Covid ICYMI

In the midst of the rapidly spreading COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals and clinics are running out of masks. Health care workers are going online to beg for more, the hashtags #GetMePPE and #WeNeedPPE are trending on Twitter, and some hospitals have even put out public calls for mask donations. Health providers are working scared: They know that the moment the masks run out, they’re at increased risk for disease. So instead of waiting for mask shipments that may be weeks off, some people are making their own.

At Phoebe Putney Health hospital in Albany, Georgia, staff members and volunteers have been working overtime to make face masks that might provide protection against COVID-19. Using a simple template, they cut green surgical sheeting into half-moons, which they pin and sew before attaching elastic straps. Deaconess Health System in Evansville, Indiana, has posted instructions for fabric masks on their website and asked the public to step up and sew.

Elsewhere, health care workers have turned to diapers, maxi pads and other products to create masks. Social media channels are full of tips and sewing patterns. It’s an innovative strategy that is also contentious. Limited evidence suggests that homemade masks can offer some protection. But the DIY approach has also drawn criticism for providing a false sense of security, potentially putting wearers at risk.

The conflict points to an immediate need for more protective equipment, says Christopher Friese, PhD, RN, professor of nursing and public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Also needed, he says, are new ideas for reducing strain on limited supplies, like adopting gear from other industries and finding innovative ways to provide care so that less protective gear is needed.

“We don’t want clinicians inventing and ‘MacGyvering’ their own device because we don’t want to put them at risk if we can avoid it,” says Friese, referring to the TV character who could build and assemble a vast array of tools/devices. “We have options that have been tested, and we have experience, maybe not in health care, but in other settings. We want to try that first before that frontline doctor, nurse, respiratory therapist decides to take matters into their own hands.

Increasingly, though, health care workers are finding they have no other choice — something even the CDC has acknowledged. In new guidelines, the agency recommends a bandanna, scarf, or other type of covering in cases where face masks are not available.

N95 respirators or surgical masks?

There are two main types of masks generally used in health care. N95 respirators filter out 95% of airborne particles, including bacteria and viruses. The lighter surgical or medical face masks are made to prevent spit and mucous from getting on patients or equipment.

Both types reduce rates of infection among health care workers, though comparisons (at least for influenza) have yet to show that one is superior to the other. One 2020 review by Chinese researchers, for example, analyzed six randomly controlled trials that included more than 9000 participants and found no added benefits of N95 masks over ordinary surgical masks for health care providers treating patients with the flu.

But COVID-19 is not influenza, and evidence suggests it may require more intensive protection, says Friese, who coauthored a blog post for JAMA about the country’s unpreparedness for protecting health care workers during a pandemic. The virus can linger in the air for hours, suggesting that N95 respirators are health care providers’ best option when treating infected patients.

The problem is there’s not enough to go around — of either mask type. In a March 5 survey, National Nurses United reported that just 30% of more than 6500 US respondents said their organizations had enough PPE to respond to a surge in patients. Another 38% did not know if their organizations were prepared. In a tweet, Friese estimated that 12% of nurses and other providers are at risk from reusing equipment or using equipment that is not backed by evidence.

Physicians and providers around the world have been sharing strategies online for how to make their own masks. Techniques vary, as do materials and plans for how to use the homemade equipment. At Phoebe Putney Health, DIY masks are intended to be worn over N95 respirators and then disposed of so that the respirators can be reused more safely, says Amanda Clements, the hospital’s public relations coordinator. Providers might also wear them to greet people at the front door.

Some evidence suggests that homemade masks can help in a pinch, at least for some illnesses. For a 2013 study by researchers in the UK, volunteers made surgical masks from cotton T-shirts, then put them on and coughed into a chamber that measured how much bacterial content got through. The team also assessed the aerosol-filtering ability of a variety of household materials, including scarfs, antimicrobial pillowcases, vacuum-cleaner bags, and tea towels. They tested each material with an aerosol containing two types of bacteria similar in size to influenza.

Commercial surgical masks performed three times better than homemade ones in the filtration test. Surgical masks worked twice as well at blocking droplets on the cough test. But all the makeshift materials — which also included silk, linen, and regular pillowcases — blocked some microbes. Vacuum-cleaner bags blocked the most bacteria, but their stiffness and thickness made them unsuitable for use as masks, the researchers reported. Tea towels showed a similar pattern. But pillowcases and cotton T-shirts were stretchy enough to fit well, thereby reducing the particles that could get through or around them.

Homemade masks should be used only as a last resort if commercial masks become unavailable, the researchers concluded. “Probably something is better than nothing for trained health care workers — for droplet contact avoidance, if nothing else,” says Anna Davies, BSc, a research facilitator at the University of Cambridge, UK, who is a former public health microbiologist and one of the study’s authors.

She recommends that members of the general public donate any stockpiles they have to health care workers, and make their own if they want masks for personal use. She is working with collaborators in the US to develop guidance for how best to do it.

“If people are quarantined and looking for something worthwhile to do, it probably wouldn’t be the worst thing to apply themselves to,” she wrote by email. “My suggestion would be for something soft and cotton, ideally with a bit of stretch (although it’s a pain to sew), and in two layers, marked ‘inside’ and ‘outside.’ ”

The idea that something is better than nothing was also the conclusion of a 2008 study by researchers in the Netherlands and the US. The study enlisted 28 healthy individuals who performed a variety of tasks while wearing N95 masks, surgical masks, or homemade masks sewn from teacloths. Effectiveness varied among individuals, but over a 90-second period, N95 masks worked best, with 25 times more protection than surgical masks and about 50 times more protection than homemade ones. Surgical masks were twice as effective as homemade masks. But the homemade masks offered at least some protection against large droplets.

Researchers emphasize that it’s not yet clear whether those findings are applicable to aerosolized COVID-19. In an influenza pandemic, at least, the authors posit that homemade masks could reduce transmission for the general public enough for some immunity to build. “It is important not to focus on a single intervention in case of a pandemic,” the researchers write, “but to integrate all effective interventions for optimal protection.”

For health care workers on the frontlines of COVID-19, Friese says, homemade masks might do more than nothing but they also might not work. Instead, he would rather see providers using construction or nuclear-engineering masks. And his best suggestion is something many providers are already doing: reducing physical contact with patients through telemedicine and other creative solutions, which is cutting down the overwhelming need for PPE.

Homemade mask production emphasizes the urgent need for more supplies, Friese adds.

“The government needs to step up and do a variety of things to increase production, and that needs to happen now, immediately,” he says. “We don’t we don’t want our clinicians to have to come up with these decisions.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the midst of the rapidly spreading COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals and clinics are running out of masks. Health care workers are going online to beg for more, the hashtags #GetMePPE and #WeNeedPPE are trending on Twitter, and some hospitals have even put out public calls for mask donations. Health providers are working scared: They know that the moment the masks run out, they’re at increased risk for disease. So instead of waiting for mask shipments that may be weeks off, some people are making their own.

At Phoebe Putney Health hospital in Albany, Georgia, staff members and volunteers have been working overtime to make face masks that might provide protection against COVID-19. Using a simple template, they cut green surgical sheeting into half-moons, which they pin and sew before attaching elastic straps. Deaconess Health System in Evansville, Indiana, has posted instructions for fabric masks on their website and asked the public to step up and sew.

Elsewhere, health care workers have turned to diapers, maxi pads and other products to create masks. Social media channels are full of tips and sewing patterns. It’s an innovative strategy that is also contentious. Limited evidence suggests that homemade masks can offer some protection. But the DIY approach has also drawn criticism for providing a false sense of security, potentially putting wearers at risk.

The conflict points to an immediate need for more protective equipment, says Christopher Friese, PhD, RN, professor of nursing and public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Also needed, he says, are new ideas for reducing strain on limited supplies, like adopting gear from other industries and finding innovative ways to provide care so that less protective gear is needed.

“We don’t want clinicians inventing and ‘MacGyvering’ their own device because we don’t want to put them at risk if we can avoid it,” says Friese, referring to the TV character who could build and assemble a vast array of tools/devices. “We have options that have been tested, and we have experience, maybe not in health care, but in other settings. We want to try that first before that frontline doctor, nurse, respiratory therapist decides to take matters into their own hands.

Increasingly, though, health care workers are finding they have no other choice — something even the CDC has acknowledged. In new guidelines, the agency recommends a bandanna, scarf, or other type of covering in cases where face masks are not available.

N95 respirators or surgical masks?

There are two main types of masks generally used in health care. N95 respirators filter out 95% of airborne particles, including bacteria and viruses. The lighter surgical or medical face masks are made to prevent spit and mucous from getting on patients or equipment.

Both types reduce rates of infection among health care workers, though comparisons (at least for influenza) have yet to show that one is superior to the other. One 2020 review by Chinese researchers, for example, analyzed six randomly controlled trials that included more than 9000 participants and found no added benefits of N95 masks over ordinary surgical masks for health care providers treating patients with the flu.

But COVID-19 is not influenza, and evidence suggests it may require more intensive protection, says Friese, who coauthored a blog post for JAMA about the country’s unpreparedness for protecting health care workers during a pandemic. The virus can linger in the air for hours, suggesting that N95 respirators are health care providers’ best option when treating infected patients.

The problem is there’s not enough to go around — of either mask type. In a March 5 survey, National Nurses United reported that just 30% of more than 6500 US respondents said their organizations had enough PPE to respond to a surge in patients. Another 38% did not know if their organizations were prepared. In a tweet, Friese estimated that 12% of nurses and other providers are at risk from reusing equipment or using equipment that is not backed by evidence.

Physicians and providers around the world have been sharing strategies online for how to make their own masks. Techniques vary, as do materials and plans for how to use the homemade equipment. At Phoebe Putney Health, DIY masks are intended to be worn over N95 respirators and then disposed of so that the respirators can be reused more safely, says Amanda Clements, the hospital’s public relations coordinator. Providers might also wear them to greet people at the front door.

Some evidence suggests that homemade masks can help in a pinch, at least for some illnesses. For a 2013 study by researchers in the UK, volunteers made surgical masks from cotton T-shirts, then put them on and coughed into a chamber that measured how much bacterial content got through. The team also assessed the aerosol-filtering ability of a variety of household materials, including scarfs, antimicrobial pillowcases, vacuum-cleaner bags, and tea towels. They tested each material with an aerosol containing two types of bacteria similar in size to influenza.

Commercial surgical masks performed three times better than homemade ones in the filtration test. Surgical masks worked twice as well at blocking droplets on the cough test. But all the makeshift materials — which also included silk, linen, and regular pillowcases — blocked some microbes. Vacuum-cleaner bags blocked the most bacteria, but their stiffness and thickness made them unsuitable for use as masks, the researchers reported. Tea towels showed a similar pattern. But pillowcases and cotton T-shirts were stretchy enough to fit well, thereby reducing the particles that could get through or around them.

Homemade masks should be used only as a last resort if commercial masks become unavailable, the researchers concluded. “Probably something is better than nothing for trained health care workers — for droplet contact avoidance, if nothing else,” says Anna Davies, BSc, a research facilitator at the University of Cambridge, UK, who is a former public health microbiologist and one of the study’s authors.

She recommends that members of the general public donate any stockpiles they have to health care workers, and make their own if they want masks for personal use. She is working with collaborators in the US to develop guidance for how best to do it.

“If people are quarantined and looking for something worthwhile to do, it probably wouldn’t be the worst thing to apply themselves to,” she wrote by email. “My suggestion would be for something soft and cotton, ideally with a bit of stretch (although it’s a pain to sew), and in two layers, marked ‘inside’ and ‘outside.’ ”

The idea that something is better than nothing was also the conclusion of a 2008 study by researchers in the Netherlands and the US. The study enlisted 28 healthy individuals who performed a variety of tasks while wearing N95 masks, surgical masks, or homemade masks sewn from teacloths. Effectiveness varied among individuals, but over a 90-second period, N95 masks worked best, with 25 times more protection than surgical masks and about 50 times more protection than homemade ones. Surgical masks were twice as effective as homemade masks. But the homemade masks offered at least some protection against large droplets.

Researchers emphasize that it’s not yet clear whether those findings are applicable to aerosolized COVID-19. In an influenza pandemic, at least, the authors posit that homemade masks could reduce transmission for the general public enough for some immunity to build. “It is important not to focus on a single intervention in case of a pandemic,” the researchers write, “but to integrate all effective interventions for optimal protection.”

For health care workers on the frontlines of COVID-19, Friese says, homemade masks might do more than nothing but they also might not work. Instead, he would rather see providers using construction or nuclear-engineering masks. And his best suggestion is something many providers are already doing: reducing physical contact with patients through telemedicine and other creative solutions, which is cutting down the overwhelming need for PPE.

Homemade mask production emphasizes the urgent need for more supplies, Friese adds.

“The government needs to step up and do a variety of things to increase production, and that needs to happen now, immediately,” he says. “We don’t we don’t want our clinicians to have to come up with these decisions.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the midst of the rapidly spreading COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals and clinics are running out of masks. Health care workers are going online to beg for more, the hashtags #GetMePPE and #WeNeedPPE are trending on Twitter, and some hospitals have even put out public calls for mask donations. Health providers are working scared: They know that the moment the masks run out, they’re at increased risk for disease. So instead of waiting for mask shipments that may be weeks off, some people are making their own.

At Phoebe Putney Health hospital in Albany, Georgia, staff members and volunteers have been working overtime to make face masks that might provide protection against COVID-19. Using a simple template, they cut green surgical sheeting into half-moons, which they pin and sew before attaching elastic straps. Deaconess Health System in Evansville, Indiana, has posted instructions for fabric masks on their website and asked the public to step up and sew.

Elsewhere, health care workers have turned to diapers, maxi pads and other products to create masks. Social media channels are full of tips and sewing patterns. It’s an innovative strategy that is also contentious. Limited evidence suggests that homemade masks can offer some protection. But the DIY approach has also drawn criticism for providing a false sense of security, potentially putting wearers at risk.

The conflict points to an immediate need for more protective equipment, says Christopher Friese, PhD, RN, professor of nursing and public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Also needed, he says, are new ideas for reducing strain on limited supplies, like adopting gear from other industries and finding innovative ways to provide care so that less protective gear is needed.

“We don’t want clinicians inventing and ‘MacGyvering’ their own device because we don’t want to put them at risk if we can avoid it,” says Friese, referring to the TV character who could build and assemble a vast array of tools/devices. “We have options that have been tested, and we have experience, maybe not in health care, but in other settings. We want to try that first before that frontline doctor, nurse, respiratory therapist decides to take matters into their own hands.

Increasingly, though, health care workers are finding they have no other choice — something even the CDC has acknowledged. In new guidelines, the agency recommends a bandanna, scarf, or other type of covering in cases where face masks are not available.

N95 respirators or surgical masks?

There are two main types of masks generally used in health care. N95 respirators filter out 95% of airborne particles, including bacteria and viruses. The lighter surgical or medical face masks are made to prevent spit and mucous from getting on patients or equipment.

Both types reduce rates of infection among health care workers, though comparisons (at least for influenza) have yet to show that one is superior to the other. One 2020 review by Chinese researchers, for example, analyzed six randomly controlled trials that included more than 9000 participants and found no added benefits of N95 masks over ordinary surgical masks for health care providers treating patients with the flu.

But COVID-19 is not influenza, and evidence suggests it may require more intensive protection, says Friese, who coauthored a blog post for JAMA about the country’s unpreparedness for protecting health care workers during a pandemic. The virus can linger in the air for hours, suggesting that N95 respirators are health care providers’ best option when treating infected patients.

The problem is there’s not enough to go around — of either mask type. In a March 5 survey, National Nurses United reported that just 30% of more than 6500 US respondents said their organizations had enough PPE to respond to a surge in patients. Another 38% did not know if their organizations were prepared. In a tweet, Friese estimated that 12% of nurses and other providers are at risk from reusing equipment or using equipment that is not backed by evidence.

Physicians and providers around the world have been sharing strategies online for how to make their own masks. Techniques vary, as do materials and plans for how to use the homemade equipment. At Phoebe Putney Health, DIY masks are intended to be worn over N95 respirators and then disposed of so that the respirators can be reused more safely, says Amanda Clements, the hospital’s public relations coordinator. Providers might also wear them to greet people at the front door.

Some evidence suggests that homemade masks can help in a pinch, at least for some illnesses. For a 2013 study by researchers in the UK, volunteers made surgical masks from cotton T-shirts, then put them on and coughed into a chamber that measured how much bacterial content got through. The team also assessed the aerosol-filtering ability of a variety of household materials, including scarfs, antimicrobial pillowcases, vacuum-cleaner bags, and tea towels. They tested each material with an aerosol containing two types of bacteria similar in size to influenza.

Commercial surgical masks performed three times better than homemade ones in the filtration test. Surgical masks worked twice as well at blocking droplets on the cough test. But all the makeshift materials — which also included silk, linen, and regular pillowcases — blocked some microbes. Vacuum-cleaner bags blocked the most bacteria, but their stiffness and thickness made them unsuitable for use as masks, the researchers reported. Tea towels showed a similar pattern. But pillowcases and cotton T-shirts were stretchy enough to fit well, thereby reducing the particles that could get through or around them.

Homemade masks should be used only as a last resort if commercial masks become unavailable, the researchers concluded. “Probably something is better than nothing for trained health care workers — for droplet contact avoidance, if nothing else,” says Anna Davies, BSc, a research facilitator at the University of Cambridge, UK, who is a former public health microbiologist and one of the study’s authors.

She recommends that members of the general public donate any stockpiles they have to health care workers, and make their own if they want masks for personal use. She is working with collaborators in the US to develop guidance for how best to do it.

“If people are quarantined and looking for something worthwhile to do, it probably wouldn’t be the worst thing to apply themselves to,” she wrote by email. “My suggestion would be for something soft and cotton, ideally with a bit of stretch (although it’s a pain to sew), and in two layers, marked ‘inside’ and ‘outside.’ ”

The idea that something is better than nothing was also the conclusion of a 2008 study by researchers in the Netherlands and the US. The study enlisted 28 healthy individuals who performed a variety of tasks while wearing N95 masks, surgical masks, or homemade masks sewn from teacloths. Effectiveness varied among individuals, but over a 90-second period, N95 masks worked best, with 25 times more protection than surgical masks and about 50 times more protection than homemade ones. Surgical masks were twice as effective as homemade masks. But the homemade masks offered at least some protection against large droplets.

Researchers emphasize that it’s not yet clear whether those findings are applicable to aerosolized COVID-19. In an influenza pandemic, at least, the authors posit that homemade masks could reduce transmission for the general public enough for some immunity to build. “It is important not to focus on a single intervention in case of a pandemic,” the researchers write, “but to integrate all effective interventions for optimal protection.”

For health care workers on the frontlines of COVID-19, Friese says, homemade masks might do more than nothing but they also might not work. Instead, he would rather see providers using construction or nuclear-engineering masks. And his best suggestion is something many providers are already doing: reducing physical contact with patients through telemedicine and other creative solutions, which is cutting down the overwhelming need for PPE.

Homemade mask production emphasizes the urgent need for more supplies, Friese adds.

“The government needs to step up and do a variety of things to increase production, and that needs to happen now, immediately,” he says. “We don’t we don’t want our clinicians to have to come up with these decisions.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the face of the US COVID-19 pandemic, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has announced policy changes to allow some patients in opioid treatment programs (OTP) to take home their medication.

According to the agency, states may request “blanket exceptions” for all stable patients in an OTP to receive a 28-day supply of take-home doses of medications such as methadone and buprenorphine, which are used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD).

States may request up to 14 days of take-home medication for patients who are less stable but who can, in the judgment of OTP clinicians, safely handle this level of take-home medication.

“SAMHSA recognizes the evolving issues surrounding COVID-19 and the emerging needs OTPs continue to face,” the agency writes in its updated guidance.

“SAMHSA affirms its commitment to supporting OTPs in any way possible during this time. As such, we are expanding our previous guidance to provide increased flexibility,” the agency said.
 

A ‘Lifesaving’ Decision

Commenting on the SAMHSA policy change, Richard Saitz, MD, professor and chair of the department of community health sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, said, the policy “is not only a good idea, it is critical and lifesaving.”

“This approach had to be done now. With the reduction in face-to-face visits, patients with opioid use disorder need a way to access treatment. If they cannot get opioid agonists, they would withdraw and return to illicit opioid use and high overdose risk and it would be cruel,” said Saitz.

“It is possible that there will be some diversion and some risk of overdose or misuse, but even for less stable patients the benefit likely far outweighs the risk,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Saitz believes policy changes like this should have been made before a crisis.

“Honestly, this is perhaps a silver lining of the crisis” and could lead to permanent change in how OUD is treated in the US, he said.

“Just like we are learning what can be done without a medical in-person visit, we will learn that it is perfectly fine to treat patients with addiction more like we treat patients with other chronic diseases who take medication that has risks and benefits,” Saitz said.

Earlier this week, the Drug Enforcement Administration also announced relaxed dispensing restrictions for registered narcotic treatment programs in cases when a patient is quarantined because of coronavirus.

Typically, only licensed practitioners can dispense or administer OUD medications to patients, but during the COVID-19 crisis, treatment program staff members, law enforcement officers, and national guard personnel will be allowed to deliver OUD medications to an approved “lockbox” at the patient’s doorstep. The change applies only while the coronavirus public health emergency lasts.

“This is also an excellent idea,” Saitz said.
 

ASAM Also Responds

In addition, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) released a focused update to its National Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (NPG).

The update is “especially critical in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 emergency, which threatens to curtail patient access to evidence-based treatment,” the organization said in a news release. The new document updates the 2015 NPG. It includes 13 new recommendations and major revisions to 35 existing recommendations.

One new recommendation states that comprehensive assessment of a patient is critical for treatment planning, but completing all assessments should not delay or preclude initiating pharmacotherapy for OUD. Another new recommendation states that there is no recommended time limit for pharmacotherapy.

ASAM continues to recommend that patients’ psychosocial needs be assessed and psychosocial treatment offered. However, if patients can’t access psychosocial treatment because they are in isolation or have other risk factors that preclude external interactions, clinicians should not delay initiation of medication for the treatment of addiction.

Expanding the use of telemedicine might also be appropriate for many patients, ASAM announced.

They note that the NPG is the first to address in a single document all medications currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD and opioid withdrawal, including all available buprenorphine formulations.

“All of the updated recommendations are designed to both improve the quality and consistency of care and reduce barriers to access to care for Americans living with OUD. The updated recommendations aim to support initiation of buprenorphine treatment in the emergency department and other urgent care settings,” the society said in the release.

“In addition, [the recommendations] provide greater flexibility on dosing during the initiation of buprenorphine treatment and for initiation of buprenorphine at home (which is also an important change in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis).”

The full document is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the face of the US COVID-19 pandemic, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has announced policy changes to allow some patients in opioid treatment programs (OTP) to take home their medication.

According to the agency, states may request “blanket exceptions” for all stable patients in an OTP to receive a 28-day supply of take-home doses of medications such as methadone and buprenorphine, which are used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD).

States may request up to 14 days of take-home medication for patients who are less stable but who can, in the judgment of OTP clinicians, safely handle this level of take-home medication.

“SAMHSA recognizes the evolving issues surrounding COVID-19 and the emerging needs OTPs continue to face,” the agency writes in its updated guidance.

“SAMHSA affirms its commitment to supporting OTPs in any way possible during this time. As such, we are expanding our previous guidance to provide increased flexibility,” the agency said.
 

A ‘Lifesaving’ Decision

Commenting on the SAMHSA policy change, Richard Saitz, MD, professor and chair of the department of community health sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, said, the policy “is not only a good idea, it is critical and lifesaving.”

“This approach had to be done now. With the reduction in face-to-face visits, patients with opioid use disorder need a way to access treatment. If they cannot get opioid agonists, they would withdraw and return to illicit opioid use and high overdose risk and it would be cruel,” said Saitz.

“It is possible that there will be some diversion and some risk of overdose or misuse, but even for less stable patients the benefit likely far outweighs the risk,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Saitz believes policy changes like this should have been made before a crisis.

“Honestly, this is perhaps a silver lining of the crisis” and could lead to permanent change in how OUD is treated in the US, he said.

“Just like we are learning what can be done without a medical in-person visit, we will learn that it is perfectly fine to treat patients with addiction more like we treat patients with other chronic diseases who take medication that has risks and benefits,” Saitz said.

Earlier this week, the Drug Enforcement Administration also announced relaxed dispensing restrictions for registered narcotic treatment programs in cases when a patient is quarantined because of coronavirus.

Typically, only licensed practitioners can dispense or administer OUD medications to patients, but during the COVID-19 crisis, treatment program staff members, law enforcement officers, and national guard personnel will be allowed to deliver OUD medications to an approved “lockbox” at the patient’s doorstep. The change applies only while the coronavirus public health emergency lasts.

“This is also an excellent idea,” Saitz said.
 

ASAM Also Responds

In addition, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) released a focused update to its National Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (NPG).

The update is “especially critical in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 emergency, which threatens to curtail patient access to evidence-based treatment,” the organization said in a news release. The new document updates the 2015 NPG. It includes 13 new recommendations and major revisions to 35 existing recommendations.

One new recommendation states that comprehensive assessment of a patient is critical for treatment planning, but completing all assessments should not delay or preclude initiating pharmacotherapy for OUD. Another new recommendation states that there is no recommended time limit for pharmacotherapy.

ASAM continues to recommend that patients’ psychosocial needs be assessed and psychosocial treatment offered. However, if patients can’t access psychosocial treatment because they are in isolation or have other risk factors that preclude external interactions, clinicians should not delay initiation of medication for the treatment of addiction.

Expanding the use of telemedicine might also be appropriate for many patients, ASAM announced.

They note that the NPG is the first to address in a single document all medications currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD and opioid withdrawal, including all available buprenorphine formulations.

“All of the updated recommendations are designed to both improve the quality and consistency of care and reduce barriers to access to care for Americans living with OUD. The updated recommendations aim to support initiation of buprenorphine treatment in the emergency department and other urgent care settings,” the society said in the release.

“In addition, [the recommendations] provide greater flexibility on dosing during the initiation of buprenorphine treatment and for initiation of buprenorphine at home (which is also an important change in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis).”

The full document is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the face of the US COVID-19 pandemic, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has announced policy changes to allow some patients in opioid treatment programs (OTP) to take home their medication.

According to the agency, states may request “blanket exceptions” for all stable patients in an OTP to receive a 28-day supply of take-home doses of medications such as methadone and buprenorphine, which are used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD).

States may request up to 14 days of take-home medication for patients who are less stable but who can, in the judgment of OTP clinicians, safely handle this level of take-home medication.

“SAMHSA recognizes the evolving issues surrounding COVID-19 and the emerging needs OTPs continue to face,” the agency writes in its updated guidance.

“SAMHSA affirms its commitment to supporting OTPs in any way possible during this time. As such, we are expanding our previous guidance to provide increased flexibility,” the agency said.
 

A ‘Lifesaving’ Decision

Commenting on the SAMHSA policy change, Richard Saitz, MD, professor and chair of the department of community health sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, said, the policy “is not only a good idea, it is critical and lifesaving.”

“This approach had to be done now. With the reduction in face-to-face visits, patients with opioid use disorder need a way to access treatment. If they cannot get opioid agonists, they would withdraw and return to illicit opioid use and high overdose risk and it would be cruel,” said Saitz.

“It is possible that there will be some diversion and some risk of overdose or misuse, but even for less stable patients the benefit likely far outweighs the risk,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Saitz believes policy changes like this should have been made before a crisis.

“Honestly, this is perhaps a silver lining of the crisis” and could lead to permanent change in how OUD is treated in the US, he said.

“Just like we are learning what can be done without a medical in-person visit, we will learn that it is perfectly fine to treat patients with addiction more like we treat patients with other chronic diseases who take medication that has risks and benefits,” Saitz said.

Earlier this week, the Drug Enforcement Administration also announced relaxed dispensing restrictions for registered narcotic treatment programs in cases when a patient is quarantined because of coronavirus.

Typically, only licensed practitioners can dispense or administer OUD medications to patients, but during the COVID-19 crisis, treatment program staff members, law enforcement officers, and national guard personnel will be allowed to deliver OUD medications to an approved “lockbox” at the patient’s doorstep. The change applies only while the coronavirus public health emergency lasts.

“This is also an excellent idea,” Saitz said.
 

ASAM Also Responds

In addition, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) released a focused update to its National Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (NPG).

The update is “especially critical in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 emergency, which threatens to curtail patient access to evidence-based treatment,” the organization said in a news release. The new document updates the 2015 NPG. It includes 13 new recommendations and major revisions to 35 existing recommendations.

One new recommendation states that comprehensive assessment of a patient is critical for treatment planning, but completing all assessments should not delay or preclude initiating pharmacotherapy for OUD. Another new recommendation states that there is no recommended time limit for pharmacotherapy.

ASAM continues to recommend that patients’ psychosocial needs be assessed and psychosocial treatment offered. However, if patients can’t access psychosocial treatment because they are in isolation or have other risk factors that preclude external interactions, clinicians should not delay initiation of medication for the treatment of addiction.

Expanding the use of telemedicine might also be appropriate for many patients, ASAM announced.

They note that the NPG is the first to address in a single document all medications currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD and opioid withdrawal, including all available buprenorphine formulations.

“All of the updated recommendations are designed to both improve the quality and consistency of care and reduce barriers to access to care for Americans living with OUD. The updated recommendations aim to support initiation of buprenorphine treatment in the emergency department and other urgent care settings,” the society said in the release.

“In addition, [the recommendations] provide greater flexibility on dosing during the initiation of buprenorphine treatment and for initiation of buprenorphine at home (which is also an important change in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis).”

The full document is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The third Friday in March usually marks a time when medical students across the United States participate in envelope-opening ceremonies with peers and family members. This year, the ruthless onslaught of coronavirus has forced residency programs to rethink their celebrations, leveraging social media platforms and other technologies to toast Match Day in cyberspace.

In the absence of ceremonies taking place due to restrictions on mass gatherings, “we anticipate that students may be more emotional than they expect,” Hannah R. Hughes, MD, president of the Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association (EMRA) said in an interview. To support these students on their journey to residency, EMRA has launched a social media campaign, asking medical students “to share with us their envelope-opening moments – either a selfie, photo, or video – that we can share with our online networks,” Dr. Hughes said.

EMRA is also asking program coordinators to forward photos and congratulatory messages to their new residents “so that we can share them with our networks at large,” she added.

Going virtual, it seems, has become the new norm.

At the University of California, San Francisco, the medical school decided to cancel its Match Day celebration for new interns, echoing many other programs across the United States. “We always send out a welcome email and make phone calls to all of our new interns,” said Rebecca Berman, MD, director of UCSF’s internal medicine residency program, which houses 63 medicine interns and 181 residents. Traditionally, the program has hosted the celebration for current residents. That, of course, had to change this year.

Current interns like to join in the fun, “since it means their internship is rapidly coming to a close,” said Dr. Berman, who at press time was considering a virtual toast via Zoom as a possible alternative. “These are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to make our residents feel united and connected while they take care of patients in the era of social distancing.”

Melissa Held, MD, associate dean of medical student affairs at the University of Connecticut’s School of Medicine, Farmington, had been planning a celebration in the school’s academic rotunda with food and champagne. “Students typically come with their family members or significant others. The dean and I usually say a few words and then at noon, students get envelopes and can open them to find out where they matched for residency,” Dr. Held said. This year, the school will be uploading Match letters to its online system. Students can remotely find out where they matched at noon. “I plan to put together a slide show of pictures and congratulatory remarks from faculty and staff that will be sent to them around 11:30 a.m.,” Dr. Held said.

Mark Miceli, EdD, who oversees Match Day for the 130-plus medical students at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, is inviting faculty and staff to submit short videos of congratulations, which it will post on its student affairs Match Day Instagram account. Like other schools, it will share results with students in an email, said Dr. Miceli, assistant vice provost of student life. “This message will be more personalized to our school than the NRMP [National Resident Matching Program] message, and will also include links to our match stats, a map of our matched student locations, and a list of where folks matched,” he said.

Students can opt out of the list if they want to. The communications department has also provided templates for signs students can print out. “They can write in where they matched, and take pictures for social media. We are encouraging the use of various hashtags to help build a virtual community,” Dr. Miceli said.

In a state hit particularly hard by coronavirus, the University of Washington School of Medicine is spreading Match Day cheer through online meeting platforms and celebratory graphics. This five-state school, representing students from Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho, usually hosts several events across the different states and students have their pick of which to attend, according to Sarah Wood, associate director of student affairs.

In lieu of in-person events, some states are hosting a Zoom online celebration, others are using social media networking systems. “We’re inviting everyone to take part in an online event ... where we’ll do a slide show of photos that one of our students put together,” Ms. Wood said.

Students are disappointed in this change of plans, she said. To make things more festive, Ms. Wood is adding graphics such as fireworks and photos to the emails containing the Match results. “I want this to be more exciting for them than just a basic letter,” she said.

For now, Ms. Wood is trying to focus on the Match Day celebration, but admits that “my bigger fear is if we have to cancel graduation – and what that might look like.”

The third Friday in March usually marks a time when medical students across the United States participate in envelope-opening ceremonies with peers and family members. This year, the ruthless onslaught of coronavirus has forced residency programs to rethink their celebrations, leveraging social media platforms and other technologies to toast Match Day in cyberspace.

In the absence of ceremonies taking place due to restrictions on mass gatherings, “we anticipate that students may be more emotional than they expect,” Hannah R. Hughes, MD, president of the Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association (EMRA) said in an interview. To support these students on their journey to residency, EMRA has launched a social media campaign, asking medical students “to share with us their envelope-opening moments – either a selfie, photo, or video – that we can share with our online networks,” Dr. Hughes said.

EMRA is also asking program coordinators to forward photos and congratulatory messages to their new residents “so that we can share them with our networks at large,” she added.

Going virtual, it seems, has become the new norm.

At the University of California, San Francisco, the medical school decided to cancel its Match Day celebration for new interns, echoing many other programs across the United States. “We always send out a welcome email and make phone calls to all of our new interns,” said Rebecca Berman, MD, director of UCSF’s internal medicine residency program, which houses 63 medicine interns and 181 residents. Traditionally, the program has hosted the celebration for current residents. That, of course, had to change this year.

Current interns like to join in the fun, “since it means their internship is rapidly coming to a close,” said Dr. Berman, who at press time was considering a virtual toast via Zoom as a possible alternative. “These are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to make our residents feel united and connected while they take care of patients in the era of social distancing.”

Melissa Held, MD, associate dean of medical student affairs at the University of Connecticut’s School of Medicine, Farmington, had been planning a celebration in the school’s academic rotunda with food and champagne. “Students typically come with their family members or significant others. The dean and I usually say a few words and then at noon, students get envelopes and can open them to find out where they matched for residency,” Dr. Held said. This year, the school will be uploading Match letters to its online system. Students can remotely find out where they matched at noon. “I plan to put together a slide show of pictures and congratulatory remarks from faculty and staff that will be sent to them around 11:30 a.m.,” Dr. Held said.

Mark Miceli, EdD, who oversees Match Day for the 130-plus medical students at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, is inviting faculty and staff to submit short videos of congratulations, which it will post on its student affairs Match Day Instagram account. Like other schools, it will share results with students in an email, said Dr. Miceli, assistant vice provost of student life. “This message will be more personalized to our school than the NRMP [National Resident Matching Program] message, and will also include links to our match stats, a map of our matched student locations, and a list of where folks matched,” he said.

Students can opt out of the list if they want to. The communications department has also provided templates for signs students can print out. “They can write in where they matched, and take pictures for social media. We are encouraging the use of various hashtags to help build a virtual community,” Dr. Miceli said.

In a state hit particularly hard by coronavirus, the University of Washington School of Medicine is spreading Match Day cheer through online meeting platforms and celebratory graphics. This five-state school, representing students from Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho, usually hosts several events across the different states and students have their pick of which to attend, according to Sarah Wood, associate director of student affairs.

In lieu of in-person events, some states are hosting a Zoom online celebration, others are using social media networking systems. “We’re inviting everyone to take part in an online event ... where we’ll do a slide show of photos that one of our students put together,” Ms. Wood said.

Students are disappointed in this change of plans, she said. To make things more festive, Ms. Wood is adding graphics such as fireworks and photos to the emails containing the Match results. “I want this to be more exciting for them than just a basic letter,” she said.

For now, Ms. Wood is trying to focus on the Match Day celebration, but admits that “my bigger fear is if we have to cancel graduation – and what that might look like.”

The third Friday in March usually marks a time when medical students across the United States participate in envelope-opening ceremonies with peers and family members. This year, the ruthless onslaught of coronavirus has forced residency programs to rethink their celebrations, leveraging social media platforms and other technologies to toast Match Day in cyberspace.

In the absence of ceremonies taking place due to restrictions on mass gatherings, “we anticipate that students may be more emotional than they expect,” Hannah R. Hughes, MD, president of the Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association (EMRA) said in an interview. To support these students on their journey to residency, EMRA has launched a social media campaign, asking medical students “to share with us their envelope-opening moments – either a selfie, photo, or video – that we can share with our online networks,” Dr. Hughes said.

EMRA is also asking program coordinators to forward photos and congratulatory messages to their new residents “so that we can share them with our networks at large,” she added.

Going virtual, it seems, has become the new norm.

At the University of California, San Francisco, the medical school decided to cancel its Match Day celebration for new interns, echoing many other programs across the United States. “We always send out a welcome email and make phone calls to all of our new interns,” said Rebecca Berman, MD, director of UCSF’s internal medicine residency program, which houses 63 medicine interns and 181 residents. Traditionally, the program has hosted the celebration for current residents. That, of course, had to change this year.

Current interns like to join in the fun, “since it means their internship is rapidly coming to a close,” said Dr. Berman, who at press time was considering a virtual toast via Zoom as a possible alternative. “These are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to make our residents feel united and connected while they take care of patients in the era of social distancing.”

Melissa Held, MD, associate dean of medical student affairs at the University of Connecticut’s School of Medicine, Farmington, had been planning a celebration in the school’s academic rotunda with food and champagne. “Students typically come with their family members or significant others. The dean and I usually say a few words and then at noon, students get envelopes and can open them to find out where they matched for residency,” Dr. Held said. This year, the school will be uploading Match letters to its online system. Students can remotely find out where they matched at noon. “I plan to put together a slide show of pictures and congratulatory remarks from faculty and staff that will be sent to them around 11:30 a.m.,” Dr. Held said.

Mark Miceli, EdD, who oversees Match Day for the 130-plus medical students at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, is inviting faculty and staff to submit short videos of congratulations, which it will post on its student affairs Match Day Instagram account. Like other schools, it will share results with students in an email, said Dr. Miceli, assistant vice provost of student life. “This message will be more personalized to our school than the NRMP [National Resident Matching Program] message, and will also include links to our match stats, a map of our matched student locations, and a list of where folks matched,” he said.

Students can opt out of the list if they want to. The communications department has also provided templates for signs students can print out. “They can write in where they matched, and take pictures for social media. We are encouraging the use of various hashtags to help build a virtual community,” Dr. Miceli said.

In a state hit particularly hard by coronavirus, the University of Washington School of Medicine is spreading Match Day cheer through online meeting platforms and celebratory graphics. This five-state school, representing students from Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho, usually hosts several events across the different states and students have their pick of which to attend, according to Sarah Wood, associate director of student affairs.

In lieu of in-person events, some states are hosting a Zoom online celebration, others are using social media networking systems. “We’re inviting everyone to take part in an online event ... where we’ll do a slide show of photos that one of our students put together,” Ms. Wood said.

Students are disappointed in this change of plans, she said. To make things more festive, Ms. Wood is adding graphics such as fireworks and photos to the emails containing the Match results. “I want this to be more exciting for them than just a basic letter,” she said.

For now, Ms. Wood is trying to focus on the Match Day celebration, but admits that “my bigger fear is if we have to cancel graduation – and what that might look like.”

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care must go on, but changes may need to be made in the way some care is delivered.

“We’re headed for a time when there will be significant disruptions in the care of patients with cancer,” said Len Lichtenfeld, MD, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), in a statement. “For some it may be as straightforward as a delay in having elective surgery. For others it may be delaying preventive care or adjuvant chemotherapy that’s meant to keep cancer from returning or rescheduling appointments.”

Lichtenfeld emphasized that cancer care teams are going to do the best they can to deliver care to those most in need. However, even in those circumstances, it won’t be life as usual. “It will require patience on everyone’s part as we go through this pandemic,” he said.

“The way we treat cancer over the next few months will change enormously,” writes a British oncologist in an article published in the Guardian.

“As oncologists, we will have to find a tenuous balance between undertreating people with cancer, resulting in more deaths from the disease in the medium to long term, and increasing deaths from COVID-19 in a vulnerable patient population. Alongside our patients we will have to make difficult decisions regarding treatments, with only low-quality evidence to guide us,” writes Lucy Gossage, MD, consultant oncologist at Nottingham University Hospital, UK.

The evidence to date (from reports from China in Lancet Oncology) suggests that people with cancer have a significantly higher risk of severe illness resulting in intensive care admissions or death when infected with COVID-19, particularly if they recently had chemotherapy or surgery.

“Many of the oncology treatments we currently use, especially those given after surgery to reduce risk of cancer recurrence, have relatively small benefits,” she writes.

“In the current climate, the balance of offering these treatments may shift; a small reduction in risk of cancer recurrence over the next 5 years may be outweighed by the potential for a short-term increase in risk of death from COVID-19. In the long term, more people’s cancer will return if we aren’t able to offer these treatments,” she adds.

Postpone Routine Screening

One thing that can go on the back burner for now is routine cancer screening, which can be postponed for now in order to conserve health system resources and reduce contact with healthcare facilities, says the ACS.

“Patients seeking routine cancer screenings should delay those until further notice,” said Lichtenfeld. “While timely screening is important, the need to prevent the spread of coronavirus and to reduce the strain on the medical system is more important right now.”

But as soon as restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19 are lifted and routine visits to health facilities are safe, regular screening tests should be rescheduled.

Guidance From ASCO

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued new guidance on caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak.

First and foremost, ASCO encourages providers, facilities, and anyone caring for patients with cancer to follow the existing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention when possible.

ASCO highlights the CDC’s general recommendation for healthcare facilities that suggests “elective surgeries” at inpatient facilities be rescheduled if possible, which has also been recommended by the American College of Surgeons.

However, in many cases, cancer surgery is not elective but essential, it points out. So this is largely an individual determination that clinicians and patients will need to make, taking into account the potential harms of delaying needed cancer-related surgery.

Systemic treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, leave cancer patients vulnerable to infection, but ASCO says there is no direct evidence to support changes in regimens during the pandemic. Therefore, routinely stopping anticancer or immunosuppressive therapy is not recommended, as the balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection remains very unclear.

Clinical decisions must be individualized, ASCO emphasized, and suggested the following practice points be considered:

• For patients already in deep remission who are receiving maintenance therapy, stopping treatment may be an option.
• Some patients may be able to switch from IV to oral therapies, which would decrease the frequency of clinic visits.
• Decisions on modifying or withholding chemotherapy need to consider both the indication and goals of care, as well as where the patient is in the treatment regimen and tolerance to the therapy. As an example, the risk–benefit assessment for proceeding with chemotherapy in patients with untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer is quite different than proceeding with maintenance pemetrexed for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
• If local coronavirus transmission is an issue at a particular cancer center, reasonable options may include taking a 2-week treatment break or arranging treatment at a different facility.
• Evaluate if home infusion is medically and logistically feasible.
• In some settings, delaying or modifying adjuvant treatment presents a higher risk of compromised disease control and long-term survival than in others, but in cases where the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy may be quite small and other options are available, the risk of COVID-19 may be considered an additional factor when evaluating care.

Delay Stem Cell Transplants

For patients who are candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, a delay may be reasonable if the patient is currently well controlled with conventional treatment, ASCO comments. It also directs clinicians to follow the recommendations provided by the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation regarding this issue.

Finally, there is also the question of prophylactic antiviral therapy: Should it be considered for cancer patients undergoing active therapy?

The answer to that question is currently unknown, says ASCO, but “this is an active area of research and evidence may be available at any time.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care must go on, but changes may need to be made in the way some care is delivered.

“We’re headed for a time when there will be significant disruptions in the care of patients with cancer,” said Len Lichtenfeld, MD, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), in a statement. “For some it may be as straightforward as a delay in having elective surgery. For others it may be delaying preventive care or adjuvant chemotherapy that’s meant to keep cancer from returning or rescheduling appointments.”

Lichtenfeld emphasized that cancer care teams are going to do the best they can to deliver care to those most in need. However, even in those circumstances, it won’t be life as usual. “It will require patience on everyone’s part as we go through this pandemic,” he said.

“The way we treat cancer over the next few months will change enormously,” writes a British oncologist in an article published in the Guardian.

“As oncologists, we will have to find a tenuous balance between undertreating people with cancer, resulting in more deaths from the disease in the medium to long term, and increasing deaths from COVID-19 in a vulnerable patient population. Alongside our patients we will have to make difficult decisions regarding treatments, with only low-quality evidence to guide us,” writes Lucy Gossage, MD, consultant oncologist at Nottingham University Hospital, UK.

The evidence to date (from reports from China in Lancet Oncology) suggests that people with cancer have a significantly higher risk of severe illness resulting in intensive care admissions or death when infected with COVID-19, particularly if they recently had chemotherapy or surgery.

“Many of the oncology treatments we currently use, especially those given after surgery to reduce risk of cancer recurrence, have relatively small benefits,” she writes.

“In the current climate, the balance of offering these treatments may shift; a small reduction in risk of cancer recurrence over the next 5 years may be outweighed by the potential for a short-term increase in risk of death from COVID-19. In the long term, more people’s cancer will return if we aren’t able to offer these treatments,” she adds.

Postpone Routine Screening

One thing that can go on the back burner for now is routine cancer screening, which can be postponed for now in order to conserve health system resources and reduce contact with healthcare facilities, says the ACS.

“Patients seeking routine cancer screenings should delay those until further notice,” said Lichtenfeld. “While timely screening is important, the need to prevent the spread of coronavirus and to reduce the strain on the medical system is more important right now.”

But as soon as restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19 are lifted and routine visits to health facilities are safe, regular screening tests should be rescheduled.

Guidance From ASCO

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued new guidance on caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak.

First and foremost, ASCO encourages providers, facilities, and anyone caring for patients with cancer to follow the existing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention when possible.

ASCO highlights the CDC’s general recommendation for healthcare facilities that suggests “elective surgeries” at inpatient facilities be rescheduled if possible, which has also been recommended by the American College of Surgeons.

However, in many cases, cancer surgery is not elective but essential, it points out. So this is largely an individual determination that clinicians and patients will need to make, taking into account the potential harms of delaying needed cancer-related surgery.

Systemic treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, leave cancer patients vulnerable to infection, but ASCO says there is no direct evidence to support changes in regimens during the pandemic. Therefore, routinely stopping anticancer or immunosuppressive therapy is not recommended, as the balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection remains very unclear.

Clinical decisions must be individualized, ASCO emphasized, and suggested the following practice points be considered:

• For patients already in deep remission who are receiving maintenance therapy, stopping treatment may be an option.
• Some patients may be able to switch from IV to oral therapies, which would decrease the frequency of clinic visits.
• Decisions on modifying or withholding chemotherapy need to consider both the indication and goals of care, as well as where the patient is in the treatment regimen and tolerance to the therapy. As an example, the risk–benefit assessment for proceeding with chemotherapy in patients with untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer is quite different than proceeding with maintenance pemetrexed for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
• If local coronavirus transmission is an issue at a particular cancer center, reasonable options may include taking a 2-week treatment break or arranging treatment at a different facility.
• Evaluate if home infusion is medically and logistically feasible.
• In some settings, delaying or modifying adjuvant treatment presents a higher risk of compromised disease control and long-term survival than in others, but in cases where the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy may be quite small and other options are available, the risk of COVID-19 may be considered an additional factor when evaluating care.

Delay Stem Cell Transplants

For patients who are candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, a delay may be reasonable if the patient is currently well controlled with conventional treatment, ASCO comments. It also directs clinicians to follow the recommendations provided by the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation regarding this issue.

Finally, there is also the question of prophylactic antiviral therapy: Should it be considered for cancer patients undergoing active therapy?

The answer to that question is currently unknown, says ASCO, but “this is an active area of research and evidence may be available at any time.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care must go on, but changes may need to be made in the way some care is delivered.

“We’re headed for a time when there will be significant disruptions in the care of patients with cancer,” said Len Lichtenfeld, MD, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), in a statement. “For some it may be as straightforward as a delay in having elective surgery. For others it may be delaying preventive care or adjuvant chemotherapy that’s meant to keep cancer from returning or rescheduling appointments.”

Lichtenfeld emphasized that cancer care teams are going to do the best they can to deliver care to those most in need. However, even in those circumstances, it won’t be life as usual. “It will require patience on everyone’s part as we go through this pandemic,” he said.

“The way we treat cancer over the next few months will change enormously,” writes a British oncologist in an article published in the Guardian.

“As oncologists, we will have to find a tenuous balance between undertreating people with cancer, resulting in more deaths from the disease in the medium to long term, and increasing deaths from COVID-19 in a vulnerable patient population. Alongside our patients we will have to make difficult decisions regarding treatments, with only low-quality evidence to guide us,” writes Lucy Gossage, MD, consultant oncologist at Nottingham University Hospital, UK.

The evidence to date (from reports from China in Lancet Oncology) suggests that people with cancer have a significantly higher risk of severe illness resulting in intensive care admissions or death when infected with COVID-19, particularly if they recently had chemotherapy or surgery.

“Many of the oncology treatments we currently use, especially those given after surgery to reduce risk of cancer recurrence, have relatively small benefits,” she writes.

“In the current climate, the balance of offering these treatments may shift; a small reduction in risk of cancer recurrence over the next 5 years may be outweighed by the potential for a short-term increase in risk of death from COVID-19. In the long term, more people’s cancer will return if we aren’t able to offer these treatments,” she adds.

Postpone Routine Screening

One thing that can go on the back burner for now is routine cancer screening, which can be postponed for now in order to conserve health system resources and reduce contact with healthcare facilities, says the ACS.

“Patients seeking routine cancer screenings should delay those until further notice,” said Lichtenfeld. “While timely screening is important, the need to prevent the spread of coronavirus and to reduce the strain on the medical system is more important right now.”

But as soon as restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19 are lifted and routine visits to health facilities are safe, regular screening tests should be rescheduled.

Guidance From ASCO

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued new guidance on caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak.

First and foremost, ASCO encourages providers, facilities, and anyone caring for patients with cancer to follow the existing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention when possible.

ASCO highlights the CDC’s general recommendation for healthcare facilities that suggests “elective surgeries” at inpatient facilities be rescheduled if possible, which has also been recommended by the American College of Surgeons.

However, in many cases, cancer surgery is not elective but essential, it points out. So this is largely an individual determination that clinicians and patients will need to make, taking into account the potential harms of delaying needed cancer-related surgery.

Systemic treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, leave cancer patients vulnerable to infection, but ASCO says there is no direct evidence to support changes in regimens during the pandemic. Therefore, routinely stopping anticancer or immunosuppressive therapy is not recommended, as the balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection remains very unclear.

Clinical decisions must be individualized, ASCO emphasized, and suggested the following practice points be considered:

• For patients already in deep remission who are receiving maintenance therapy, stopping treatment may be an option.
• Some patients may be able to switch from IV to oral therapies, which would decrease the frequency of clinic visits.
• Decisions on modifying or withholding chemotherapy need to consider both the indication and goals of care, as well as where the patient is in the treatment regimen and tolerance to the therapy. As an example, the risk–benefit assessment for proceeding with chemotherapy in patients with untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer is quite different than proceeding with maintenance pemetrexed for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
• If local coronavirus transmission is an issue at a particular cancer center, reasonable options may include taking a 2-week treatment break or arranging treatment at a different facility.
• Evaluate if home infusion is medically and logistically feasible.
• In some settings, delaying or modifying adjuvant treatment presents a higher risk of compromised disease control and long-term survival than in others, but in cases where the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy may be quite small and other options are available, the risk of COVID-19 may be considered an additional factor when evaluating care.

Delay Stem Cell Transplants

For patients who are candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, a delay may be reasonable if the patient is currently well controlled with conventional treatment, ASCO comments. It also directs clinicians to follow the recommendations provided by the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation regarding this issue.

Finally, there is also the question of prophylactic antiviral therapy: Should it be considered for cancer patients undergoing active therapy?

The answer to that question is currently unknown, says ASCO, but “this is an active area of research and evidence may be available at any time.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Therapeutics could be available in the near term to help treat COVID-19 patients, according to President Donald Trump.

Courtesy CDC

During a March 19 press briefing, the president highlighted two drugs that could be put into play in the battle against the virus.

The first product is hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil), a drug used to treat malaria and severe arthritis, is showing promise as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

“The nice part is it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if things go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody,” President Trump said. “When you go with a brand-new drug, you don’t know that that’s going to happen,” adding that it has shown “very, very encouraging” results as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

He said this drug will be made available “almost immediately.” During the press conference, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, suggested the drug would be made available in the context of a large pragmatic clinical trial, enabling the FDA to collect data on it and make a long-term decision on its viability to treat COVID-19.

Dr. Hahn also pointed to the Gilead drug remdesivir – a drug originally developed to fight Ebola and currently undergoing clinical trials – as another possible candidate for a near-term therapeutic to help treat patients while vaccine development occurs.

Dr. Hahn noted that, while the agency is striving to provide regulatory flexibility, safety is paramount. “Let me make one thing clear: FDA’s responsibility to the American people is to ensure that products are safe and effective and that we are continuing to do that.”

He noted that if these and other experimental drugs show promise, physicians can request them under “compassionate use” provisions.

“We have criteria for that, and very speedy approval for that,” Dr. Hahn said. “The important thing about compassionate use ... this is even beyond ‘right to try.’ [We] get to collect the information about that.”

He noted that the FDA is looking at other drugs that are approved for other indications. The examinations of existing therapies are meant to be a bridge as companies work to develop new therapeutics as well as vaccines.

Dr. Hahn also highlighted a cross-agency effort on convalescent plasma, which uses the plasma from a patient who has recovered from COVID-19 infection to help patients fight the virus. “This is a possible treatment; this is not a proven treatment, “ Dr. Hahn said.

Takeda is working on an immunoglobulin treatment based on its intravenous immunoglobulin product Gammagard Liquid.

Julie Kim, president of plasma-derived therapies at Takeda, said the company should be able to go straight into testing efficacy of this approach, given the known safety profile of the treatment. She made the comments during a March 18 press briefing hosted by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Ms. Kim did caution that this would not be a mass market kind of treatment, as supply would depend on plasma donations from individuals who have fully recovered from a COVID-19 infection. She estimated that the treatment could be available to a targeted group of high-risk patients in 9-18 months.

PhRMA president and CEO Stephen Ubl said the industry is “literally working around the clock” on four key areas: development of new diagnostics, identification of potential existing treatments to make available through trials and compassionate use, development of novel therapies, and development of a vaccine.

There are more than 80 clinical trials underway on existing treatments that could have approval to treat COVID-19 in a matter of months, he said.

Mikael Dolsten, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at Pfizer, said that the company is working with Germany-based BioNTech SE to develop an mRNA-based vaccine for COVID-19, with testing expected to begin in Germany, China, and the United States by the end of April. The company also is screening antiviral compounds that were previously in development against other coronavirus diseases.

Clement Lewin, PhD, associate vice president of R&D strategy for vaccines at Sanofi, said the company has partnered with Regeneron to launch a trial of sarilumab (Kevzara), a drug approved to treat moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, to help treat COVID-19.

Meanwhile, Lilly Chief Scientific Officer Daniel Skovronsky, MD, PhD, noted that his company is collaborating with AbCellera to develop therapeutics using monoclonal antibodies isolated from one of the first U.S. patients who recovered from COVID-19. He said the goal is to begin testing within the next 4 months.

Separately, World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced during a March 18 press conference that it is spearheading a large international study examining a number of different treatments in what has been dubbed the SOLIDARITY trial. Argentina, Bahrain, Canada, France, Iran, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Thailand have signed on to be a part of the trial, with more countries expected to participate.

“I continue to be inspired by the many demonstrations of solidarity from all over the world,” he said. “These and other efforts give me hope that together, we can and will prevail. This virus is presenting us with an unprecedented threat. But it’s also an unprecedented opportunity to come together as one against a common enemy, an enemy against humanity.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Therapeutics could be available in the near term to help treat COVID-19 patients, according to President Donald Trump.

Courtesy CDC

During a March 19 press briefing, the president highlighted two drugs that could be put into play in the battle against the virus.

The first product is hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil), a drug used to treat malaria and severe arthritis, is showing promise as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

“The nice part is it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if things go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody,” President Trump said. “When you go with a brand-new drug, you don’t know that that’s going to happen,” adding that it has shown “very, very encouraging” results as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

He said this drug will be made available “almost immediately.” During the press conference, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, suggested the drug would be made available in the context of a large pragmatic clinical trial, enabling the FDA to collect data on it and make a long-term decision on its viability to treat COVID-19.

Dr. Hahn also pointed to the Gilead drug remdesivir – a drug originally developed to fight Ebola and currently undergoing clinical trials – as another possible candidate for a near-term therapeutic to help treat patients while vaccine development occurs.

Dr. Hahn noted that, while the agency is striving to provide regulatory flexibility, safety is paramount. “Let me make one thing clear: FDA’s responsibility to the American people is to ensure that products are safe and effective and that we are continuing to do that.”

He noted that if these and other experimental drugs show promise, physicians can request them under “compassionate use” provisions.

“We have criteria for that, and very speedy approval for that,” Dr. Hahn said. “The important thing about compassionate use ... this is even beyond ‘right to try.’ [We] get to collect the information about that.”

He noted that the FDA is looking at other drugs that are approved for other indications. The examinations of existing therapies are meant to be a bridge as companies work to develop new therapeutics as well as vaccines.

Dr. Hahn also highlighted a cross-agency effort on convalescent plasma, which uses the plasma from a patient who has recovered from COVID-19 infection to help patients fight the virus. “This is a possible treatment; this is not a proven treatment, “ Dr. Hahn said.

Takeda is working on an immunoglobulin treatment based on its intravenous immunoglobulin product Gammagard Liquid.

Julie Kim, president of plasma-derived therapies at Takeda, said the company should be able to go straight into testing efficacy of this approach, given the known safety profile of the treatment. She made the comments during a March 18 press briefing hosted by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Ms. Kim did caution that this would not be a mass market kind of treatment, as supply would depend on plasma donations from individuals who have fully recovered from a COVID-19 infection. She estimated that the treatment could be available to a targeted group of high-risk patients in 9-18 months.

PhRMA president and CEO Stephen Ubl said the industry is “literally working around the clock” on four key areas: development of new diagnostics, identification of potential existing treatments to make available through trials and compassionate use, development of novel therapies, and development of a vaccine.

There are more than 80 clinical trials underway on existing treatments that could have approval to treat COVID-19 in a matter of months, he said.

Mikael Dolsten, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at Pfizer, said that the company is working with Germany-based BioNTech SE to develop an mRNA-based vaccine for COVID-19, with testing expected to begin in Germany, China, and the United States by the end of April. The company also is screening antiviral compounds that were previously in development against other coronavirus diseases.

Clement Lewin, PhD, associate vice president of R&D strategy for vaccines at Sanofi, said the company has partnered with Regeneron to launch a trial of sarilumab (Kevzara), a drug approved to treat moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, to help treat COVID-19.

Meanwhile, Lilly Chief Scientific Officer Daniel Skovronsky, MD, PhD, noted that his company is collaborating with AbCellera to develop therapeutics using monoclonal antibodies isolated from one of the first U.S. patients who recovered from COVID-19. He said the goal is to begin testing within the next 4 months.

Separately, World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced during a March 18 press conference that it is spearheading a large international study examining a number of different treatments in what has been dubbed the SOLIDARITY trial. Argentina, Bahrain, Canada, France, Iran, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Thailand have signed on to be a part of the trial, with more countries expected to participate.

“I continue to be inspired by the many demonstrations of solidarity from all over the world,” he said. “These and other efforts give me hope that together, we can and will prevail. This virus is presenting us with an unprecedented threat. But it’s also an unprecedented opportunity to come together as one against a common enemy, an enemy against humanity.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Therapeutics could be available in the near term to help treat COVID-19 patients, according to President Donald Trump.

Courtesy CDC

During a March 19 press briefing, the president highlighted two drugs that could be put into play in the battle against the virus.

The first product is hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil), a drug used to treat malaria and severe arthritis, is showing promise as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

“The nice part is it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if things go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody,” President Trump said. “When you go with a brand-new drug, you don’t know that that’s going to happen,” adding that it has shown “very, very encouraging” results as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

He said this drug will be made available “almost immediately.” During the press conference, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, suggested the drug would be made available in the context of a large pragmatic clinical trial, enabling the FDA to collect data on it and make a long-term decision on its viability to treat COVID-19.

Dr. Hahn also pointed to the Gilead drug remdesivir – a drug originally developed to fight Ebola and currently undergoing clinical trials – as another possible candidate for a near-term therapeutic to help treat patients while vaccine development occurs.

Dr. Hahn noted that, while the agency is striving to provide regulatory flexibility, safety is paramount. “Let me make one thing clear: FDA’s responsibility to the American people is to ensure that products are safe and effective and that we are continuing to do that.”

He noted that if these and other experimental drugs show promise, physicians can request them under “compassionate use” provisions.

“We have criteria for that, and very speedy approval for that,” Dr. Hahn said. “The important thing about compassionate use ... this is even beyond ‘right to try.’ [We] get to collect the information about that.”

He noted that the FDA is looking at other drugs that are approved for other indications. The examinations of existing therapies are meant to be a bridge as companies work to develop new therapeutics as well as vaccines.

Dr. Hahn also highlighted a cross-agency effort on convalescent plasma, which uses the plasma from a patient who has recovered from COVID-19 infection to help patients fight the virus. “This is a possible treatment; this is not a proven treatment, “ Dr. Hahn said.

Takeda is working on an immunoglobulin treatment based on its intravenous immunoglobulin product Gammagard Liquid.

Julie Kim, president of plasma-derived therapies at Takeda, said the company should be able to go straight into testing efficacy of this approach, given the known safety profile of the treatment. She made the comments during a March 18 press briefing hosted by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Ms. Kim did caution that this would not be a mass market kind of treatment, as supply would depend on plasma donations from individuals who have fully recovered from a COVID-19 infection. She estimated that the treatment could be available to a targeted group of high-risk patients in 9-18 months.

PhRMA president and CEO Stephen Ubl said the industry is “literally working around the clock” on four key areas: development of new diagnostics, identification of potential existing treatments to make available through trials and compassionate use, development of novel therapies, and development of a vaccine.

There are more than 80 clinical trials underway on existing treatments that could have approval to treat COVID-19 in a matter of months, he said.

Mikael Dolsten, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at Pfizer, said that the company is working with Germany-based BioNTech SE to develop an mRNA-based vaccine for COVID-19, with testing expected to begin in Germany, China, and the United States by the end of April. The company also is screening antiviral compounds that were previously in development against other coronavirus diseases.

Clement Lewin, PhD, associate vice president of R&D strategy for vaccines at Sanofi, said the company has partnered with Regeneron to launch a trial of sarilumab (Kevzara), a drug approved to treat moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, to help treat COVID-19.

Meanwhile, Lilly Chief Scientific Officer Daniel Skovronsky, MD, PhD, noted that his company is collaborating with AbCellera to develop therapeutics using monoclonal antibodies isolated from one of the first U.S. patients who recovered from COVID-19. He said the goal is to begin testing within the next 4 months.

Separately, World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced during a March 18 press conference that it is spearheading a large international study examining a number of different treatments in what has been dubbed the SOLIDARITY trial. Argentina, Bahrain, Canada, France, Iran, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Thailand have signed on to be a part of the trial, with more countries expected to participate.

“I continue to be inspired by the many demonstrations of solidarity from all over the world,” he said. “These and other efforts give me hope that together, we can and will prevail. This virus is presenting us with an unprecedented threat. But it’s also an unprecedented opportunity to come together as one against a common enemy, an enemy against humanity.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

*Correction, 3/20/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the age range for COVID-19 deaths. The headline of this story was corrected to read "20%  of COVID-19 deaths were aged 20-64 years" and the text was adjusted to reflect the correct age range.

A review of more than 4,000 U.S. patients who were diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) shows that an unexpected 20% of deaths occurred among adults aged 20-64 years, and 20% of those hospitalized were aged 20-44 years. 

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The expectation has been that people over 65 are most vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, but this study indicates that, at least in the United States, a significant number of patients under 45 can land in the hospital and can even die of the disease. 

To assess rates of hospitalization, admission to an ICU, and death among patients with COVID-19 by age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed 4,226 COVID-19 cases in the United States that were reported between Feb. 12 and March 16.

Overall, older patients in this group were the most likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to ICU, and to die of COVID-19. A total of 31% of the cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths occurred in patients aged 65 years and older. “Similar to reports from other countries, this finding suggests that the risk for serious disease and death from COVID-19 is higher in older age groups,” said the investigators. “In contrast, persons aged [19 years and younger] appear to have milder COVID-19 illness, with almost no hospitalizations or deaths reported to date in the United States in this age group.”

But compared with the under-19 group, patients aged 20-44 years appeared to be at higher risk for hospitalization and ICU admission, according to the data published March 18 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

The researchers excluded from their analysis patients who repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China, and from Japan, including patients repatriated from cruise ships. Data on serious underlying health conditions were not available, and many cases were missing key data, they noted.
Among 508 patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged 85 years or older, 36% were aged 65-84 years, 17% were aged 55-64 years, 18% were 45-54 years, and 20% were aged 20-44 years.

Among 121 patients admitted to an ICU, 7% were aged 85 years or older, 46% were aged 65-84 years, 36% were aged 45-64 years, and 12% were aged 20-44 years. Between 11% and 31% of patients with COVID-19 aged 75-84 years were admitted to an ICU.

Of 44 deaths, more than a third occurred among adults aged 85 years and older, and 46% occurred among adults aged 65-84 years, and 20% occurred among adults aged 20-64 years.

More follow-up time is needed to determine outcomes among active cases, the researchers said. These results also might overestimate the prevalence of severe disease because the initial approach to testing for COVID-19 focused on people with more severe disease. “These preliminary data also demonstrate that severe illness leading to hospitalization, including ICU admission and death, can occur in adults of any age with COVID-19,” according to the CDC.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: CDC COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6912e2.

*Correction, 3/20/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the age range for COVID-19 deaths. The headline of this story was corrected to read "20%  of COVID-19 deaths were aged 20-64 years" and the text was adjusted to reflect the correct age range.

A review of more than 4,000 U.S. patients who were diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) shows that an unexpected 20% of deaths occurred among adults aged 20-64 years, and 20% of those hospitalized were aged 20-44 years. 

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The expectation has been that people over 65 are most vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, but this study indicates that, at least in the United States, a significant number of patients under 45 can land in the hospital and can even die of the disease. 

To assess rates of hospitalization, admission to an ICU, and death among patients with COVID-19 by age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed 4,226 COVID-19 cases in the United States that were reported between Feb. 12 and March 16.

Overall, older patients in this group were the most likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to ICU, and to die of COVID-19. A total of 31% of the cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths occurred in patients aged 65 years and older. “Similar to reports from other countries, this finding suggests that the risk for serious disease and death from COVID-19 is higher in older age groups,” said the investigators. “In contrast, persons aged [19 years and younger] appear to have milder COVID-19 illness, with almost no hospitalizations or deaths reported to date in the United States in this age group.”

But compared with the under-19 group, patients aged 20-44 years appeared to be at higher risk for hospitalization and ICU admission, according to the data published March 18 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

The researchers excluded from their analysis patients who repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China, and from Japan, including patients repatriated from cruise ships. Data on serious underlying health conditions were not available, and many cases were missing key data, they noted.
Among 508 patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged 85 years or older, 36% were aged 65-84 years, 17% were aged 55-64 years, 18% were 45-54 years, and 20% were aged 20-44 years.

Among 121 patients admitted to an ICU, 7% were aged 85 years or older, 46% were aged 65-84 years, 36% were aged 45-64 years, and 12% were aged 20-44 years. Between 11% and 31% of patients with COVID-19 aged 75-84 years were admitted to an ICU.

Of 44 deaths, more than a third occurred among adults aged 85 years and older, and 46% occurred among adults aged 65-84 years, and 20% occurred among adults aged 20-64 years.

More follow-up time is needed to determine outcomes among active cases, the researchers said. These results also might overestimate the prevalence of severe disease because the initial approach to testing for COVID-19 focused on people with more severe disease. “These preliminary data also demonstrate that severe illness leading to hospitalization, including ICU admission and death, can occur in adults of any age with COVID-19,” according to the CDC.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: CDC COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6912e2.

*Correction, 3/20/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the age range for COVID-19 deaths. The headline of this story was corrected to read "20%  of COVID-19 deaths were aged 20-64 years" and the text was adjusted to reflect the correct age range.

A review of more than 4,000 U.S. patients who were diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) shows that an unexpected 20% of deaths occurred among adults aged 20-64 years, and 20% of those hospitalized were aged 20-44 years. 

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The expectation has been that people over 65 are most vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, but this study indicates that, at least in the United States, a significant number of patients under 45 can land in the hospital and can even die of the disease. 

To assess rates of hospitalization, admission to an ICU, and death among patients with COVID-19 by age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed 4,226 COVID-19 cases in the United States that were reported between Feb. 12 and March 16.

Overall, older patients in this group were the most likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to ICU, and to die of COVID-19. A total of 31% of the cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths occurred in patients aged 65 years and older. “Similar to reports from other countries, this finding suggests that the risk for serious disease and death from COVID-19 is higher in older age groups,” said the investigators. “In contrast, persons aged [19 years and younger] appear to have milder COVID-19 illness, with almost no hospitalizations or deaths reported to date in the United States in this age group.”

But compared with the under-19 group, patients aged 20-44 years appeared to be at higher risk for hospitalization and ICU admission, according to the data published March 18 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

The researchers excluded from their analysis patients who repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China, and from Japan, including patients repatriated from cruise ships. Data on serious underlying health conditions were not available, and many cases were missing key data, they noted.
Among 508 patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged 85 years or older, 36% were aged 65-84 years, 17% were aged 55-64 years, 18% were 45-54 years, and 20% were aged 20-44 years.

Among 121 patients admitted to an ICU, 7% were aged 85 years or older, 46% were aged 65-84 years, 36% were aged 45-64 years, and 12% were aged 20-44 years. Between 11% and 31% of patients with COVID-19 aged 75-84 years were admitted to an ICU.

Of 44 deaths, more than a third occurred among adults aged 85 years and older, and 46% occurred among adults aged 65-84 years, and 20% occurred among adults aged 20-64 years.

More follow-up time is needed to determine outcomes among active cases, the researchers said. These results also might overestimate the prevalence of severe disease because the initial approach to testing for COVID-19 focused on people with more severe disease. “These preliminary data also demonstrate that severe illness leading to hospitalization, including ICU admission and death, can occur in adults of any age with COVID-19,” according to the CDC.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: CDC COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6912e2.

Rheumatologists the world over are joining forces to create a COVID-19 rheumatology registry designed to help both patients and providers learn from each other regarding management of rheumatologic diseases and risk of infection among patients who are commonly on chronic immunosuppressive medications.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, a consortium supported by more than 50 major clinical societies and foundations, quickly grew from messages on social media platforms to a multinational group focused on the common goal of helping to “guide rheumatology clinicians in assessing and treating patients with rheumatologic disease and in evaluating the risk of infection in patients on immunosuppression.”

As of this writing, the rheumatology registry is still being assembled, and organizers are currently seeking approvals from various authorities. As of March 17, 2020, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of California, San Francisco, has determined that the registry is exempt from IRB approval requirements, a finding that should apply elsewhere in the United States, according to the registry website.

When it is fully up and running, clinicians will be able to report to the secure website on any and all cases of patients with rheumatologic disorders who present with COVID-19 of any severity, including patients with mild disease or asymptomatic patients who test positive.

“We are aiming for 5 to 10 minutes to input the data. We don’t want to drag them away from their clinical duties too much, but if clinicians are able to spare a few minutes to put in details about a patient, then that’s going to help build our knowledge and it’s going to help them with other patients,” said Philip Robinson, MBChB, associate professor of medicine at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and the chief architect of the registry.

The data will be deindentified, with no protected health care information required or included, and made available to the global rheumatology community, but the registry will not offer clinical advice, Dr. Robinson said in an interview.

“This is observational data, it’s not randomized, but our approach is that some data is better than no data,” he said.

He also cautioned that the data will need careful interpretation, because information about patients with mild symptoms may offer false reassurances about the severity or extent of infection.

“For example, the patients with severe cases may be in the ICU, and can’t tell their doctors that they’re on methotrexate, so you can see how we need to be really careful about the messages from that data and not misinterpret it,” he said.

The COVID-19 rheumatology registry was inspired by a similar effort in the gastroenterology community, the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion (SECURE-IBD) registry. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease are often treated with immunosuppressive biologic agents familiar to the rheumatology community, such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), and methotrexate.

Rheumatologists the world over are joining forces to create a COVID-19 rheumatology registry designed to help both patients and providers learn from each other regarding management of rheumatologic diseases and risk of infection among patients who are commonly on chronic immunosuppressive medications.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, a consortium supported by more than 50 major clinical societies and foundations, quickly grew from messages on social media platforms to a multinational group focused on the common goal of helping to “guide rheumatology clinicians in assessing and treating patients with rheumatologic disease and in evaluating the risk of infection in patients on immunosuppression.”

As of this writing, the rheumatology registry is still being assembled, and organizers are currently seeking approvals from various authorities. As of March 17, 2020, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of California, San Francisco, has determined that the registry is exempt from IRB approval requirements, a finding that should apply elsewhere in the United States, according to the registry website.

When it is fully up and running, clinicians will be able to report to the secure website on any and all cases of patients with rheumatologic disorders who present with COVID-19 of any severity, including patients with mild disease or asymptomatic patients who test positive.

“We are aiming for 5 to 10 minutes to input the data. We don’t want to drag them away from their clinical duties too much, but if clinicians are able to spare a few minutes to put in details about a patient, then that’s going to help build our knowledge and it’s going to help them with other patients,” said Philip Robinson, MBChB, associate professor of medicine at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and the chief architect of the registry.

The data will be deindentified, with no protected health care information required or included, and made available to the global rheumatology community, but the registry will not offer clinical advice, Dr. Robinson said in an interview.

“This is observational data, it’s not randomized, but our approach is that some data is better than no data,” he said.

He also cautioned that the data will need careful interpretation, because information about patients with mild symptoms may offer false reassurances about the severity or extent of infection.

“For example, the patients with severe cases may be in the ICU, and can’t tell their doctors that they’re on methotrexate, so you can see how we need to be really careful about the messages from that data and not misinterpret it,” he said.

The COVID-19 rheumatology registry was inspired by a similar effort in the gastroenterology community, the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion (SECURE-IBD) registry. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease are often treated with immunosuppressive biologic agents familiar to the rheumatology community, such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), and methotrexate.

Rheumatologists the world over are joining forces to create a COVID-19 rheumatology registry designed to help both patients and providers learn from each other regarding management of rheumatologic diseases and risk of infection among patients who are commonly on chronic immunosuppressive medications.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, a consortium supported by more than 50 major clinical societies and foundations, quickly grew from messages on social media platforms to a multinational group focused on the common goal of helping to “guide rheumatology clinicians in assessing and treating patients with rheumatologic disease and in evaluating the risk of infection in patients on immunosuppression.”

As of this writing, the rheumatology registry is still being assembled, and organizers are currently seeking approvals from various authorities. As of March 17, 2020, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of California, San Francisco, has determined that the registry is exempt from IRB approval requirements, a finding that should apply elsewhere in the United States, according to the registry website.

When it is fully up and running, clinicians will be able to report to the secure website on any and all cases of patients with rheumatologic disorders who present with COVID-19 of any severity, including patients with mild disease or asymptomatic patients who test positive.

“We are aiming for 5 to 10 minutes to input the data. We don’t want to drag them away from their clinical duties too much, but if clinicians are able to spare a few minutes to put in details about a patient, then that’s going to help build our knowledge and it’s going to help them with other patients,” said Philip Robinson, MBChB, associate professor of medicine at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and the chief architect of the registry.

The data will be deindentified, with no protected health care information required or included, and made available to the global rheumatology community, but the registry will not offer clinical advice, Dr. Robinson said in an interview.

“This is observational data, it’s not randomized, but our approach is that some data is better than no data,” he said.

He also cautioned that the data will need careful interpretation, because information about patients with mild symptoms may offer false reassurances about the severity or extent of infection.

“For example, the patients with severe cases may be in the ICU, and can’t tell their doctors that they’re on methotrexate, so you can see how we need to be really careful about the messages from that data and not misinterpret it,” he said.

The COVID-19 rheumatology registry was inspired by a similar effort in the gastroenterology community, the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion (SECURE-IBD) registry. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease are often treated with immunosuppressive biologic agents familiar to the rheumatology community, such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), and methotrexate.

As of this morning, March 19, 2020, I’m still working.

Granted, there aren’t a lot of people who want to come in. My schedule has dropped to 3-5 follow-ups per day and no new patients.

I can understand people not wanting to expose themselves unnecessarily right now.

But, I’m still a doctor. What drove me to study for the MCAT, apply to med school 2 years in a row, and then survive medical school, internship, residency, and fellowship ... is still there.

Like I said in my 1987 personal statement, I still want to help people. I’d feel remiss if (provided I don’t have COVID-19) I didn’t show up for work each day, ready to care for any who need me. It’s part of who I am, what I do, and what I believe in.

I’m sure my colleagues in family practice, internal medicine, and pulmonology are swamped right now, but neurologists with primarily outpatient practices are taking a back seat except for a handful of patients.

My small office has been set up for my staff to work remotely in a pinch since 2016, so that was easy to enact. The three of us cover the phones the way we always have, and I see patients here.

With the relaxing of telehealth requirements for Medicare that were announced on March 17, I’m setting up to “see” patients remotely.

The whole situation seems bizarre and surreal.

It’s easy for anyone to read too much into anything. A brief tickle in my throat when I wake up, or a sneeze, or a few coughs, suddenly trigger a flurry of “could I have it?” thoughts. Fortunately, they fade when things quickly return to normal, but a few weeks ago I wouldn’t have thought anything of them at all.

Inevitably, I and pretty much everyone else will be exposed to or catch the virus. It’s what virions do. Unless you absolutely isolate yourself on a desert island, it will happen. When it does, you can only hope for the best.

I’m here for my patients today and will be as long as they need me. Unless I have to go into quarantine, of course. And even then, if able, I’ll do the best I can to treat them remotely.

That’s all I could ever want.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

As of this morning, March 19, 2020, I’m still working.

Granted, there aren’t a lot of people who want to come in. My schedule has dropped to 3-5 follow-ups per day and no new patients.

I can understand people not wanting to expose themselves unnecessarily right now.

But, I’m still a doctor. What drove me to study for the MCAT, apply to med school 2 years in a row, and then survive medical school, internship, residency, and fellowship ... is still there.

Like I said in my 1987 personal statement, I still want to help people. I’d feel remiss if (provided I don’t have COVID-19) I didn’t show up for work each day, ready to care for any who need me. It’s part of who I am, what I do, and what I believe in.

I’m sure my colleagues in family practice, internal medicine, and pulmonology are swamped right now, but neurologists with primarily outpatient practices are taking a back seat except for a handful of patients.

My small office has been set up for my staff to work remotely in a pinch since 2016, so that was easy to enact. The three of us cover the phones the way we always have, and I see patients here.

With the relaxing of telehealth requirements for Medicare that were announced on March 17, I’m setting up to “see” patients remotely.

The whole situation seems bizarre and surreal.

It’s easy for anyone to read too much into anything. A brief tickle in my throat when I wake up, or a sneeze, or a few coughs, suddenly trigger a flurry of “could I have it?” thoughts. Fortunately, they fade when things quickly return to normal, but a few weeks ago I wouldn’t have thought anything of them at all.

Inevitably, I and pretty much everyone else will be exposed to or catch the virus. It’s what virions do. Unless you absolutely isolate yourself on a desert island, it will happen. When it does, you can only hope for the best.

I’m here for my patients today and will be as long as they need me. Unless I have to go into quarantine, of course. And even then, if able, I’ll do the best I can to treat them remotely.

That’s all I could ever want.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

As of this morning, March 19, 2020, I’m still working.

Granted, there aren’t a lot of people who want to come in. My schedule has dropped to 3-5 follow-ups per day and no new patients.

I can understand people not wanting to expose themselves unnecessarily right now.

But, I’m still a doctor. What drove me to study for the MCAT, apply to med school 2 years in a row, and then survive medical school, internship, residency, and fellowship ... is still there.

Like I said in my 1987 personal statement, I still want to help people. I’d feel remiss if (provided I don’t have COVID-19) I didn’t show up for work each day, ready to care for any who need me. It’s part of who I am, what I do, and what I believe in.

I’m sure my colleagues in family practice, internal medicine, and pulmonology are swamped right now, but neurologists with primarily outpatient practices are taking a back seat except for a handful of patients.

My small office has been set up for my staff to work remotely in a pinch since 2016, so that was easy to enact. The three of us cover the phones the way we always have, and I see patients here.

With the relaxing of telehealth requirements for Medicare that were announced on March 17, I’m setting up to “see” patients remotely.

The whole situation seems bizarre and surreal.

It’s easy for anyone to read too much into anything. A brief tickle in my throat when I wake up, or a sneeze, or a few coughs, suddenly trigger a flurry of “could I have it?” thoughts. Fortunately, they fade when things quickly return to normal, but a few weeks ago I wouldn’t have thought anything of them at all.

Inevitably, I and pretty much everyone else will be exposed to or catch the virus. It’s what virions do. Unless you absolutely isolate yourself on a desert island, it will happen. When it does, you can only hope for the best.

I’m here for my patients today and will be as long as they need me. Unless I have to go into quarantine, of course. And even then, if able, I’ll do the best I can to treat them remotely.

That’s all I could ever want.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Newly updated guidance on treating patients with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been published by the World Health Organization.

While it can’t replace clinical judgment or specialist consultation, the new guidance may help strengthen the clinical management of patients when COVID-19 is suspected, according to its authors.

The guidance, adapted from an earlier edition focused on the management of suspected Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), covers best practices for triage, infection prevention and control, and optimized supportive care for mild, severe, or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“This guidance should serve as a foundation for optimized supportive care to ensure the best possible chance for survival,” the authors wrote in the guidance.

Newly updated guidance on treating patients with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been published by the World Health Organization.

While it can’t replace clinical judgment or specialist consultation, the new guidance may help strengthen the clinical management of patients when COVID-19 is suspected, according to its authors.

The guidance, adapted from an earlier edition focused on the management of suspected Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), covers best practices for triage, infection prevention and control, and optimized supportive care for mild, severe, or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“This guidance should serve as a foundation for optimized supportive care to ensure the best possible chance for survival,” the authors wrote in the guidance.

Newly updated guidance on treating patients with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been published by the World Health Organization.

While it can’t replace clinical judgment or specialist consultation, the new guidance may help strengthen the clinical management of patients when COVID-19 is suspected, according to its authors.

The guidance, adapted from an earlier edition focused on the management of suspected Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), covers best practices for triage, infection prevention and control, and optimized supportive care for mild, severe, or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“This guidance should serve as a foundation for optimized supportive care to ensure the best possible chance for survival,” the authors wrote in the guidance.

No difference in the primary endpoint of the time to clinical improvement was seen in an open-label trial of the antiretroviral drug lopinavir-ritonavir versus standard of care in adult patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19.

The median time to clinical improvement – defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever was first – was 16 days in both groups (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.85; P = .09).

Although a numerically lower number of deaths were recorded at 28 days (19.2% vs. 25%) with the antiretroviral treatment versus standard of care, a similar percentage of patients had detectable levels of viral RNA in throat swabs taken at various time points during the study, Chinese researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Bai Cao, M.D, from the China-Japan Friendship Hospital and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, both in Beijing, and associates, performed a randomized, controlled, trial of 199 adult patients hospitalized at the Jin Yin-Tan Hospital in Wuhan in Hubei Province, China.

For inclusion, patients had to have laboratory confirmed infection with SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19; pneumonia confirmed by chest imaging; and severely reduced oxygen saturation (94% or less while breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 300 mm Hg).

Patients were randomized to receive either a combination of lopinavir (400 mg) and ritonavir (100 mg) twice a day on top of standard care (n = 99) or to standard care alone (n = 100) for 14 days. “Because of the emergency nature of the trial, placebos of lopinavir-ritonavir were not prepared,” Dr. Cao et al. explained, noting that standard care consisted of supplemental oxygen, ventilation, antibiotic treatment, vasopressor support, renal-replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

While the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, Dr. Cao et al. reported that patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group had a shorter stay in the intensive care unit than did those in the standard-care group, at a median of 6 versus 11 days. They also reported that the duration from randomization to hospital discharge was numerically shorter, at a median of 12 versus 14 days. Furthermore, there was a higher percentage of patients with clinical improvement at day 14 in the lopinavir-ritonavir group than in the standard-care group (45.5% vs. 30.0%)

“The trial was initiated in rapid response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, at which time there was very limited information about clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” the researchers observed. “The question of whether earlier lopinavir-ritonavir treatment in COVID-19 could have clinical benefit is an important one that requires further study,” they wrote.

Among the trial’s limitations are it was not blinded and the researchers do not have data on the lopinavir exposure levels in the trial participants.

“This was a heroic effort” in a “particularly challenging population,” Lindsey R. Baden, MD, and Eric J. Rubin, MD, stated in an editorial accompanying the article (Baden LR and Rubin EJ. New Engl J Med. March 18, 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe2005477). “Unfortunately, the trial results were disappointing,” they noted.

“The secondary end points provide both reason for hope and reason for discouragement,” wrote Dr. Baden and Dr. Rubin. The lack of effect on viral shedding, however, “strongly [suggests] that it did not have the activity desired” they observed.

Dr. Baden and Dr. Rubin commented that one of the important takeaways from the trial is that “the investigators appropriately prioritized speed, designing a trial that could rapidly produce an answer.” They continued that the investigators had shown that “rapidly initiated, high-quality randomized clinical trials are possible in epidemic conditions” and that results of such trials, whether they are positive or negative, “will be central to clinical care as the dangerous coronavirus outbreak continues.”

As it stands, more than 100 trials are listed in the ClinicalTrials.gov database as testing a wide range of different treatment approaches for COVID-19. These include trials investigating if sarilumab, hydroxychloroquine, fingolimod, bevacizumab, and losartan might have a role to play. There are also trials looking at the potential of other antiviral agents, such as Gilead’s investigational drug remdesivir, which has shown to have in vitro and in vivo activity against many emerging viral pathogens that cause Ebola, Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.

Dr. Cao’s trial was supported by grants from Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) Emergency Project of Covid-19, and a National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars.

All authors had no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

Dr. Baden is the director of clinical research in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the director of infectious diseases at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. He is a deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and chair of the FDA’s Antimicrobial Drug Advisory Committee. He is involved in HIV vaccine clinical trials and has received research grants from the Ragon Institute, the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Gates Foundation.

Dr. Rubin is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as editor-in-chief. He is an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and is chair and Irene Heinz Given Professor of Immunology and Infectious Diseases at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

SOURCE: Cao B et al. New Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282.

No difference in the primary endpoint of the time to clinical improvement was seen in an open-label trial of the antiretroviral drug lopinavir-ritonavir versus standard of care in adult patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19.

The median time to clinical improvement – defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever was first – was 16 days in both groups (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.85; P = .09).

Although a numerically lower number of deaths were recorded at 28 days (19.2% vs. 25%) with the antiretroviral treatment versus standard of care, a similar percentage of patients had detectable levels of viral RNA in throat swabs taken at various time points during the study, Chinese researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Bai Cao, M.D, from the China-Japan Friendship Hospital and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, both in Beijing, and associates, performed a randomized, controlled, trial of 199 adult patients hospitalized at the Jin Yin-Tan Hospital in Wuhan in Hubei Province, China.

For inclusion, patients had to have laboratory confirmed infection with SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19; pneumonia confirmed by chest imaging; and severely reduced oxygen saturation (94% or less while breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 300 mm Hg).

Patients were randomized to receive either a combination of lopinavir (400 mg) and ritonavir (100 mg) twice a day on top of standard care (n = 99) or to standard care alone (n = 100) for 14 days. “Because of the emergency nature of the trial, placebos of lopinavir-ritonavir were not prepared,” Dr. Cao et al. explained, noting that standard care consisted of supplemental oxygen, ventilation, antibiotic treatment, vasopressor support, renal-replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

While the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, Dr. Cao et al. reported that patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group had a shorter stay in the intensive care unit than did those in the standard-care group, at a median of 6 versus 11 days. They also reported that the duration from randomization to hospital discharge was numerically shorter, at a median of 12 versus 14 days. Furthermore, there was a higher percentage of patients with clinical improvement at day 14 in the lopinavir-ritonavir group than in the standard-care group (45.5% vs. 30.0%)

“The trial was initiated in rapid response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, at which time there was very limited information about clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” the researchers observed. “The question of whether earlier lopinavir-ritonavir treatment in COVID-19 could have clinical benefit is an important one that requires further study,” they wrote.

Among the trial’s limitations are it was not blinded and the researchers do not have data on the lopinavir exposure levels in the trial participants.

“This was a heroic effort” in a “particularly challenging population,” Lindsey R. Baden, MD, and Eric J. Rubin, MD, stated in an editorial accompanying the article (Baden LR and Rubin EJ. New Engl J Med. March 18, 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe2005477). “Unfortunately, the trial results were disappointing,” they noted.

“The secondary end points provide both reason for hope and reason for discouragement,” wrote Dr. Baden and Dr. Rubin. The lack of effect on viral shedding, however, “strongly [suggests] that it did not have the activity desired” they observed.

Dr. Baden and Dr. Rubin commented that one of the important takeaways from the trial is that “the investigators appropriately prioritized speed, designing a trial that could rapidly produce an answer.” They continued that the investigators had shown that “rapidly initiated, high-quality randomized clinical trials are possible in epidemic conditions” and that results of such trials, whether they are positive or negative, “will be central to clinical care as the dangerous coronavirus outbreak continues.”

As it stands, more than 100 trials are listed in the ClinicalTrials.gov database as testing a wide range of different treatment approaches for COVID-19. These include trials investigating if sarilumab, hydroxychloroquine, fingolimod, bevacizumab, and losartan might have a role to play. There are also trials looking at the potential of other antiviral agents, such as Gilead’s investigational drug remdesivir, which has shown to have in vitro and in vivo activity against many emerging viral pathogens that cause Ebola, Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.

Dr. Cao’s trial was supported by grants from Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) Emergency Project of Covid-19, and a National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars.

All authors had no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

Dr. Baden is the director of clinical research in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the director of infectious diseases at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. He is a deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and chair of the FDA’s Antimicrobial Drug Advisory Committee. He is involved in HIV vaccine clinical trials and has received research grants from the Ragon Institute, the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Gates Foundation.

Dr. Rubin is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as editor-in-chief. He is an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and is chair and Irene Heinz Given Professor of Immunology and Infectious Diseases at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

SOURCE: Cao B et al. New Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282.

No difference in the primary endpoint of the time to clinical improvement was seen in an open-label trial of the antiretroviral drug lopinavir-ritonavir versus standard of care in adult patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19.

The median time to clinical improvement – defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever was first – was 16 days in both groups (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.85; P = .09).

Although a numerically lower number of deaths were recorded at 28 days (19.2% vs. 25%) with the antiretroviral treatment versus standard of care, a similar percentage of patients had detectable levels of viral RNA in throat swabs taken at various time points during the study, Chinese researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Bai Cao, M.D, from the China-Japan Friendship Hospital and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, both in Beijing, and associates, performed a randomized, controlled, trial of 199 adult patients hospitalized at the Jin Yin-Tan Hospital in Wuhan in Hubei Province, China.

For inclusion, patients had to have laboratory confirmed infection with SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19; pneumonia confirmed by chest imaging; and severely reduced oxygen saturation (94% or less while breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 300 mm Hg).

Patients were randomized to receive either a combination of lopinavir (400 mg) and ritonavir (100 mg) twice a day on top of standard care (n = 99) or to standard care alone (n = 100) for 14 days. “Because of the emergency nature of the trial, placebos of lopinavir-ritonavir were not prepared,” Dr. Cao et al. explained, noting that standard care consisted of supplemental oxygen, ventilation, antibiotic treatment, vasopressor support, renal-replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

While the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, Dr. Cao et al. reported that patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group had a shorter stay in the intensive care unit than did those in the standard-care group, at a median of 6 versus 11 days. They also reported that the duration from randomization to hospital discharge was numerically shorter, at a median of 12 versus 14 days. Furthermore, there was a higher percentage of patients with clinical improvement at day 14 in the lopinavir-ritonavir group than in the standard-care group (45.5% vs. 30.0%)

“The trial was initiated in rapid response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, at which time there was very limited information about clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” the researchers observed. “The question of whether earlier lopinavir-ritonavir treatment in COVID-19 could have clinical benefit is an important one that requires further study,” they wrote.

Among the trial’s limitations are it was not blinded and the researchers do not have data on the lopinavir exposure levels in the trial participants.

“This was a heroic effort” in a “particularly challenging population,” Lindsey R. Baden, MD, and Eric J. Rubin, MD, stated in an editorial accompanying the article (Baden LR and Rubin EJ. New Engl J Med. March 18, 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe2005477). “Unfortunately, the trial results were disappointing,” they noted.

“The secondary end points provide both reason for hope and reason for discouragement,” wrote Dr. Baden and Dr. Rubin. The lack of effect on viral shedding, however, “strongly [suggests] that it did not have the activity desired” they observed.

Dr. Baden and Dr. Rubin commented that one of the important takeaways from the trial is that “the investigators appropriately prioritized speed, designing a trial that could rapidly produce an answer.” They continued that the investigators had shown that “rapidly initiated, high-quality randomized clinical trials are possible in epidemic conditions” and that results of such trials, whether they are positive or negative, “will be central to clinical care as the dangerous coronavirus outbreak continues.”

As it stands, more than 100 trials are listed in the ClinicalTrials.gov database as testing a wide range of different treatment approaches for COVID-19. These include trials investigating if sarilumab, hydroxychloroquine, fingolimod, bevacizumab, and losartan might have a role to play. There are also trials looking at the potential of other antiviral agents, such as Gilead’s investigational drug remdesivir, which has shown to have in vitro and in vivo activity against many emerging viral pathogens that cause Ebola, Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.

Dr. Cao’s trial was supported by grants from Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) Emergency Project of Covid-19, and a National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars.

All authors had no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

Dr. Baden is the director of clinical research in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the director of infectious diseases at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. He is a deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and chair of the FDA’s Antimicrobial Drug Advisory Committee. He is involved in HIV vaccine clinical trials and has received research grants from the Ragon Institute, the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Gates Foundation.

Dr. Rubin is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as editor-in-chief. He is an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and is chair and Irene Heinz Given Professor of Immunology and Infectious Diseases at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

SOURCE: Cao B et al. New Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282.