confers long-term immunity. Therefore, patients should not use the information to change their masking or social-distancing practices, nor should they presume that they are safe from becoming reinfected with COVID-19. While new research looks promising, there are still too many unknowns to be able to confidently reassure providers or patients of the true value of antibody testing. This underscores our final point: Medicine remains an art.

As we are regularly reminded, we’ll never fully anticipate the challenges or barriers to success, and technology will never replace the value of clinical judgment and human experience. While the situation is unsettling in many ways, we are reassured and encouraged by the role we still get to play in keeping our patients healthy in this health care crisis, and we’ll continue to do so through whatever the future holds.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington Lansdale (Pa.) Hospital - Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.
 

On March 9 my team was given a directive by the chief medical officer of our health system. We were charged with opening a drive-through COVID-19 testing center for our community in just 2 days’ time. It seemed like an impossible task, involving the mobilization of people, processes, and technology at a scale and speed we had never before achieved. It turned out getting this done was impossible. In spite of our best efforts, we failed to meet the deadline – it actually took us 3 days. Still, by March 12, we had opened the doors on the first community testing site in our area and gained the attention of local and national news outlets for our accomplishment.

Now more than 2 months later, I’m quite proud of what our team was able to achieve for the health system, but I’m still quite frustrated at the state of COVID-19 testing nationwide – there’s simply not enough available, and there is tremendous variability in the reliability of the tests. In this column, we’d like to highlight some of the challenges we’ve faced and reflect on how the shortcomings of modern technology have once again proven that medicine is both a science and an art.
 

Our dangerous lack of preparation

Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, I had never considered surgical masks, face shields, and nasal swabs to be critical components of medical technology. My opinion quickly changed after opening our drive-through COVID-19 site. I now have a much greater appreciation for the importance of personal protective equipment and basic testing supplies.

I was shocked by how difficult obtaining it has been during the past few months. It seems that no one anticipated the possibility of a pandemic on this grand a scale, so stockpiles of equipment were depleted quickly and couldn’t be replenished. Also, most manufacturing occurs outside the United States, which creates additional barriers to controlling the supply chain. One need not look far to find stories of widespread price-gouging, black market racketeering, and even hijackings that have stood in the way of accessing the necessary supplies. Sadly, the lack of equipment is far from the only challenge we’ve faced. In some cases, it has been a mistrust of results that has prevented widespread testing and mitigation.
 

The risks of flying blind

When President Trump touted the introduction of a rapid COVID-19 test at the end of March, many people were excited. Promising positive results in as few as 5 minutes, the assay was granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration in order to expedite its availability in the market. According to the FDA’s website, an EUA allows “unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.” This rapid (though untested) approval was all that many health care providers needed to hear – immediately hospitals and physicians scrambled to get their hands on the testing devices. Unfortunately, on May 14th, the FDA issued a press release that raised concerns about that same test because it seemed to be reporting a high number of false-negative results. Just as quickly as the devices had been adopted, health care providers began backing away from them in favor of other assays, and a serious truth about COVID-19 testing was revealed: In many ways, we’re flying blind.

Laboratory manufacturers have been working overtime to create assays for SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) and have used different technologies for detection. The most commonly used are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. In these assays, viral RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase, then amplified through the addition of primers that enable detection. PCR technology has been available for years and is a reliable method for identifying DNA and RNA, but the required heating and cooling process takes time and results can take several hours to return. To address this and expedite testing, other methods of detection have been tried, such as the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technique employed by the rapid assay mentioned above. Regardless of methodology, all laboratory tests have one thing in common: None of them is perfect.

Every assay has a different level of reliability. When screening for a disease such as COVID-19, we are particularly interested in a test’s sensitivity (that is, it’s ability to detect disease); we’d love such a screening test to be 100% sensitive and thereby not miss a single case. In truth, no test’s sensitivity is 100%, and in this particular case even the best assays only score around 98%. This means that out of every 100 patients with COVID-19 who are evaluated, two might test negative for the virus. In a pandemic this can have dire consequences, so health care providers – unable to fully trust their instruments – must employ clinical acumen and years of experience to navigate these cloudy skies. We are hopeful that additional tools will complement our current methods, but with new assays also come new questions.
 

Is anyone safe?

We receive regular questions from physicians about the value of antibody testing, but it’s not yet clear how best to respond. While the assays seem to be reliable, the utility of the results are still ill defined. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (both IgG and IgM) appear to peak about 2-3 weeks after symptom onset, but we don’t yet know if the presence of those antibodies confers long-term immunity. Therefore, patients should not use the information to change their masking or social-distancing practices, nor should they presume that they are safe from becoming reinfected with COVID-19. While new research looks promising, there are still too many unknowns to be able to confidently reassure providers or patients of the true value of antibody testing. This underscores our final point: Medicine remains an art.

As we are regularly reminded, we’ll never fully anticipate the challenges or barriers to success, and technology will never replace the value of clinical judgment and human experience. While the situation is unsettling in many ways, we are reassured and encouraged by the role we still get to play in keeping our patients healthy in this health care crisis, and we’ll continue to do so through whatever the future holds.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington Lansdale (Pa.) Hospital - Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.
 

US government and industry projections that a COVID-19 vaccine will be ready by this fall or even January would take compressing what usually takes at least a decade into months, with little room for error or safety surprises.

“If all the cards fall into the right place and all the stars are aligned, you definitely could get a vaccine by December or January,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said last week.

But Fauci said a more realistic timeline is still 12 to 18 months, and experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agree. They say that although recent developments are encouraging, history and scientific reason say the day when a COVID-19 vaccine is widely available will not come this year and may not come by the end of 2021.

The encouraging signals come primarily from two recent announcements: the $1.2 billion United States backing last week of one vaccine platform and the announcement on May 18 that the first human trials of another have produced some positive phase 1 results.
 

Recent developments

On May 21, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under “Operation Warp Speed” announced that the US will give AstraZeneca $1.2 billion “to make available at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine called AZD1222, with the first doses delivered as early as October 2020.”

On May 18, the Massachusetts-based biotechnology company Moderna announced that phase 1 clinical results showed that its vaccine candidate, which uses a new messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, appeared safe. Eight participants in the human trials were able to produce neutralizing antibodies that researchers believe are important in developing protection from the virus.

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks, MD, PhD told CNN that if the vaccine candidate does well in phase 2, “it could be ready by January 2021.”

The two candidates are among 10 in clinical trials for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The AstraZeneca/ AZD1222 candidate (also called ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, in collaboration with the University of Oxford) has entered phase 2/3.

Moderna’s candidate and another being developed in Beijing, China, are in phase 2, WHO reports. As of yesterday, 115 other candidates are in preclinical evaluation.

Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, told Medscape Medical News it’s important to realize that, in the case of the $1.2 billion US investment, “what they’re talking about is manufacturing.”

The idea, she said, is to pay AstraZeneca up front so that manufacturing can start before it is known whether the vaccine candidate is safe or effective, the reverse of how the clinical trial process usually works.

That way, if the candidate is deemed safe and effective, time is not lost by then deciding how to make it and distribute it.

By the end of this year, she said, “Maybe we will have many vaccines made and stored in a refrigerator somewhere. But between now and December, there’s absolutely no way you can show efficacy of the vaccine at the same time you confirm that it’s safe.”
 

“Take these things with a grain of salt”

Animal testing for the AstraZeneca candidate, made in partnership with the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, has yielded lackluster results, according to results on the preprint server BioRxiv, which have not been peer-reviewed.

“The results were not bad, but they were not gangbusters,” Bottazzi said. The results show the vaccine offered only partial protection.

“Partial protection is better than no protection,” she noted. “You have to take these things with a grain of salt. We don’t know what’s going to happen in humans.”

As for the Moderna candidate, Bottazzi said, “the good news is they found an appropriate safety profile. But from an eight-person group to make the extrapolation that they have efficacy — it’s unrealistic.”

Nicole Lurie, MD, MSPH, is senior adviser to the CEO for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI), a nongovernmental organization funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the European Commission, and eight countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, Japan, Norway, and the United Kingdom) charged with supporting development of vaccines for pathogens on WHO’s priority list.

She and her colleagues write in a paper published online in the New England Journal of Medicine on March 30 that “it typically takes multiple candidates and many years to produce a licensed vaccine.”

The fastest time for developing a vaccine to date is 4 years, for the mumps vaccine, licensed in 1967.

As to whether she would expect a rollout of any vaccine by the end of the year, Lurie told Medscape Medical News, “If everything goes according to plan in every way, shape or form, well then maybe you can get there. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.”

Lurie and her colleagues write that “it’s far from certain that these new platforms will be scalable or that existing capacity can provide sufficient quantities of vaccine fast enough.”

On a call with reporters today, leaders of some of the words largest pharmaceutical companies said that one of the key bottlenecks is the sheer number of vials needed in order to distribute billions of doses of a successful vaccine.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said, “Typically we are producing vaccines in single-dose vials. We are exploring with governments right now if it would be more convenient if there were 5-dose vials or 10-dose vials. I think we can resolve a significant part of the bottleneck.”

Despite the challenges, experts interviewed for this article agree that it will be possible to make a vaccine for COVID-19. They don’t expect attempts to meet the same complications that HIV researchers have seen over decades as the virus continues to confound with mutations.

Fred Ledley, MD, director of the Center for Integration of Science and Industry at Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News, “There doesn’t appear to be anything terribly diabolical about this virus. The mutation rate doesn’t appear to be anything like HIV. It appears to have some big, ugly proteins on the surface, which is good for vaccines — proteins with a lot of physical features look distinguishable from healthy cells. Signs all point to that it should be possible to make a vaccine.”
 

History raises safety concerns

However, Ledley said, “The idea of doing it in 6 months is largely unrealistic.”

He says 18 months is more realistic, primarily because of the sheer number of people that would have to be enrolled in a phase 3 study to truly test whether the endpoints are being met.

Vaccines are given to healthy volunteers. If safety signals arise, they may not be apparent until massive numbers of people are tested in phase 3.

“You’re never going to see the rates cut to 0%, but to see the difference between 10 people getting sick and seven people getting sick, takes very, very large numbers,” Ledley said. “There’s no way that can be done in 6 months. You’re talking about tens of thousands of people enrolled.”

He notes at this point it’s unclear what the endpoints will be and what the safety thresholds will be after consideration of risks and benefit.

Another big question for Ledley: “We don’t know what type of immunity we need to protect us against the virus. Do you just need the antibodies in your blood or do you need cells that are primed to attack the virus? Is it more of a chemical clearance or do the cells need to physically go in and digest the virus?”

History also points to the need for rigorous safety precautions that scientists fear could be compromised as trial phases overlap and processes are run in parallel instead of one step at a time.

An early batch of the Salk vaccine for polio in 1955, for example, turned out to be contaminated and caused paralysis in some children and 10 deaths, he points out.

CEPI’s Lurie adds that early candidates for another coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), “caused a reaction in the lungs that was very dangerous” before development was halted.

She also pointed to previous findings that a vaccine for dengue fever could worsen the disease in some people through a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement.

Lurie and colleagues write in their paper that “it’s critical that vaccines also be developed using the tried-and-true methods, even if they may take longer to enter clinical trials or to result in large numbers of doses.”
 

Live attenuated vaccine

Raul Andino, PhD, a virologist at the University of California San Francisco, is among the scientists working with a tried-and-true method ­— a live attenuated vaccine — and he told Medscape Medical News he’s predicting it will take 2 years to develop.

He said it is cheaper to produce because scientists just have to learn how to grow the virus. Because the technology is already proven, a live attenuated vaccine could be rapidly produced on a worldwide scale.

The hope is also that a live attenuated vaccine would be given once in a lifetime and therefore be more affordable, especially in poorer countries.

“While a Moderna vaccine might be good for Europe and the United States,” he said, “It’s not going to be good for Africa, India, Brazil.”

Andino said, “I would bet money” that the front-runner vaccines so far will not be one-time vaccines.

He points out that most of the vaccine candidates are trying to protect people from disease. While there’s nothing wrong with that, he said, “In my opinion that is the lower-hanging fruit.”

“In my mind we need something that interrupts the chain of transmission and induces protection,” Andino said, important for developing herd immunity.

The reason this type of approach takes longer is because you are introducing a weakened form of the virus to the body and you have to make sure it doesn’t cause disease, not just in a small test population, but in populations who may be more susceptible to the disease, Andino said.
 

A call for unified strategies

Universities, countries, international consortiums, and public-private partnerships are all racing to find several safe and effective vaccines as no one entity will likely be able to provide the global solution.

Some of the efforts involve overlap of entities but with different focuses.

Along with “Operation Warp Speed” and CEPI, other collaborations include Gavi the Vaccine Alliance, whose core partners include WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, and the Gates Foundation; and “Accelerating Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) partnership,” led by the National Institutes of Health.

Industry partners in ACTIV (18 biopharmaceutical companies), according to a May 18 article published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association, have said they will contribute their respective clinical trial capacities, regardless of which agent is studied.

Some, however, have called for more streamlining of efforts.

“Ideally we’d be working together,” Lurie told Medscape Medical News.

“I’m hopeful we will find ways to collaborate scientifically,” she said. “The US government’s responsibility is to make doses for the US. CEPI’s responsibility is to make doses for the world. A big focus of CEPI is to make sure we have manufacturing capacity outside of the US so those doses can be available to the world and they don’t get seized by wealthy countries.”

Bottazzi, Ledley, Lurie, and Andino report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

US government and industry projections that a COVID-19 vaccine will be ready by this fall or even January would take compressing what usually takes at least a decade into months, with little room for error or safety surprises.

“If all the cards fall into the right place and all the stars are aligned, you definitely could get a vaccine by December or January,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said last week.

But Fauci said a more realistic timeline is still 12 to 18 months, and experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agree. They say that although recent developments are encouraging, history and scientific reason say the day when a COVID-19 vaccine is widely available will not come this year and may not come by the end of 2021.

The encouraging signals come primarily from two recent announcements: the $1.2 billion United States backing last week of one vaccine platform and the announcement on May 18 that the first human trials of another have produced some positive phase 1 results.
 

Recent developments

On May 21, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under “Operation Warp Speed” announced that the US will give AstraZeneca $1.2 billion “to make available at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine called AZD1222, with the first doses delivered as early as October 2020.”

On May 18, the Massachusetts-based biotechnology company Moderna announced that phase 1 clinical results showed that its vaccine candidate, which uses a new messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, appeared safe. Eight participants in the human trials were able to produce neutralizing antibodies that researchers believe are important in developing protection from the virus.

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks, MD, PhD told CNN that if the vaccine candidate does well in phase 2, “it could be ready by January 2021.”

The two candidates are among 10 in clinical trials for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The AstraZeneca/ AZD1222 candidate (also called ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, in collaboration with the University of Oxford) has entered phase 2/3.

Moderna’s candidate and another being developed in Beijing, China, are in phase 2, WHO reports. As of yesterday, 115 other candidates are in preclinical evaluation.

Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, told Medscape Medical News it’s important to realize that, in the case of the $1.2 billion US investment, “what they’re talking about is manufacturing.”

The idea, she said, is to pay AstraZeneca up front so that manufacturing can start before it is known whether the vaccine candidate is safe or effective, the reverse of how the clinical trial process usually works.

That way, if the candidate is deemed safe and effective, time is not lost by then deciding how to make it and distribute it.

By the end of this year, she said, “Maybe we will have many vaccines made and stored in a refrigerator somewhere. But between now and December, there’s absolutely no way you can show efficacy of the vaccine at the same time you confirm that it’s safe.”
 

“Take these things with a grain of salt”

Animal testing for the AstraZeneca candidate, made in partnership with the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, has yielded lackluster results, according to results on the preprint server BioRxiv, which have not been peer-reviewed.

“The results were not bad, but they were not gangbusters,” Bottazzi said. The results show the vaccine offered only partial protection.

“Partial protection is better than no protection,” she noted. “You have to take these things with a grain of salt. We don’t know what’s going to happen in humans.”

As for the Moderna candidate, Bottazzi said, “the good news is they found an appropriate safety profile. But from an eight-person group to make the extrapolation that they have efficacy — it’s unrealistic.”

Nicole Lurie, MD, MSPH, is senior adviser to the CEO for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI), a nongovernmental organization funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the European Commission, and eight countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, Japan, Norway, and the United Kingdom) charged with supporting development of vaccines for pathogens on WHO’s priority list.

She and her colleagues write in a paper published online in the New England Journal of Medicine on March 30 that “it typically takes multiple candidates and many years to produce a licensed vaccine.”

The fastest time for developing a vaccine to date is 4 years, for the mumps vaccine, licensed in 1967.

As to whether she would expect a rollout of any vaccine by the end of the year, Lurie told Medscape Medical News, “If everything goes according to plan in every way, shape or form, well then maybe you can get there. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.”

Lurie and her colleagues write that “it’s far from certain that these new platforms will be scalable or that existing capacity can provide sufficient quantities of vaccine fast enough.”

On a call with reporters today, leaders of some of the words largest pharmaceutical companies said that one of the key bottlenecks is the sheer number of vials needed in order to distribute billions of doses of a successful vaccine.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said, “Typically we are producing vaccines in single-dose vials. We are exploring with governments right now if it would be more convenient if there were 5-dose vials or 10-dose vials. I think we can resolve a significant part of the bottleneck.”

Despite the challenges, experts interviewed for this article agree that it will be possible to make a vaccine for COVID-19. They don’t expect attempts to meet the same complications that HIV researchers have seen over decades as the virus continues to confound with mutations.

Fred Ledley, MD, director of the Center for Integration of Science and Industry at Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News, “There doesn’t appear to be anything terribly diabolical about this virus. The mutation rate doesn’t appear to be anything like HIV. It appears to have some big, ugly proteins on the surface, which is good for vaccines — proteins with a lot of physical features look distinguishable from healthy cells. Signs all point to that it should be possible to make a vaccine.”
 

History raises safety concerns

However, Ledley said, “The idea of doing it in 6 months is largely unrealistic.”

He says 18 months is more realistic, primarily because of the sheer number of people that would have to be enrolled in a phase 3 study to truly test whether the endpoints are being met.

Vaccines are given to healthy volunteers. If safety signals arise, they may not be apparent until massive numbers of people are tested in phase 3.

“You’re never going to see the rates cut to 0%, but to see the difference between 10 people getting sick and seven people getting sick, takes very, very large numbers,” Ledley said. “There’s no way that can be done in 6 months. You’re talking about tens of thousands of people enrolled.”

He notes at this point it’s unclear what the endpoints will be and what the safety thresholds will be after consideration of risks and benefit.

Another big question for Ledley: “We don’t know what type of immunity we need to protect us against the virus. Do you just need the antibodies in your blood or do you need cells that are primed to attack the virus? Is it more of a chemical clearance or do the cells need to physically go in and digest the virus?”

History also points to the need for rigorous safety precautions that scientists fear could be compromised as trial phases overlap and processes are run in parallel instead of one step at a time.

An early batch of the Salk vaccine for polio in 1955, for example, turned out to be contaminated and caused paralysis in some children and 10 deaths, he points out.

CEPI’s Lurie adds that early candidates for another coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), “caused a reaction in the lungs that was very dangerous” before development was halted.

She also pointed to previous findings that a vaccine for dengue fever could worsen the disease in some people through a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement.

Lurie and colleagues write in their paper that “it’s critical that vaccines also be developed using the tried-and-true methods, even if they may take longer to enter clinical trials or to result in large numbers of doses.”
 

Live attenuated vaccine

Raul Andino, PhD, a virologist at the University of California San Francisco, is among the scientists working with a tried-and-true method ­— a live attenuated vaccine — and he told Medscape Medical News he’s predicting it will take 2 years to develop.

He said it is cheaper to produce because scientists just have to learn how to grow the virus. Because the technology is already proven, a live attenuated vaccine could be rapidly produced on a worldwide scale.

The hope is also that a live attenuated vaccine would be given once in a lifetime and therefore be more affordable, especially in poorer countries.

“While a Moderna vaccine might be good for Europe and the United States,” he said, “It’s not going to be good for Africa, India, Brazil.”

Andino said, “I would bet money” that the front-runner vaccines so far will not be one-time vaccines.

He points out that most of the vaccine candidates are trying to protect people from disease. While there’s nothing wrong with that, he said, “In my opinion that is the lower-hanging fruit.”

“In my mind we need something that interrupts the chain of transmission and induces protection,” Andino said, important for developing herd immunity.

The reason this type of approach takes longer is because you are introducing a weakened form of the virus to the body and you have to make sure it doesn’t cause disease, not just in a small test population, but in populations who may be more susceptible to the disease, Andino said.
 

A call for unified strategies

Universities, countries, international consortiums, and public-private partnerships are all racing to find several safe and effective vaccines as no one entity will likely be able to provide the global solution.

Some of the efforts involve overlap of entities but with different focuses.

Along with “Operation Warp Speed” and CEPI, other collaborations include Gavi the Vaccine Alliance, whose core partners include WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, and the Gates Foundation; and “Accelerating Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) partnership,” led by the National Institutes of Health.

Industry partners in ACTIV (18 biopharmaceutical companies), according to a May 18 article published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association, have said they will contribute their respective clinical trial capacities, regardless of which agent is studied.

Some, however, have called for more streamlining of efforts.

“Ideally we’d be working together,” Lurie told Medscape Medical News.

“I’m hopeful we will find ways to collaborate scientifically,” she said. “The US government’s responsibility is to make doses for the US. CEPI’s responsibility is to make doses for the world. A big focus of CEPI is to make sure we have manufacturing capacity outside of the US so those doses can be available to the world and they don’t get seized by wealthy countries.”

Bottazzi, Ledley, Lurie, and Andino report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

US government and industry projections that a COVID-19 vaccine will be ready by this fall or even January would take compressing what usually takes at least a decade into months, with little room for error or safety surprises.

“If all the cards fall into the right place and all the stars are aligned, you definitely could get a vaccine by December or January,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said last week.

But Fauci said a more realistic timeline is still 12 to 18 months, and experts interviewed by Medscape Medical News agree. They say that although recent developments are encouraging, history and scientific reason say the day when a COVID-19 vaccine is widely available will not come this year and may not come by the end of 2021.

The encouraging signals come primarily from two recent announcements: the $1.2 billion United States backing last week of one vaccine platform and the announcement on May 18 that the first human trials of another have produced some positive phase 1 results.
 

Recent developments

On May 21, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under “Operation Warp Speed” announced that the US will give AstraZeneca $1.2 billion “to make available at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine called AZD1222, with the first doses delivered as early as October 2020.”

On May 18, the Massachusetts-based biotechnology company Moderna announced that phase 1 clinical results showed that its vaccine candidate, which uses a new messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, appeared safe. Eight participants in the human trials were able to produce neutralizing antibodies that researchers believe are important in developing protection from the virus.

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks, MD, PhD told CNN that if the vaccine candidate does well in phase 2, “it could be ready by January 2021.”

The two candidates are among 10 in clinical trials for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The AstraZeneca/ AZD1222 candidate (also called ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, in collaboration with the University of Oxford) has entered phase 2/3.

Moderna’s candidate and another being developed in Beijing, China, are in phase 2, WHO reports. As of yesterday, 115 other candidates are in preclinical evaluation.

Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, told Medscape Medical News it’s important to realize that, in the case of the $1.2 billion US investment, “what they’re talking about is manufacturing.”

The idea, she said, is to pay AstraZeneca up front so that manufacturing can start before it is known whether the vaccine candidate is safe or effective, the reverse of how the clinical trial process usually works.

That way, if the candidate is deemed safe and effective, time is not lost by then deciding how to make it and distribute it.

By the end of this year, she said, “Maybe we will have many vaccines made and stored in a refrigerator somewhere. But between now and December, there’s absolutely no way you can show efficacy of the vaccine at the same time you confirm that it’s safe.”
 

“Take these things with a grain of salt”

Animal testing for the AstraZeneca candidate, made in partnership with the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, has yielded lackluster results, according to results on the preprint server BioRxiv, which have not been peer-reviewed.

“The results were not bad, but they were not gangbusters,” Bottazzi said. The results show the vaccine offered only partial protection.

“Partial protection is better than no protection,” she noted. “You have to take these things with a grain of salt. We don’t know what’s going to happen in humans.”

As for the Moderna candidate, Bottazzi said, “the good news is they found an appropriate safety profile. But from an eight-person group to make the extrapolation that they have efficacy — it’s unrealistic.”

Nicole Lurie, MD, MSPH, is senior adviser to the CEO for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI), a nongovernmental organization funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the European Commission, and eight countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, Japan, Norway, and the United Kingdom) charged with supporting development of vaccines for pathogens on WHO’s priority list.

She and her colleagues write in a paper published online in the New England Journal of Medicine on March 30 that “it typically takes multiple candidates and many years to produce a licensed vaccine.”

The fastest time for developing a vaccine to date is 4 years, for the mumps vaccine, licensed in 1967.

As to whether she would expect a rollout of any vaccine by the end of the year, Lurie told Medscape Medical News, “If everything goes according to plan in every way, shape or form, well then maybe you can get there. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.”

Lurie and her colleagues write that “it’s far from certain that these new platforms will be scalable or that existing capacity can provide sufficient quantities of vaccine fast enough.”

On a call with reporters today, leaders of some of the words largest pharmaceutical companies said that one of the key bottlenecks is the sheer number of vials needed in order to distribute billions of doses of a successful vaccine.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said, “Typically we are producing vaccines in single-dose vials. We are exploring with governments right now if it would be more convenient if there were 5-dose vials or 10-dose vials. I think we can resolve a significant part of the bottleneck.”

Despite the challenges, experts interviewed for this article agree that it will be possible to make a vaccine for COVID-19. They don’t expect attempts to meet the same complications that HIV researchers have seen over decades as the virus continues to confound with mutations.

Fred Ledley, MD, director of the Center for Integration of Science and Industry at Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News, “There doesn’t appear to be anything terribly diabolical about this virus. The mutation rate doesn’t appear to be anything like HIV. It appears to have some big, ugly proteins on the surface, which is good for vaccines — proteins with a lot of physical features look distinguishable from healthy cells. Signs all point to that it should be possible to make a vaccine.”
 

History raises safety concerns

However, Ledley said, “The idea of doing it in 6 months is largely unrealistic.”

He says 18 months is more realistic, primarily because of the sheer number of people that would have to be enrolled in a phase 3 study to truly test whether the endpoints are being met.

Vaccines are given to healthy volunteers. If safety signals arise, they may not be apparent until massive numbers of people are tested in phase 3.

“You’re never going to see the rates cut to 0%, but to see the difference between 10 people getting sick and seven people getting sick, takes very, very large numbers,” Ledley said. “There’s no way that can be done in 6 months. You’re talking about tens of thousands of people enrolled.”

He notes at this point it’s unclear what the endpoints will be and what the safety thresholds will be after consideration of risks and benefit.

Another big question for Ledley: “We don’t know what type of immunity we need to protect us against the virus. Do you just need the antibodies in your blood or do you need cells that are primed to attack the virus? Is it more of a chemical clearance or do the cells need to physically go in and digest the virus?”

History also points to the need for rigorous safety precautions that scientists fear could be compromised as trial phases overlap and processes are run in parallel instead of one step at a time.

An early batch of the Salk vaccine for polio in 1955, for example, turned out to be contaminated and caused paralysis in some children and 10 deaths, he points out.

CEPI’s Lurie adds that early candidates for another coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), “caused a reaction in the lungs that was very dangerous” before development was halted.

She also pointed to previous findings that a vaccine for dengue fever could worsen the disease in some people through a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement.

Lurie and colleagues write in their paper that “it’s critical that vaccines also be developed using the tried-and-true methods, even if they may take longer to enter clinical trials or to result in large numbers of doses.”
 

Live attenuated vaccine

Raul Andino, PhD, a virologist at the University of California San Francisco, is among the scientists working with a tried-and-true method ­— a live attenuated vaccine — and he told Medscape Medical News he’s predicting it will take 2 years to develop.

He said it is cheaper to produce because scientists just have to learn how to grow the virus. Because the technology is already proven, a live attenuated vaccine could be rapidly produced on a worldwide scale.

The hope is also that a live attenuated vaccine would be given once in a lifetime and therefore be more affordable, especially in poorer countries.

“While a Moderna vaccine might be good for Europe and the United States,” he said, “It’s not going to be good for Africa, India, Brazil.”

Andino said, “I would bet money” that the front-runner vaccines so far will not be one-time vaccines.

He points out that most of the vaccine candidates are trying to protect people from disease. While there’s nothing wrong with that, he said, “In my opinion that is the lower-hanging fruit.”

“In my mind we need something that interrupts the chain of transmission and induces protection,” Andino said, important for developing herd immunity.

The reason this type of approach takes longer is because you are introducing a weakened form of the virus to the body and you have to make sure it doesn’t cause disease, not just in a small test population, but in populations who may be more susceptible to the disease, Andino said.
 

A call for unified strategies

Universities, countries, international consortiums, and public-private partnerships are all racing to find several safe and effective vaccines as no one entity will likely be able to provide the global solution.

Some of the efforts involve overlap of entities but with different focuses.

Along with “Operation Warp Speed” and CEPI, other collaborations include Gavi the Vaccine Alliance, whose core partners include WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, and the Gates Foundation; and “Accelerating Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) partnership,” led by the National Institutes of Health.

Industry partners in ACTIV (18 biopharmaceutical companies), according to a May 18 article published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association, have said they will contribute their respective clinical trial capacities, regardless of which agent is studied.

Some, however, have called for more streamlining of efforts.

“Ideally we’d be working together,” Lurie told Medscape Medical News.

“I’m hopeful we will find ways to collaborate scientifically,” she said. “The US government’s responsibility is to make doses for the US. CEPI’s responsibility is to make doses for the world. A big focus of CEPI is to make sure we have manufacturing capacity outside of the US so those doses can be available to the world and they don’t get seized by wealthy countries.”

Bottazzi, Ledley, Lurie, and Andino report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Substance use disorder and its daily consequences take no breaks even during a pandemic. The stressors created by COVID-19, including deaths of loved ones and the disruptions to normal life from policies aimed at flattening the curve, seem to have increased substance use.

Courtesy Dr. Keji Fagbemi

I practice as a hospitalist with an internal medicine background and specialty in addiction medicine at BronxCare Health System’s inpatient detoxification unit, a 24/7, 20-bed medically-supervised unit in South Bronx in New York City. It is one of the comprehensive services provided by the BronxCare’s life recovery center and addiction services, which also includes an outpatient clinic, opioid treatment program, inpatient rehab, and a half-way house. Inpatient detoxification units like ours are designed to treat serious addictions and chemical dependency and prevent and treat life-threatening withdrawal symptoms and signs or complications. Our patients come from all over the city and its adjoining suburbs, including from emergency room referrals, referral clinics, courts and the justice system, walk-ins, and self-referrals.

At a time when many inpatient detoxification units within the city were temporarily closed due to fear of inpatient spread of the virus or to provide extra COVID beds in anticipation for the peak surge, we have been able to provide a needed service. In fact, several other inpatient detoxification programs within the city have been able to refer their patients to our facility.

Individuals with substance use disorder have historically been a vulnerable and underserved population and possess high risk for multiple health problems as well as preexisting conditions. Many have limited life options financially, educationally, and with housing, and encounter barriers to accessing primary health care services, including preventive services. The introduction of the COVID-19 pandemic into these patients’ precarious health situations only made things worse as many of the limited resources for patients with substance use disorder were diverted to battling the pandemic. Numerous inpatient and outpatient addiction services, for example, were temporarily shut down. This has led to an increase in domestic violence, and psychiatric decompensation, including psychosis, suicidal attempts, and worsening of medical comorbidities in these patients.

Our wake-up call came when the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed in New York in early March. Within a short period of time the state became the epicenter for COVID-19. With the projection of millions of cases being positive and the number of new cases doubling every third day at the onset in New York City, we knew we had a battle brewing and needed to radically transform our mode of operation fast.

Our first task was to ensure the safety of our patients and the dedicated health workers attending to them. Instead of shutting down we decided to focus on education, screening, mask usage, social distancing, and intensifying hygiene. We streamlined the patient point of entry through one screening site, while also brushing up on our history-taking to intently screen for COVID-19. This included not just focusing on travels from China, but from Europe and other parts of the world.

Yes, we did ask patients about cough, fever, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, feeling fatigued, severe body ache, and possible contact with someone who is sick or has traveled overseas. But we were also attuned to the increased rate of community spread and the presentation of other symptoms, such as loss of taste and smell, early in the process. Hence we were able to triage patients with suspected cases to the appropriate sections of the hospital for further screening, testing, and evaluation, instead of having those patients admitted to the detox unit.

Courtesy Dr. Keji Fagbemi

Dr. Fagbemi is a hospitalist at BronxCare Health System, a not-for-profit health and teaching hospital system serving South and Central Bronx in New York. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Substance use disorder and its daily consequences take no breaks even during a pandemic. The stressors created by COVID-19, including deaths of loved ones and the disruptions to normal life from policies aimed at flattening the curve, seem to have increased substance use.

Courtesy Dr. Keji Fagbemi

I practice as a hospitalist with an internal medicine background and specialty in addiction medicine at BronxCare Health System’s inpatient detoxification unit, a 24/7, 20-bed medically-supervised unit in South Bronx in New York City. It is one of the comprehensive services provided by the BronxCare’s life recovery center and addiction services, which also includes an outpatient clinic, opioid treatment program, inpatient rehab, and a half-way house. Inpatient detoxification units like ours are designed to treat serious addictions and chemical dependency and prevent and treat life-threatening withdrawal symptoms and signs or complications. Our patients come from all over the city and its adjoining suburbs, including from emergency room referrals, referral clinics, courts and the justice system, walk-ins, and self-referrals.

At a time when many inpatient detoxification units within the city were temporarily closed due to fear of inpatient spread of the virus or to provide extra COVID beds in anticipation for the peak surge, we have been able to provide a needed service. In fact, several other inpatient detoxification programs within the city have been able to refer their patients to our facility.

Individuals with substance use disorder have historically been a vulnerable and underserved population and possess high risk for multiple health problems as well as preexisting conditions. Many have limited life options financially, educationally, and with housing, and encounter barriers to accessing primary health care services, including preventive services. The introduction of the COVID-19 pandemic into these patients’ precarious health situations only made things worse as many of the limited resources for patients with substance use disorder were diverted to battling the pandemic. Numerous inpatient and outpatient addiction services, for example, were temporarily shut down. This has led to an increase in domestic violence, and psychiatric decompensation, including psychosis, suicidal attempts, and worsening of medical comorbidities in these patients.

Our wake-up call came when the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed in New York in early March. Within a short period of time the state became the epicenter for COVID-19. With the projection of millions of cases being positive and the number of new cases doubling every third day at the onset in New York City, we knew we had a battle brewing and needed to radically transform our mode of operation fast.

Our first task was to ensure the safety of our patients and the dedicated health workers attending to them. Instead of shutting down we decided to focus on education, screening, mask usage, social distancing, and intensifying hygiene. We streamlined the patient point of entry through one screening site, while also brushing up on our history-taking to intently screen for COVID-19. This included not just focusing on travels from China, but from Europe and other parts of the world.

Yes, we did ask patients about cough, fever, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, feeling fatigued, severe body ache, and possible contact with someone who is sick or has traveled overseas. But we were also attuned to the increased rate of community spread and the presentation of other symptoms, such as loss of taste and smell, early in the process. Hence we were able to triage patients with suspected cases to the appropriate sections of the hospital for further screening, testing, and evaluation, instead of having those patients admitted to the detox unit.

Courtesy Dr. Keji Fagbemi

Dr. Fagbemi is a hospitalist at BronxCare Health System, a not-for-profit health and teaching hospital system serving South and Central Bronx in New York. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Substance use disorder and its daily consequences take no breaks even during a pandemic. The stressors created by COVID-19, including deaths of loved ones and the disruptions to normal life from policies aimed at flattening the curve, seem to have increased substance use.

Courtesy Dr. Keji Fagbemi

I practice as a hospitalist with an internal medicine background and specialty in addiction medicine at BronxCare Health System’s inpatient detoxification unit, a 24/7, 20-bed medically-supervised unit in South Bronx in New York City. It is one of the comprehensive services provided by the BronxCare’s life recovery center and addiction services, which also includes an outpatient clinic, opioid treatment program, inpatient rehab, and a half-way house. Inpatient detoxification units like ours are designed to treat serious addictions and chemical dependency and prevent and treat life-threatening withdrawal symptoms and signs or complications. Our patients come from all over the city and its adjoining suburbs, including from emergency room referrals, referral clinics, courts and the justice system, walk-ins, and self-referrals.

At a time when many inpatient detoxification units within the city were temporarily closed due to fear of inpatient spread of the virus or to provide extra COVID beds in anticipation for the peak surge, we have been able to provide a needed service. In fact, several other inpatient detoxification programs within the city have been able to refer their patients to our facility.

Individuals with substance use disorder have historically been a vulnerable and underserved population and possess high risk for multiple health problems as well as preexisting conditions. Many have limited life options financially, educationally, and with housing, and encounter barriers to accessing primary health care services, including preventive services. The introduction of the COVID-19 pandemic into these patients’ precarious health situations only made things worse as many of the limited resources for patients with substance use disorder were diverted to battling the pandemic. Numerous inpatient and outpatient addiction services, for example, were temporarily shut down. This has led to an increase in domestic violence, and psychiatric decompensation, including psychosis, suicidal attempts, and worsening of medical comorbidities in these patients.

Our wake-up call came when the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed in New York in early March. Within a short period of time the state became the epicenter for COVID-19. With the projection of millions of cases being positive and the number of new cases doubling every third day at the onset in New York City, we knew we had a battle brewing and needed to radically transform our mode of operation fast.

Our first task was to ensure the safety of our patients and the dedicated health workers attending to them. Instead of shutting down we decided to focus on education, screening, mask usage, social distancing, and intensifying hygiene. We streamlined the patient point of entry through one screening site, while also brushing up on our history-taking to intently screen for COVID-19. This included not just focusing on travels from China, but from Europe and other parts of the world.

Yes, we did ask patients about cough, fever, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, feeling fatigued, severe body ache, and possible contact with someone who is sick or has traveled overseas. But we were also attuned to the increased rate of community spread and the presentation of other symptoms, such as loss of taste and smell, early in the process. Hence we were able to triage patients with suspected cases to the appropriate sections of the hospital for further screening, testing, and evaluation, instead of having those patients admitted to the detox unit.

Courtesy Dr. Keji Fagbemi

Dr. Fagbemi is a hospitalist at BronxCare Health System, a not-for-profit health and teaching hospital system serving South and Central Bronx in New York. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.