Infectious Disease Practitioner

Third-party vendor physicians appear to be more much more likely than their system-employed counterparts to prescribe antibiotics during acute care telehealth visits for acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a study in the Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare.

As health systems expand their direct-to-consumer (DTC) virtual care, the quality of that care seems to vary, write the authors. Patients with ARI symptoms make up about one-third of virtual visits. Prescribing practice is a commonly cited measure of care quality for ARI, which is usually viral and rarely benefits from antibiotics.

“When providing care through telehealth, hospital-affiliated emergency physicians practiced better antibiotic stewardship than vendor-supplied, non–hospital-affiliated physicians,” lead study author Kathleen Li, MD, MS, a clinical lecturer in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

“We had a sense that a difference existed, but the magnitude of the difference was larger than expected,” she said.

Dr. Li and her colleagues retrospectively analyzed on-demand telehealth visits available to health system employees and dependents of a large urban academic health system from March 2018, when the service began, through July 2019.

All 16 affiliated physicians providing ARI care were board-certified in emergency medicine, compared with 2 (8%) of the 25 unaffiliated (vendor-employed) physicians. Most unaffiliated physicians were known to be board-certified in family medicine, internal medicine, or pediatrics.

Unaffiliated physicians were not given access to the health system’s electronic medical record. Instead, all their patient histories, exams, assessments, plans, impressions, and discharge instructions were scanned into the electronic medical record system by other staff the next day.
 

Unaffiliated doctors were more than twice as likely to prescribe antibiotics

The researchers extracted data on all 257 virtual ARI visits from the electronic health record system, including prescriptions and medication therapeutic class. They performed multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for patient age and time of visit (weekday vs. weekend; day vs. overnight).

Antibiotic prescription rates were similar between weekday and weekend visits, and between day and night visits. Regardless of provider status, older patients were more likely to be prescribed antibiotics (P = .01). 

Overall, affiliated physicians prescribed antibiotics during 18% of visits, whereas vendor physicians prescribed antibiotics during 37% of visits. After adjustments, the odds were 2.3 times higher that a patient in a telehealth visit with a vendor provider would be prescribed antibiotics (95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.5).

The predicted antibiotic prescribing rate for ARI was 19% (95% confidence interval, 13%-25%) for affiliated providers vs. 35% (95% CI, 22%-47%) for unaffiliated providers, an average marginal effect of 15% (95% CI, 2%-29%). The difference was even greater (average marginal effect 20%, 95% CI, 4%-35%) when children and patients over 65 were excluded.
 

Consistent, high-quality care and antibiotic stewardship are needed in all settings

Three experts who were not involved in the study commented on the study.

Joshua W. Elder, MD, MPH, MHS, medical director of Telehealth Express Care (direct-to-consumer telemedicine) at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., said, “An important unanswered question is how factors such as communication (policy and procedures, practice guidelines), connection (electronic health records), and reimbursement and incentives that health system and vendor-based providers received impacted this outcome.

“As the volume of virtual practices grows, most health systems will need to create a hybrid between health-system-employed and vendor-and/or-payer-supplied physicians,” he added. “Finding ways to create similar quality and outcomes will be essential in the evolving digital health infrastructure being developed.”

Charles Teixeira, DO, an infectious disease specialist at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, said that this study highlighted the need to consistently provide high-quality, evidence-based care regardless of the encounter setting.

“It was important to compare the prescribing practices for commonly used medications, especially those as important as antibiotics,” he added. “Overprescribing antibiotics can have a progressive, long-term effect on a community and increase the risk for patients to develop multidrug-resistant bacteria.”

Jeffrey A. Linder, MD, MPH, the chief of general internal medicine and geriatrics in the department of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, commended the authors for investigating the quality of telehealth.

“The major limitation,” he found, “is that the investigators lumped all ARI visits – including those that are potentially antibiotic appropriate (e.g., otitis media, pharyngitis, sinusitis), those that are non–antibiotic appropriate (e.g., bronchitis, influenza, laryngitis, URI, viral syndrome), and those that are nonspecific symptoms (e.g., cough, congestion, fever, sore throat) – into the same category.”

No clinical information was collected or presented that would enable the reader to tell if these two groups of physicians were evaluating different patient populations or even if they just diagnosed patients differently,” he added.

“Our study did not delve into why we saw the difference,” Dr. Li explained. “Exploring potential reasons further will have important implications for how to optimally deliver care via telehealth.”

All authors and independent experts have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study received no financial support.

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

Third-party vendor physicians appear to be more much more likely than their system-employed counterparts to prescribe antibiotics during acute care telehealth visits for acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a study in the Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare.

As health systems expand their direct-to-consumer (DTC) virtual care, the quality of that care seems to vary, write the authors. Patients with ARI symptoms make up about one-third of virtual visits. Prescribing practice is a commonly cited measure of care quality for ARI, which is usually viral and rarely benefits from antibiotics.

“When providing care through telehealth, hospital-affiliated emergency physicians practiced better antibiotic stewardship than vendor-supplied, non–hospital-affiliated physicians,” lead study author Kathleen Li, MD, MS, a clinical lecturer in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

“We had a sense that a difference existed, but the magnitude of the difference was larger than expected,” she said.

Dr. Li and her colleagues retrospectively analyzed on-demand telehealth visits available to health system employees and dependents of a large urban academic health system from March 2018, when the service began, through July 2019.

All 16 affiliated physicians providing ARI care were board-certified in emergency medicine, compared with 2 (8%) of the 25 unaffiliated (vendor-employed) physicians. Most unaffiliated physicians were known to be board-certified in family medicine, internal medicine, or pediatrics.

Unaffiliated physicians were not given access to the health system’s electronic medical record. Instead, all their patient histories, exams, assessments, plans, impressions, and discharge instructions were scanned into the electronic medical record system by other staff the next day.
 

Unaffiliated doctors were more than twice as likely to prescribe antibiotics

The researchers extracted data on all 257 virtual ARI visits from the electronic health record system, including prescriptions and medication therapeutic class. They performed multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for patient age and time of visit (weekday vs. weekend; day vs. overnight).

Antibiotic prescription rates were similar between weekday and weekend visits, and between day and night visits. Regardless of provider status, older patients were more likely to be prescribed antibiotics (P = .01). 

Overall, affiliated physicians prescribed antibiotics during 18% of visits, whereas vendor physicians prescribed antibiotics during 37% of visits. After adjustments, the odds were 2.3 times higher that a patient in a telehealth visit with a vendor provider would be prescribed antibiotics (95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.5).

The predicted antibiotic prescribing rate for ARI was 19% (95% confidence interval, 13%-25%) for affiliated providers vs. 35% (95% CI, 22%-47%) for unaffiliated providers, an average marginal effect of 15% (95% CI, 2%-29%). The difference was even greater (average marginal effect 20%, 95% CI, 4%-35%) when children and patients over 65 were excluded.
 

Consistent, high-quality care and antibiotic stewardship are needed in all settings

Three experts who were not involved in the study commented on the study.

Joshua W. Elder, MD, MPH, MHS, medical director of Telehealth Express Care (direct-to-consumer telemedicine) at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., said, “An important unanswered question is how factors such as communication (policy and procedures, practice guidelines), connection (electronic health records), and reimbursement and incentives that health system and vendor-based providers received impacted this outcome.

“As the volume of virtual practices grows, most health systems will need to create a hybrid between health-system-employed and vendor-and/or-payer-supplied physicians,” he added. “Finding ways to create similar quality and outcomes will be essential in the evolving digital health infrastructure being developed.”

Charles Teixeira, DO, an infectious disease specialist at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, said that this study highlighted the need to consistently provide high-quality, evidence-based care regardless of the encounter setting.

“It was important to compare the prescribing practices for commonly used medications, especially those as important as antibiotics,” he added. “Overprescribing antibiotics can have a progressive, long-term effect on a community and increase the risk for patients to develop multidrug-resistant bacteria.”

Jeffrey A. Linder, MD, MPH, the chief of general internal medicine and geriatrics in the department of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, commended the authors for investigating the quality of telehealth.

“The major limitation,” he found, “is that the investigators lumped all ARI visits – including those that are potentially antibiotic appropriate (e.g., otitis media, pharyngitis, sinusitis), those that are non–antibiotic appropriate (e.g., bronchitis, influenza, laryngitis, URI, viral syndrome), and those that are nonspecific symptoms (e.g., cough, congestion, fever, sore throat) – into the same category.”

No clinical information was collected or presented that would enable the reader to tell if these two groups of physicians were evaluating different patient populations or even if they just diagnosed patients differently,” he added.

“Our study did not delve into why we saw the difference,” Dr. Li explained. “Exploring potential reasons further will have important implications for how to optimally deliver care via telehealth.”

All authors and independent experts have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study received no financial support.

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

Third-party vendor physicians appear to be more much more likely than their system-employed counterparts to prescribe antibiotics during acute care telehealth visits for acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a study in the Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare.

As health systems expand their direct-to-consumer (DTC) virtual care, the quality of that care seems to vary, write the authors. Patients with ARI symptoms make up about one-third of virtual visits. Prescribing practice is a commonly cited measure of care quality for ARI, which is usually viral and rarely benefits from antibiotics.

“When providing care through telehealth, hospital-affiliated emergency physicians practiced better antibiotic stewardship than vendor-supplied, non–hospital-affiliated physicians,” lead study author Kathleen Li, MD, MS, a clinical lecturer in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

“We had a sense that a difference existed, but the magnitude of the difference was larger than expected,” she said.

Dr. Li and her colleagues retrospectively analyzed on-demand telehealth visits available to health system employees and dependents of a large urban academic health system from March 2018, when the service began, through July 2019.

All 16 affiliated physicians providing ARI care were board-certified in emergency medicine, compared with 2 (8%) of the 25 unaffiliated (vendor-employed) physicians. Most unaffiliated physicians were known to be board-certified in family medicine, internal medicine, or pediatrics.

Unaffiliated physicians were not given access to the health system’s electronic medical record. Instead, all their patient histories, exams, assessments, plans, impressions, and discharge instructions were scanned into the electronic medical record system by other staff the next day.
 

Unaffiliated doctors were more than twice as likely to prescribe antibiotics

The researchers extracted data on all 257 virtual ARI visits from the electronic health record system, including prescriptions and medication therapeutic class. They performed multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for patient age and time of visit (weekday vs. weekend; day vs. overnight).

Antibiotic prescription rates were similar between weekday and weekend visits, and between day and night visits. Regardless of provider status, older patients were more likely to be prescribed antibiotics (P = .01). 

Overall, affiliated physicians prescribed antibiotics during 18% of visits, whereas vendor physicians prescribed antibiotics during 37% of visits. After adjustments, the odds were 2.3 times higher that a patient in a telehealth visit with a vendor provider would be prescribed antibiotics (95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.5).

The predicted antibiotic prescribing rate for ARI was 19% (95% confidence interval, 13%-25%) for affiliated providers vs. 35% (95% CI, 22%-47%) for unaffiliated providers, an average marginal effect of 15% (95% CI, 2%-29%). The difference was even greater (average marginal effect 20%, 95% CI, 4%-35%) when children and patients over 65 were excluded.
 

Consistent, high-quality care and antibiotic stewardship are needed in all settings

Three experts who were not involved in the study commented on the study.

Joshua W. Elder, MD, MPH, MHS, medical director of Telehealth Express Care (direct-to-consumer telemedicine) at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., said, “An important unanswered question is how factors such as communication (policy and procedures, practice guidelines), connection (electronic health records), and reimbursement and incentives that health system and vendor-based providers received impacted this outcome.

“As the volume of virtual practices grows, most health systems will need to create a hybrid between health-system-employed and vendor-and/or-payer-supplied physicians,” he added. “Finding ways to create similar quality and outcomes will be essential in the evolving digital health infrastructure being developed.”

Charles Teixeira, DO, an infectious disease specialist at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, said that this study highlighted the need to consistently provide high-quality, evidence-based care regardless of the encounter setting.

“It was important to compare the prescribing practices for commonly used medications, especially those as important as antibiotics,” he added. “Overprescribing antibiotics can have a progressive, long-term effect on a community and increase the risk for patients to develop multidrug-resistant bacteria.”

Jeffrey A. Linder, MD, MPH, the chief of general internal medicine and geriatrics in the department of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, commended the authors for investigating the quality of telehealth.

“The major limitation,” he found, “is that the investigators lumped all ARI visits – including those that are potentially antibiotic appropriate (e.g., otitis media, pharyngitis, sinusitis), those that are non–antibiotic appropriate (e.g., bronchitis, influenza, laryngitis, URI, viral syndrome), and those that are nonspecific symptoms (e.g., cough, congestion, fever, sore throat) – into the same category.”

No clinical information was collected or presented that would enable the reader to tell if these two groups of physicians were evaluating different patient populations or even if they just diagnosed patients differently,” he added.

“Our study did not delve into why we saw the difference,” Dr. Li explained. “Exploring potential reasons further will have important implications for how to optimally deliver care via telehealth.”

All authors and independent experts have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study received no financial support.

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

The World Health Organization now recommends shortened treatment for children with mild tuberculosis, as well as two oral TB treatments (bedaquiline and delamanid) for use in children of all ages. The updated guidelines for TB management in children and adolescents were announced March 21 ahead of World Tuberculosis Day on March 24.

The agency also called for increased investment in global TB programs, noting that in 2020, TB deaths increased for the first time in over a decade. “We cannot falter in our commitment to reach and save every man, woman, child, family, and community impacted by this deadly disease,” said Tereza Kasaeva, MD, PhD, director of the WHO Global Tuberculosis Programme during a press conference.

TB is the 13th-leading cause of death and the second top infectious killer after COVID-19, with more than 4,100 people dying from TB every day. WHO estimates that 1.1 million children fall ill with TB each year.
 

Calls for investment

The increase in TB deaths from 1.4 million in 2019 to 1.5 million in 2020 was coupled with a decrease in funding. From 2019-2020, global spending for TB diagnostic, treatment, and prevention services fell from $5.8 billion to $5.3 billion. This is less than half of the $13 billion target funding amount for 2022, Dr. Kasaeva said.

Efforts to expand access to TB care have fallen short mainly because of this lack of funding, especially for children. In 2020, about 63% of children under 15 years of age with TB either did not receive or were not reported to have access to TB diagnosis and treatment services, which rose to 72% in children under age 5. Almost two-thirds of children under age 5 also did not receive TB preventive treatment in 2022, according to WHO statistics.

The socioeconomic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East have “further exacerbated the situation,” Dr. Kasaeva said. “This conveys the urgent need to dramatically increase investments to ramp up the fight against TB and achieve commitments to end TB made by global leaders.”

Dr. Kasaeva laid out WHO’s main points for global investment in TB care:

• Increase domestic and international funding to close gaps in TB research and program implementation. For countries with smaller economies, increased international investment will be necessary in the short or medium term to help regain progress.
• Double funding for TB research, including vaccines.
• Invest in sustaining TB programs and services during the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing crises so care is not disrupted.

New guidelines

Dr. Kasaeva also noted that adoption of WHO’s new guidelines for children and adolescents should be fast-tracked to improve access to and quality of care. The updates include:

• Rapid molecular tests called Xpert Ultra should be used as the initial test for TB in children and adolescents.
• Diagnostic testing can now include noninvasive specimens, like stool samples.
• Children with mild TB can be treated with a , rather than 6 months. This shortened regimen will allow children to return to school faster and save money for families and the health care system, said Kerri Viney, MD, PhD, a team lead for the WHO Tuberculosis Programme, with a focus on vulnerable populations, including children. She presented the new guidelines during the WHO press conference.
• The recommended treatment regimen for TB meningitis has also been shortened from 12 to 6 months.

Two oral medications for drug-resistant TB (bedaquiline and delamanid) are now recommended for use in children of all ages. “There is no longer a need for painful injections that can have serious side effects, including deafness,” Dr. Viney said.

Health systems should develop new models of decentralized and integrated TB care to bring TB care closer to where children live.

The guidelines are available on the WHO website.

“The WHO guidelines issued today are a game changer for children and adolescents with TB,” Dr. Kasaeva said. The next step is assisting countries in implementing these updates so that children and adolescents globally have access to high quality TB care,” Dr. Viney added. “We have the policy recommendations. We have the implementation guidance, we have child-friendly formulations of TB medicines,” she said. “Let us not wait any longer. Let us invest to end TB in children and adolescents.”

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

The World Health Organization now recommends shortened treatment for children with mild tuberculosis, as well as two oral TB treatments (bedaquiline and delamanid) for use in children of all ages. The updated guidelines for TB management in children and adolescents were announced March 21 ahead of World Tuberculosis Day on March 24.

The agency also called for increased investment in global TB programs, noting that in 2020, TB deaths increased for the first time in over a decade. “We cannot falter in our commitment to reach and save every man, woman, child, family, and community impacted by this deadly disease,” said Tereza Kasaeva, MD, PhD, director of the WHO Global Tuberculosis Programme during a press conference.

TB is the 13th-leading cause of death and the second top infectious killer after COVID-19, with more than 4,100 people dying from TB every day. WHO estimates that 1.1 million children fall ill with TB each year.
 

Calls for investment

The increase in TB deaths from 1.4 million in 2019 to 1.5 million in 2020 was coupled with a decrease in funding. From 2019-2020, global spending for TB diagnostic, treatment, and prevention services fell from $5.8 billion to $5.3 billion. This is less than half of the $13 billion target funding amount for 2022, Dr. Kasaeva said.

Efforts to expand access to TB care have fallen short mainly because of this lack of funding, especially for children. In 2020, about 63% of children under 15 years of age with TB either did not receive or were not reported to have access to TB diagnosis and treatment services, which rose to 72% in children under age 5. Almost two-thirds of children under age 5 also did not receive TB preventive treatment in 2022, according to WHO statistics.

The socioeconomic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East have “further exacerbated the situation,” Dr. Kasaeva said. “This conveys the urgent need to dramatically increase investments to ramp up the fight against TB and achieve commitments to end TB made by global leaders.”

Dr. Kasaeva laid out WHO’s main points for global investment in TB care:

• Increase domestic and international funding to close gaps in TB research and program implementation. For countries with smaller economies, increased international investment will be necessary in the short or medium term to help regain progress.
• Double funding for TB research, including vaccines.
• Invest in sustaining TB programs and services during the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing crises so care is not disrupted.

New guidelines

Dr. Kasaeva also noted that adoption of WHO’s new guidelines for children and adolescents should be fast-tracked to improve access to and quality of care. The updates include:

• Rapid molecular tests called Xpert Ultra should be used as the initial test for TB in children and adolescents.
• Diagnostic testing can now include noninvasive specimens, like stool samples.
• Children with mild TB can be treated with a , rather than 6 months. This shortened regimen will allow children to return to school faster and save money for families and the health care system, said Kerri Viney, MD, PhD, a team lead for the WHO Tuberculosis Programme, with a focus on vulnerable populations, including children. She presented the new guidelines during the WHO press conference.
• The recommended treatment regimen for TB meningitis has also been shortened from 12 to 6 months.

Two oral medications for drug-resistant TB (bedaquiline and delamanid) are now recommended for use in children of all ages. “There is no longer a need for painful injections that can have serious side effects, including deafness,” Dr. Viney said.

Health systems should develop new models of decentralized and integrated TB care to bring TB care closer to where children live.

The guidelines are available on the WHO website.

“The WHO guidelines issued today are a game changer for children and adolescents with TB,” Dr. Kasaeva said. The next step is assisting countries in implementing these updates so that children and adolescents globally have access to high quality TB care,” Dr. Viney added. “We have the policy recommendations. We have the implementation guidance, we have child-friendly formulations of TB medicines,” she said. “Let us not wait any longer. Let us invest to end TB in children and adolescents.”

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

The World Health Organization now recommends shortened treatment for children with mild tuberculosis, as well as two oral TB treatments (bedaquiline and delamanid) for use in children of all ages. The updated guidelines for TB management in children and adolescents were announced March 21 ahead of World Tuberculosis Day on March 24.

The agency also called for increased investment in global TB programs, noting that in 2020, TB deaths increased for the first time in over a decade. “We cannot falter in our commitment to reach and save every man, woman, child, family, and community impacted by this deadly disease,” said Tereza Kasaeva, MD, PhD, director of the WHO Global Tuberculosis Programme during a press conference.

TB is the 13th-leading cause of death and the second top infectious killer after COVID-19, with more than 4,100 people dying from TB every day. WHO estimates that 1.1 million children fall ill with TB each year.
 

Calls for investment

The increase in TB deaths from 1.4 million in 2019 to 1.5 million in 2020 was coupled with a decrease in funding. From 2019-2020, global spending for TB diagnostic, treatment, and prevention services fell from $5.8 billion to $5.3 billion. This is less than half of the $13 billion target funding amount for 2022, Dr. Kasaeva said.

Efforts to expand access to TB care have fallen short mainly because of this lack of funding, especially for children. In 2020, about 63% of children under 15 years of age with TB either did not receive or were not reported to have access to TB diagnosis and treatment services, which rose to 72% in children under age 5. Almost two-thirds of children under age 5 also did not receive TB preventive treatment in 2022, according to WHO statistics.

The socioeconomic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East have “further exacerbated the situation,” Dr. Kasaeva said. “This conveys the urgent need to dramatically increase investments to ramp up the fight against TB and achieve commitments to end TB made by global leaders.”

Dr. Kasaeva laid out WHO’s main points for global investment in TB care:

• Increase domestic and international funding to close gaps in TB research and program implementation. For countries with smaller economies, increased international investment will be necessary in the short or medium term to help regain progress.
• Double funding for TB research, including vaccines.
• Invest in sustaining TB programs and services during the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing crises so care is not disrupted.

New guidelines

Dr. Kasaeva also noted that adoption of WHO’s new guidelines for children and adolescents should be fast-tracked to improve access to and quality of care. The updates include:

• Rapid molecular tests called Xpert Ultra should be used as the initial test for TB in children and adolescents.
• Diagnostic testing can now include noninvasive specimens, like stool samples.
• Children with mild TB can be treated with a , rather than 6 months. This shortened regimen will allow children to return to school faster and save money for families and the health care system, said Kerri Viney, MD, PhD, a team lead for the WHO Tuberculosis Programme, with a focus on vulnerable populations, including children. She presented the new guidelines during the WHO press conference.
• The recommended treatment regimen for TB meningitis has also been shortened from 12 to 6 months.

Two oral medications for drug-resistant TB (bedaquiline and delamanid) are now recommended for use in children of all ages. “There is no longer a need for painful injections that can have serious side effects, including deafness,” Dr. Viney said.

Health systems should develop new models of decentralized and integrated TB care to bring TB care closer to where children live.

The guidelines are available on the WHO website.

“The WHO guidelines issued today are a game changer for children and adolescents with TB,” Dr. Kasaeva said. The next step is assisting countries in implementing these updates so that children and adolescents globally have access to high quality TB care,” Dr. Viney added. “We have the policy recommendations. We have the implementation guidance, we have child-friendly formulations of TB medicines,” she said. “Let us not wait any longer. Let us invest to end TB in children and adolescents.”

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

Key takeaways

Results from a retrospective, observational, case-control study of more than 20,000 people from a single U.S. medical center showed a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increase in A1c in people following COVID-19 infection, in both those with and without diabetes.

After people received a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, they were 40% more likely to also receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, compared with people who tested negative for COVID-19, a difference that was significant and could be explained by the increased medical care received by people who test positive for COVID-19.

The risk of incident diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) among people who tested positive for COVID-19 was significantly higher among those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, those using insulin, and among Black individuals.
 

Why this matters

The authors said that their study is the first report of evidence that infection with COVID-19 affects A1c levels in a large, real-world clinical cohort.

Until now, the impact of COVID-19 infection on A1c remained unclear. Results from previous studies indicated that COVID-19 infection may increase A1c levels, but the studied cohorts were small and lacked uninfected controls.

The current study included 8,755 people infected with COVID-19, had data from both before and after the infection on diabetes status and A1c levels, and also included many matched, uninfected people who served as controls.
 

Study design

Data came from a Cleveland Clinic registry that included 81,093 people who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2021 and 153,034 matched individuals who tested negative for COVID-19 during the same period.

The researchers retrospectively selected patients with an A1c recorded within 12 months before their COVID-19 test, as well as a second A1c value recorded within 12 months after COVID-19 testing. This produced a study cohort of 8,755 COVID-positive people and 11,998 matched people who tested negative for COVID-19.

To evaluate the risk of DKA onset after COVID-19 infection, the authors identified two sub-cohorts that excluded those with a history of DKA. The sub-cohorts were 701 people with type 1 diabetes and 21,830 with type 2 diabetes.
 

Key results

The investigators found a statistically significant but clinically insignificant A1c increase following a positive COVID-19 test, an average A1c increase of 0.06 percentage points. Those who tested negative for COVID-19 had a clinically insignificant change in their average A1c level that was of borderline statistical significance, an average increase of 0.02 percentage points (P = .05).

The statistically significant but clinically insignificant increase in A1c following infection with COVID-19 was similar in people with and without type 2 diabetes prior to infection.

In patients with type 2 diabetes who became infected with COVID-19, the researchers saw significant positive associations between higher A1c levels before infection and time to hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.07), need for assisted breathing (HR, 1.06), and ICU admission (HR, 1.07).

Following a COVID-19 infection, people were 40% more likely to receive a diagnosis of incident type 2 diabetes, compared with matched uninfected people. The authors said a possible explanation is that after diagnosis of COVID-19, infected people in general received more intensified care that led to better identification of those with underlying type 2 diabetes.

The 701 people included with pre-existing type 1 diabetes showed no significant difference in their rate of developing DKA between those infected and not infected with COVID-19.

Among the 21,830 people with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, the DKA risk was a significant 35% greater for those who were infected with COVID-19, compared with those who were uninfected. The magnitude of this increased relative risk was even higher among the patients with type 2 diabetes who used insulin as part of their treatment.  

The difference in DKA risk didn’t differ between Black and White patients who were not infected with COVID-19, but among those infected by COVID-19, Black patients were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with DKA, compared with White patients, a significant difference.

Black patients with type 2 diabetes who became infected with COVID-19 had a significant (63%) increased rate of DKA compared with Black patients with type 2 diabetes who remained uninfected.
 

Limitations

The study included patients with A1c measurements made up to 12 months prior to their COVID-19 test, and hence comorbid conditions, medication changes during this period, or other factors may have affected subsequent A1c levels. To address this, the authors also assessed outcomes at 3- and 6-month intervals, which produced results consistent with the 12-month findings.

The researchers did not have A1c values for many of the more than 234,000 people in the entire registry who underwent COVID-19 testing from March 2020-May 2021 at the Cleveland Clinic, omissions that may have biased the study cohort.

This was a single-center study. Some patients may have received care outside of the center, hence records of those episodes could not be included.
 

Disclosures

The study received no commercial funding. Four authors received consulting and speaker honoraria and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept Therapeutics, Diasome, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Three authors have intellectual property related to treatment decisionmaking in the context of type 2 diabetes.

This is a summary of a preprint research study “Impacts of COVID-19 on glycemia and risk of diabetic ketoacidosis,” written by researchers at the Cleveland Clinic on medRxiv. The study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.

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

Key takeaways

Results from a retrospective, observational, case-control study of more than 20,000 people from a single U.S. medical center showed a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increase in A1c in people following COVID-19 infection, in both those with and without diabetes.

After people received a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, they were 40% more likely to also receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, compared with people who tested negative for COVID-19, a difference that was significant and could be explained by the increased medical care received by people who test positive for COVID-19.

The risk of incident diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) among people who tested positive for COVID-19 was significantly higher among those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, those using insulin, and among Black individuals.
 

Why this matters

The authors said that their study is the first report of evidence that infection with COVID-19 affects A1c levels in a large, real-world clinical cohort.

Until now, the impact of COVID-19 infection on A1c remained unclear. Results from previous studies indicated that COVID-19 infection may increase A1c levels, but the studied cohorts were small and lacked uninfected controls.

The current study included 8,755 people infected with COVID-19, had data from both before and after the infection on diabetes status and A1c levels, and also included many matched, uninfected people who served as controls.
 

Study design

Data came from a Cleveland Clinic registry that included 81,093 people who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2021 and 153,034 matched individuals who tested negative for COVID-19 during the same period.

The researchers retrospectively selected patients with an A1c recorded within 12 months before their COVID-19 test, as well as a second A1c value recorded within 12 months after COVID-19 testing. This produced a study cohort of 8,755 COVID-positive people and 11,998 matched people who tested negative for COVID-19.

To evaluate the risk of DKA onset after COVID-19 infection, the authors identified two sub-cohorts that excluded those with a history of DKA. The sub-cohorts were 701 people with type 1 diabetes and 21,830 with type 2 diabetes.
 

Key results

The investigators found a statistically significant but clinically insignificant A1c increase following a positive COVID-19 test, an average A1c increase of 0.06 percentage points. Those who tested negative for COVID-19 had a clinically insignificant change in their average A1c level that was of borderline statistical significance, an average increase of 0.02 percentage points (P = .05).

The statistically significant but clinically insignificant increase in A1c following infection with COVID-19 was similar in people with and without type 2 diabetes prior to infection.

In patients with type 2 diabetes who became infected with COVID-19, the researchers saw significant positive associations between higher A1c levels before infection and time to hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.07), need for assisted breathing (HR, 1.06), and ICU admission (HR, 1.07).

Following a COVID-19 infection, people were 40% more likely to receive a diagnosis of incident type 2 diabetes, compared with matched uninfected people. The authors said a possible explanation is that after diagnosis of COVID-19, infected people in general received more intensified care that led to better identification of those with underlying type 2 diabetes.

The 701 people included with pre-existing type 1 diabetes showed no significant difference in their rate of developing DKA between those infected and not infected with COVID-19.

Among the 21,830 people with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, the DKA risk was a significant 35% greater for those who were infected with COVID-19, compared with those who were uninfected. The magnitude of this increased relative risk was even higher among the patients with type 2 diabetes who used insulin as part of their treatment.  

The difference in DKA risk didn’t differ between Black and White patients who were not infected with COVID-19, but among those infected by COVID-19, Black patients were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with DKA, compared with White patients, a significant difference.

Black patients with type 2 diabetes who became infected with COVID-19 had a significant (63%) increased rate of DKA compared with Black patients with type 2 diabetes who remained uninfected.
 

Limitations

The study included patients with A1c measurements made up to 12 months prior to their COVID-19 test, and hence comorbid conditions, medication changes during this period, or other factors may have affected subsequent A1c levels. To address this, the authors also assessed outcomes at 3- and 6-month intervals, which produced results consistent with the 12-month findings.

The researchers did not have A1c values for many of the more than 234,000 people in the entire registry who underwent COVID-19 testing from March 2020-May 2021 at the Cleveland Clinic, omissions that may have biased the study cohort.

This was a single-center study. Some patients may have received care outside of the center, hence records of those episodes could not be included.
 

Disclosures

The study received no commercial funding. Four authors received consulting and speaker honoraria and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept Therapeutics, Diasome, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Three authors have intellectual property related to treatment decisionmaking in the context of type 2 diabetes.

This is a summary of a preprint research study “Impacts of COVID-19 on glycemia and risk of diabetic ketoacidosis,” written by researchers at the Cleveland Clinic on medRxiv. The study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.

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

Key takeaways

Results from a retrospective, observational, case-control study of more than 20,000 people from a single U.S. medical center showed a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increase in A1c in people following COVID-19 infection, in both those with and without diabetes.

After people received a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, they were 40% more likely to also receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, compared with people who tested negative for COVID-19, a difference that was significant and could be explained by the increased medical care received by people who test positive for COVID-19.

The risk of incident diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) among people who tested positive for COVID-19 was significantly higher among those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, those using insulin, and among Black individuals.
 

Why this matters

The authors said that their study is the first report of evidence that infection with COVID-19 affects A1c levels in a large, real-world clinical cohort.

Until now, the impact of COVID-19 infection on A1c remained unclear. Results from previous studies indicated that COVID-19 infection may increase A1c levels, but the studied cohorts were small and lacked uninfected controls.

The current study included 8,755 people infected with COVID-19, had data from both before and after the infection on diabetes status and A1c levels, and also included many matched, uninfected people who served as controls.
 

Study design

Data came from a Cleveland Clinic registry that included 81,093 people who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2021 and 153,034 matched individuals who tested negative for COVID-19 during the same period.

The researchers retrospectively selected patients with an A1c recorded within 12 months before their COVID-19 test, as well as a second A1c value recorded within 12 months after COVID-19 testing. This produced a study cohort of 8,755 COVID-positive people and 11,998 matched people who tested negative for COVID-19.

To evaluate the risk of DKA onset after COVID-19 infection, the authors identified two sub-cohorts that excluded those with a history of DKA. The sub-cohorts were 701 people with type 1 diabetes and 21,830 with type 2 diabetes.
 

Key results

The investigators found a statistically significant but clinically insignificant A1c increase following a positive COVID-19 test, an average A1c increase of 0.06 percentage points. Those who tested negative for COVID-19 had a clinically insignificant change in their average A1c level that was of borderline statistical significance, an average increase of 0.02 percentage points (P = .05).

The statistically significant but clinically insignificant increase in A1c following infection with COVID-19 was similar in people with and without type 2 diabetes prior to infection.

In patients with type 2 diabetes who became infected with COVID-19, the researchers saw significant positive associations between higher A1c levels before infection and time to hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.07), need for assisted breathing (HR, 1.06), and ICU admission (HR, 1.07).

Following a COVID-19 infection, people were 40% more likely to receive a diagnosis of incident type 2 diabetes, compared with matched uninfected people. The authors said a possible explanation is that after diagnosis of COVID-19, infected people in general received more intensified care that led to better identification of those with underlying type 2 diabetes.

The 701 people included with pre-existing type 1 diabetes showed no significant difference in their rate of developing DKA between those infected and not infected with COVID-19.

Among the 21,830 people with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, the DKA risk was a significant 35% greater for those who were infected with COVID-19, compared with those who were uninfected. The magnitude of this increased relative risk was even higher among the patients with type 2 diabetes who used insulin as part of their treatment.  

The difference in DKA risk didn’t differ between Black and White patients who were not infected with COVID-19, but among those infected by COVID-19, Black patients were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with DKA, compared with White patients, a significant difference.

Black patients with type 2 diabetes who became infected with COVID-19 had a significant (63%) increased rate of DKA compared with Black patients with type 2 diabetes who remained uninfected.
 

Limitations

The study included patients with A1c measurements made up to 12 months prior to their COVID-19 test, and hence comorbid conditions, medication changes during this period, or other factors may have affected subsequent A1c levels. To address this, the authors also assessed outcomes at 3- and 6-month intervals, which produced results consistent with the 12-month findings.

The researchers did not have A1c values for many of the more than 234,000 people in the entire registry who underwent COVID-19 testing from March 2020-May 2021 at the Cleveland Clinic, omissions that may have biased the study cohort.

This was a single-center study. Some patients may have received care outside of the center, hence records of those episodes could not be included.
 

Disclosures

The study received no commercial funding. Four authors received consulting and speaker honoraria and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept Therapeutics, Diasome, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Three authors have intellectual property related to treatment decisionmaking in the context of type 2 diabetes.

This is a summary of a preprint research study “Impacts of COVID-19 on glycemia and risk of diabetic ketoacidosis,” written by researchers at the Cleveland Clinic on medRxiv. The study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

Aerosolized hydrogen peroxide (aHP) can significantly reduce Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) and is an effective disinfection system, suggests a study published in the American Journal of Infection Control.

C. difficile is the most common cause of health care–associated infection and increasingly occurs outside acute care hospitals. CDI symptoms can range from mild diarrhea to life-threatening colitis and sepsis, sometimes requiring urgent colon removal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that, in the United States, 223,900 people required hospitalization for CDI and at least 12,800 died in 2017. Because of its large toll, CDI is grouped with antimicrobial-resistant “threat” organisms that often accompany it. People older than age 65 are at particular risk for disease, and at least 20% of patients experience recurrence.

In health care facilities, C. difficile is transmitted by bacterial spores that readily contaminate surfaces in patients’ rooms, from handrails to bedside tables to light switches and knobs. The spores are resistant to disinfectants, and rooms are often cleaned with bleach solutions. But those bleach fumes are irritating and may cause bronchospasm for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and so alternative cleaning agents are needed.

In a retrospective study of an acute-care facility in Philadelphia, researchers compared the incidence of health care–associated CDI (HA-CDI) at the facility before and after adding aHP to other infection control practices. The aHP process produces an aerosolized dry-mist fog that contains a specified percentage of hydrogen peroxide. The fog is used after the room has been physically cleaned, settling on exposed surfaces and killing any remaining C. difficile spores.

The aHP mixture also contains 0.01% ionic silver. The study lead was Christopher L. Truitt, PhD, of Wayland Baptist University. Dr. Truitt told this news organization that hydrogen peroxide affects the endospore layer of the C. difficile organism and allows the “ionic silver to get into the cell and is shown to bind to enzymes and inactivate those inside the cell and actually improve the efficacy.”

Asked whether it’s the silver or the peroxide that disinfects, Dr. Truitt replied: “I can’t answer that. We don’t know if it’s the silver or the hydrogen peroxide. The commercially available chemical that’s used in that machine is a proprietary set-up ... with EPA approval as a sporicidal.”

In the baseline 27-month period, the hospital tallied 120 HA-CDI cases. After aHP was introduced, they counted just 72 cases over 33 months, a 41% decrease in the facility’s HA-CDI rate, from 4.6 per 10,000 patient-days to 2.7 per 10,000 patient-days (P < .001).

There was also a progressive decrease in hospital-onset CDI even after aHP was introduced, from 5.4 per 10,000 patient-days in 2015 to 1.4 per 10,000 patient-days in 2019.

Yoav Golan, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization there were two major study limitations. “One is the fact that they did not control for other interventions that may have an effect on C. difficile: antibiotic stewardship and infection control,” he explained. This limitation was noted by the study authors and may explain the continued decline in infections after the introduction of aHP. The other limitation was not using a crossover study design.

“I would argue that they should have provided a little more information about their own practices in their own hospital when it comes to intensification of infection control [and] when it comes to a stewardship and changes that they’ve made to antibiotic usage,” Dr. Golan continued. “The description of changes over time and those practices would have allowed us to better understand the impact of the hydrogen peroxide intervention.”

Despite his criticisms, Dr. Golan concluded: “I think that the study is important. I think their intervention is unique in a way that they’ve been using an aerosolizing system that’s using a relatively high concentration of hydrogen peroxide. I think that there’s enough in this paper to suggest that using such a system may have an impact on the environment, and through that, on dissemination.”

Dr. Truitt added that a next step would be to compare aHP with ultraviolet light, which is commonly used to disinfect hospital rooms.

Dr. Truitt is chief science officer at Infection Controls, dba Germblast, a proprietary service that uses cold-mist hydrogen peroxide and other modalities to disinfect surfaces. Dr. Golan has reported being a consultant for Merck, Seres Therapeutics, Vedanta Biosciences, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

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

Aerosolized hydrogen peroxide (aHP) can significantly reduce Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) and is an effective disinfection system, suggests a study published in the American Journal of Infection Control.

C. difficile is the most common cause of health care–associated infection and increasingly occurs outside acute care hospitals. CDI symptoms can range from mild diarrhea to life-threatening colitis and sepsis, sometimes requiring urgent colon removal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that, in the United States, 223,900 people required hospitalization for CDI and at least 12,800 died in 2017. Because of its large toll, CDI is grouped with antimicrobial-resistant “threat” organisms that often accompany it. People older than age 65 are at particular risk for disease, and at least 20% of patients experience recurrence.

In health care facilities, C. difficile is transmitted by bacterial spores that readily contaminate surfaces in patients’ rooms, from handrails to bedside tables to light switches and knobs. The spores are resistant to disinfectants, and rooms are often cleaned with bleach solutions. But those bleach fumes are irritating and may cause bronchospasm for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and so alternative cleaning agents are needed.

In a retrospective study of an acute-care facility in Philadelphia, researchers compared the incidence of health care–associated CDI (HA-CDI) at the facility before and after adding aHP to other infection control practices. The aHP process produces an aerosolized dry-mist fog that contains a specified percentage of hydrogen peroxide. The fog is used after the room has been physically cleaned, settling on exposed surfaces and killing any remaining C. difficile spores.

The aHP mixture also contains 0.01% ionic silver. The study lead was Christopher L. Truitt, PhD, of Wayland Baptist University. Dr. Truitt told this news organization that hydrogen peroxide affects the endospore layer of the C. difficile organism and allows the “ionic silver to get into the cell and is shown to bind to enzymes and inactivate those inside the cell and actually improve the efficacy.”

Asked whether it’s the silver or the peroxide that disinfects, Dr. Truitt replied: “I can’t answer that. We don’t know if it’s the silver or the hydrogen peroxide. The commercially available chemical that’s used in that machine is a proprietary set-up ... with EPA approval as a sporicidal.”

In the baseline 27-month period, the hospital tallied 120 HA-CDI cases. After aHP was introduced, they counted just 72 cases over 33 months, a 41% decrease in the facility’s HA-CDI rate, from 4.6 per 10,000 patient-days to 2.7 per 10,000 patient-days (P < .001).

There was also a progressive decrease in hospital-onset CDI even after aHP was introduced, from 5.4 per 10,000 patient-days in 2015 to 1.4 per 10,000 patient-days in 2019.

Yoav Golan, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization there were two major study limitations. “One is the fact that they did not control for other interventions that may have an effect on C. difficile: antibiotic stewardship and infection control,” he explained. This limitation was noted by the study authors and may explain the continued decline in infections after the introduction of aHP. The other limitation was not using a crossover study design.

“I would argue that they should have provided a little more information about their own practices in their own hospital when it comes to intensification of infection control [and] when it comes to a stewardship and changes that they’ve made to antibiotic usage,” Dr. Golan continued. “The description of changes over time and those practices would have allowed us to better understand the impact of the hydrogen peroxide intervention.”

Despite his criticisms, Dr. Golan concluded: “I think that the study is important. I think their intervention is unique in a way that they’ve been using an aerosolizing system that’s using a relatively high concentration of hydrogen peroxide. I think that there’s enough in this paper to suggest that using such a system may have an impact on the environment, and through that, on dissemination.”

Dr. Truitt added that a next step would be to compare aHP with ultraviolet light, which is commonly used to disinfect hospital rooms.

Dr. Truitt is chief science officer at Infection Controls, dba Germblast, a proprietary service that uses cold-mist hydrogen peroxide and other modalities to disinfect surfaces. Dr. Golan has reported being a consultant for Merck, Seres Therapeutics, Vedanta Biosciences, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

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

Aerosolized hydrogen peroxide (aHP) can significantly reduce Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) and is an effective disinfection system, suggests a study published in the American Journal of Infection Control.

C. difficile is the most common cause of health care–associated infection and increasingly occurs outside acute care hospitals. CDI symptoms can range from mild diarrhea to life-threatening colitis and sepsis, sometimes requiring urgent colon removal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that, in the United States, 223,900 people required hospitalization for CDI and at least 12,800 died in 2017. Because of its large toll, CDI is grouped with antimicrobial-resistant “threat” organisms that often accompany it. People older than age 65 are at particular risk for disease, and at least 20% of patients experience recurrence.

In health care facilities, C. difficile is transmitted by bacterial spores that readily contaminate surfaces in patients’ rooms, from handrails to bedside tables to light switches and knobs. The spores are resistant to disinfectants, and rooms are often cleaned with bleach solutions. But those bleach fumes are irritating and may cause bronchospasm for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and so alternative cleaning agents are needed.

In a retrospective study of an acute-care facility in Philadelphia, researchers compared the incidence of health care–associated CDI (HA-CDI) at the facility before and after adding aHP to other infection control practices. The aHP process produces an aerosolized dry-mist fog that contains a specified percentage of hydrogen peroxide. The fog is used after the room has been physically cleaned, settling on exposed surfaces and killing any remaining C. difficile spores.

The aHP mixture also contains 0.01% ionic silver. The study lead was Christopher L. Truitt, PhD, of Wayland Baptist University. Dr. Truitt told this news organization that hydrogen peroxide affects the endospore layer of the C. difficile organism and allows the “ionic silver to get into the cell and is shown to bind to enzymes and inactivate those inside the cell and actually improve the efficacy.”

Asked whether it’s the silver or the peroxide that disinfects, Dr. Truitt replied: “I can’t answer that. We don’t know if it’s the silver or the hydrogen peroxide. The commercially available chemical that’s used in that machine is a proprietary set-up ... with EPA approval as a sporicidal.”

In the baseline 27-month period, the hospital tallied 120 HA-CDI cases. After aHP was introduced, they counted just 72 cases over 33 months, a 41% decrease in the facility’s HA-CDI rate, from 4.6 per 10,000 patient-days to 2.7 per 10,000 patient-days (P < .001).

There was also a progressive decrease in hospital-onset CDI even after aHP was introduced, from 5.4 per 10,000 patient-days in 2015 to 1.4 per 10,000 patient-days in 2019.

Yoav Golan, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization there were two major study limitations. “One is the fact that they did not control for other interventions that may have an effect on C. difficile: antibiotic stewardship and infection control,” he explained. This limitation was noted by the study authors and may explain the continued decline in infections after the introduction of aHP. The other limitation was not using a crossover study design.

“I would argue that they should have provided a little more information about their own practices in their own hospital when it comes to intensification of infection control [and] when it comes to a stewardship and changes that they’ve made to antibiotic usage,” Dr. Golan continued. “The description of changes over time and those practices would have allowed us to better understand the impact of the hydrogen peroxide intervention.”

Despite his criticisms, Dr. Golan concluded: “I think that the study is important. I think their intervention is unique in a way that they’ve been using an aerosolizing system that’s using a relatively high concentration of hydrogen peroxide. I think that there’s enough in this paper to suggest that using such a system may have an impact on the environment, and through that, on dissemination.”

Dr. Truitt added that a next step would be to compare aHP with ultraviolet light, which is commonly used to disinfect hospital rooms.

Dr. Truitt is chief science officer at Infection Controls, dba Germblast, a proprietary service that uses cold-mist hydrogen peroxide and other modalities to disinfect surfaces. Dr. Golan has reported being a consultant for Merck, Seres Therapeutics, Vedanta Biosciences, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

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

COVID-19 patients who are successfully weaned off a ventilator may take days, or even weeks, to regain consciousness, especially those who experienced episodes of hypoxemia while intubated, a new study shows.

“As we started to see the first patients waking up after successful COVID-19 ICU treatments, we also encountered many patients who remained comatose for days and weeks and then regained consciousness to become fully oriented,” co-senior investigator Nicholas Schiff, MD, with NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, says in a news release.

The findings have immediate implications regarding life-sustaining therapies for unresponsive COVID-19 patients, the investigators note.

“In critical care medicine, one of our main tasks is to advise families about planning in the event a patient does not regain consciousness,” said co-senior author Jan Claassen, MD, with New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. 

“Our findings suggest that for patients with severe COVID, the decision to withdraw life support shouldn’t be based solely on prolonged periods of unconsciousness, as these patients may eventually recover,” Dr. Claassen adds.

The study was published online March 7 in Annals of Neurology.
 

Slow road back

The researchers examined 795 intubated patients with severe COVID-19 at three medical centers in New York during the first wave of the pandemic (March-July 2020). All patients had impaired consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] motor score less than 6) on day 7 of intubation.

A total of 571 patients (72%) survived and regained consciousness.

The median time to recovery of consciousness was 30 days. One-quarter of the patients recovered consciousness 10 days or longer after they stopped receiving ventilator support and 10% took 23 days or longer to recover.

Time to recovery of consciousness was associated with hypoxemia. The hazard ratio was 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.68) with arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) less than or equal to 55 mm Hg and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91) with a PaO2 less than or equal to 70 mm Hg.

Each additional day of hypoxemia decreased the odds of recovery of consciousness after accounting for confounding factors including sedation.

These findings were confirmed among patients without any imaging evidence of structural brain injury and in a non-overlapping cohort of 427 patients from the second wave of the pandemic (October-April 2021).

“These findings provide us with more accurate information to guide families who are deciding whether to continue life-sustaining therapy in unconscious COVID-19 patients,” co-senior author Brian Edlow, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, says in the news release.

“Encouragingly,” adds Dr. Claassen, “our study shows that the vast majority of unconscious COVID patients recover consciousness, but it is important to consider that we did not look at the quality of recovery. That’s something that should be the focus of long-term follow-up studies.”

The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation (JSMF). Dr. Schiff, Dr. Claassen, and Dr. Edlow have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 patients who are successfully weaned off a ventilator may take days, or even weeks, to regain consciousness, especially those who experienced episodes of hypoxemia while intubated, a new study shows.

“As we started to see the first patients waking up after successful COVID-19 ICU treatments, we also encountered many patients who remained comatose for days and weeks and then regained consciousness to become fully oriented,” co-senior investigator Nicholas Schiff, MD, with NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, says in a news release.

The findings have immediate implications regarding life-sustaining therapies for unresponsive COVID-19 patients, the investigators note.

“In critical care medicine, one of our main tasks is to advise families about planning in the event a patient does not regain consciousness,” said co-senior author Jan Claassen, MD, with New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. 

“Our findings suggest that for patients with severe COVID, the decision to withdraw life support shouldn’t be based solely on prolonged periods of unconsciousness, as these patients may eventually recover,” Dr. Claassen adds.

The study was published online March 7 in Annals of Neurology.
 

Slow road back

The researchers examined 795 intubated patients with severe COVID-19 at three medical centers in New York during the first wave of the pandemic (March-July 2020). All patients had impaired consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] motor score less than 6) on day 7 of intubation.

A total of 571 patients (72%) survived and regained consciousness.

The median time to recovery of consciousness was 30 days. One-quarter of the patients recovered consciousness 10 days or longer after they stopped receiving ventilator support and 10% took 23 days or longer to recover.

Time to recovery of consciousness was associated with hypoxemia. The hazard ratio was 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.68) with arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) less than or equal to 55 mm Hg and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91) with a PaO2 less than or equal to 70 mm Hg.

Each additional day of hypoxemia decreased the odds of recovery of consciousness after accounting for confounding factors including sedation.

These findings were confirmed among patients without any imaging evidence of structural brain injury and in a non-overlapping cohort of 427 patients from the second wave of the pandemic (October-April 2021).

“These findings provide us with more accurate information to guide families who are deciding whether to continue life-sustaining therapy in unconscious COVID-19 patients,” co-senior author Brian Edlow, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, says in the news release.

“Encouragingly,” adds Dr. Claassen, “our study shows that the vast majority of unconscious COVID patients recover consciousness, but it is important to consider that we did not look at the quality of recovery. That’s something that should be the focus of long-term follow-up studies.”

The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation (JSMF). Dr. Schiff, Dr. Claassen, and Dr. Edlow have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 patients who are successfully weaned off a ventilator may take days, or even weeks, to regain consciousness, especially those who experienced episodes of hypoxemia while intubated, a new study shows.

“As we started to see the first patients waking up after successful COVID-19 ICU treatments, we also encountered many patients who remained comatose for days and weeks and then regained consciousness to become fully oriented,” co-senior investigator Nicholas Schiff, MD, with NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, says in a news release.

The findings have immediate implications regarding life-sustaining therapies for unresponsive COVID-19 patients, the investigators note.

“In critical care medicine, one of our main tasks is to advise families about planning in the event a patient does not regain consciousness,” said co-senior author Jan Claassen, MD, with New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. 

“Our findings suggest that for patients with severe COVID, the decision to withdraw life support shouldn’t be based solely on prolonged periods of unconsciousness, as these patients may eventually recover,” Dr. Claassen adds.

The study was published online March 7 in Annals of Neurology.
 

Slow road back

The researchers examined 795 intubated patients with severe COVID-19 at three medical centers in New York during the first wave of the pandemic (March-July 2020). All patients had impaired consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] motor score less than 6) on day 7 of intubation.

A total of 571 patients (72%) survived and regained consciousness.

The median time to recovery of consciousness was 30 days. One-quarter of the patients recovered consciousness 10 days or longer after they stopped receiving ventilator support and 10% took 23 days or longer to recover.

Time to recovery of consciousness was associated with hypoxemia. The hazard ratio was 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.68) with arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) less than or equal to 55 mm Hg and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91) with a PaO2 less than or equal to 70 mm Hg.

Each additional day of hypoxemia decreased the odds of recovery of consciousness after accounting for confounding factors including sedation.

These findings were confirmed among patients without any imaging evidence of structural brain injury and in a non-overlapping cohort of 427 patients from the second wave of the pandemic (October-April 2021).

“These findings provide us with more accurate information to guide families who are deciding whether to continue life-sustaining therapy in unconscious COVID-19 patients,” co-senior author Brian Edlow, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, says in the news release.

“Encouragingly,” adds Dr. Claassen, “our study shows that the vast majority of unconscious COVID patients recover consciousness, but it is important to consider that we did not look at the quality of recovery. That’s something that should be the focus of long-term follow-up studies.”

The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation (JSMF). Dr. Schiff, Dr. Claassen, and Dr. Edlow have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over the past decade, data have suggested that antiretroviral therapy (ART) may be associated with an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, namely, preterm birth (PTB). But a combination of methodologic challenges, demographic gaps, and spotty clinical data has left the question unresolved, especially for pregnant women with HIV who reside in developed countries.

“Given that a lot of the emerging data has come out of resource-limited settings where patient and clinical characteristics are different from developed world settings like the United States, we felt that this was an important question to address,” Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, a high-risk obstetrician and perinatal epidemiologist at the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, told this news organization.

In a prospective cohort study of U.S. women with or at risk for HIV, Dr. Venkatesh and his colleagues found that ART exposure (including highly active antiretroviral therapy [HAART]) was associated with as much as an 80% decline in the likelihood of PTB (defined as birth less than 34 weeks). The study was published in HIV Medicine.
 

24 years of data analyzed

Dr. Venkatesh and his team analyzed self-reported birth data of women with singleton live-born pregnancies enrolled in the ongoing, multicenter, prospective observational Women’s Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) from Oct. 1, 1995, to March 31, 2019.

“We first looked at women with HIV versus without HIV, [who were] matched on many clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and at similarly high risk of some of these obstetrical outcomes like PTB,” explained Dr. Venkatesh. “We then looked at the relative impact of antiretroviral therapy amongst women living with HIV compared to no antiretroviral therapy.”

ART regimens were classified as none, monotherapy, dual therapy, or HAART. (HAART was defined as more than three antiretrovirals, including at least one protease inhibitor [PI], nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, integrase inhibitor, or entry inhibitor.) In this cohort, for 63.5% of women receiving ART, therapy was initiated before pregnancy (mean duration of HAART, 6 years), and most were virally suppressed.

Among the 4,944 women assessed in the WIHS trial, 74% (3,646) had HIV. In total, 383 women had 488 singleton deliveries, including 218 women with HIV (272 deliveries) and 165 without HIV (216 deliveries). Sociodemographics in both cohorts were well matched. For most participants, the mean age was 40-41 years at delivery, most were non-Hispanic Black persons, and the mean pregnancy body mass index was greater than or equal to 29 kg/m2. Of the women with HIV, 33% had chronic hypertension; of those without HIV, 42.1% had chronic hypertension; 4.7% and 5.0%, respectively, had pregestational diabetes.

The findings showed that PTB risk less than 34 weeks was similar between women with (10%) and without (8%) HIV (adjusted risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-2.31). Among deliveries to women with HIV who were receiving ART, PTB risk less than 34 weeks was lower with HAART (7%), compared with not receiving ART (26%) (aRR, 0.19), as well as with monotherapy or dual therapy (3% vs. no ART) (aRR, 0.12). Notably, 67% of deliveries to women receiving HAART included a PI-containing regimen, but these women were not significantly more likely to have a PTB less than 34 weeks, compared with women taking non-PI HAART regimens (aRR, 2.61; 95% CI, 0.65-10.59). Results were similar for secondary outcomes (PTB less than 28 weeks, less than 37 weeks).
 

Filling in the gaps toward the safest regimen

“This study spans 25 years, so it covers a lot of the history of HIV in pregnancy and is reassuring around using ART in pregnancy,” Shahin Lockman, MD, told this news organization. Dr. Lockman is an associate professor of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a co-PI of the Botswana Clinical Trials Unit at the Botswana Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership. She was not involved in the study. “One of the worst things for a mother and for pregnancy outcomes, for the fetus and baby’s health and development, is uncontrolled maternal HIV,’’ she said.

Dr. Lockman also noted potential confounders that drive poor birth outcomes in Southern African women, compared with U.S. women, making comparisons between this and other observational studies difficult. Still, she said that the question is not whether women should be receiving treatment but whether or not there are differences between antiretroviral regimens.

“One of the areas that we did not go deeper into was the subtype of antiretroviral therapy, given the relatively small study numbers [did not] allow us to do a robust analysis,” Dr. Venkatesh said.

Rather, he emphasized that the findings might lend more weight to speculation that immunologic characteristics associated with HIV status and immunotherapy – such as low CD4 cell counts prior to delivery, or duration of HIV infection – may be important drivers of adverse birth outcomes among women with HIV taking ART.

And at least in this cohort, many of these characteristics were similar between the treatment groups.

Both researchers agree that the findings – while reassuring – highlight the importance of collecting robust obstetric and safety data as part of prospective databases of individuals living with HIV, not only in resource-limited settings but also among the domestic U.S. population.

“We’ve learned a lot over the last 10 years,” Dr. Lockman said. “Some regimens (like lopinavir/ritonavir or nevirapine) are associated with significantly worse birth outcomes, whereas efavirenz doesn’t seem to be, or less so, and dolutegravir seems to be associated with even better outcomes. So, I think that where we are moving is to regimens that are the safest.”

Moving forward, Dr. Venkatesh explained, not only should researchers focus on exploring which antiretrovirals are safest in this context but also if the use of preexposure prophylaxis during conception periods affects birth outcomes.

Dr. Venkatesh and Dr. Lockman report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over the past decade, data have suggested that antiretroviral therapy (ART) may be associated with an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, namely, preterm birth (PTB). But a combination of methodologic challenges, demographic gaps, and spotty clinical data has left the question unresolved, especially for pregnant women with HIV who reside in developed countries.

“Given that a lot of the emerging data has come out of resource-limited settings where patient and clinical characteristics are different from developed world settings like the United States, we felt that this was an important question to address,” Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, a high-risk obstetrician and perinatal epidemiologist at the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, told this news organization.

In a prospective cohort study of U.S. women with or at risk for HIV, Dr. Venkatesh and his colleagues found that ART exposure (including highly active antiretroviral therapy [HAART]) was associated with as much as an 80% decline in the likelihood of PTB (defined as birth less than 34 weeks). The study was published in HIV Medicine.
 

24 years of data analyzed

Dr. Venkatesh and his team analyzed self-reported birth data of women with singleton live-born pregnancies enrolled in the ongoing, multicenter, prospective observational Women’s Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) from Oct. 1, 1995, to March 31, 2019.

“We first looked at women with HIV versus without HIV, [who were] matched on many clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and at similarly high risk of some of these obstetrical outcomes like PTB,” explained Dr. Venkatesh. “We then looked at the relative impact of antiretroviral therapy amongst women living with HIV compared to no antiretroviral therapy.”

ART regimens were classified as none, monotherapy, dual therapy, or HAART. (HAART was defined as more than three antiretrovirals, including at least one protease inhibitor [PI], nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, integrase inhibitor, or entry inhibitor.) In this cohort, for 63.5% of women receiving ART, therapy was initiated before pregnancy (mean duration of HAART, 6 years), and most were virally suppressed.

Among the 4,944 women assessed in the WIHS trial, 74% (3,646) had HIV. In total, 383 women had 488 singleton deliveries, including 218 women with HIV (272 deliveries) and 165 without HIV (216 deliveries). Sociodemographics in both cohorts were well matched. For most participants, the mean age was 40-41 years at delivery, most were non-Hispanic Black persons, and the mean pregnancy body mass index was greater than or equal to 29 kg/m2. Of the women with HIV, 33% had chronic hypertension; of those without HIV, 42.1% had chronic hypertension; 4.7% and 5.0%, respectively, had pregestational diabetes.

The findings showed that PTB risk less than 34 weeks was similar between women with (10%) and without (8%) HIV (adjusted risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-2.31). Among deliveries to women with HIV who were receiving ART, PTB risk less than 34 weeks was lower with HAART (7%), compared with not receiving ART (26%) (aRR, 0.19), as well as with monotherapy or dual therapy (3% vs. no ART) (aRR, 0.12). Notably, 67% of deliveries to women receiving HAART included a PI-containing regimen, but these women were not significantly more likely to have a PTB less than 34 weeks, compared with women taking non-PI HAART regimens (aRR, 2.61; 95% CI, 0.65-10.59). Results were similar for secondary outcomes (PTB less than 28 weeks, less than 37 weeks).
 

Filling in the gaps toward the safest regimen

“This study spans 25 years, so it covers a lot of the history of HIV in pregnancy and is reassuring around using ART in pregnancy,” Shahin Lockman, MD, told this news organization. Dr. Lockman is an associate professor of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a co-PI of the Botswana Clinical Trials Unit at the Botswana Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership. She was not involved in the study. “One of the worst things for a mother and for pregnancy outcomes, for the fetus and baby’s health and development, is uncontrolled maternal HIV,’’ she said.

Dr. Lockman also noted potential confounders that drive poor birth outcomes in Southern African women, compared with U.S. women, making comparisons between this and other observational studies difficult. Still, she said that the question is not whether women should be receiving treatment but whether or not there are differences between antiretroviral regimens.

“One of the areas that we did not go deeper into was the subtype of antiretroviral therapy, given the relatively small study numbers [did not] allow us to do a robust analysis,” Dr. Venkatesh said.

Rather, he emphasized that the findings might lend more weight to speculation that immunologic characteristics associated with HIV status and immunotherapy – such as low CD4 cell counts prior to delivery, or duration of HIV infection – may be important drivers of adverse birth outcomes among women with HIV taking ART.

And at least in this cohort, many of these characteristics were similar between the treatment groups.

Both researchers agree that the findings – while reassuring – highlight the importance of collecting robust obstetric and safety data as part of prospective databases of individuals living with HIV, not only in resource-limited settings but also among the domestic U.S. population.

“We’ve learned a lot over the last 10 years,” Dr. Lockman said. “Some regimens (like lopinavir/ritonavir or nevirapine) are associated with significantly worse birth outcomes, whereas efavirenz doesn’t seem to be, or less so, and dolutegravir seems to be associated with even better outcomes. So, I think that where we are moving is to regimens that are the safest.”

Moving forward, Dr. Venkatesh explained, not only should researchers focus on exploring which antiretrovirals are safest in this context but also if the use of preexposure prophylaxis during conception periods affects birth outcomes.

Dr. Venkatesh and Dr. Lockman report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over the past decade, data have suggested that antiretroviral therapy (ART) may be associated with an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, namely, preterm birth (PTB). But a combination of methodologic challenges, demographic gaps, and spotty clinical data has left the question unresolved, especially for pregnant women with HIV who reside in developed countries.

“Given that a lot of the emerging data has come out of resource-limited settings where patient and clinical characteristics are different from developed world settings like the United States, we felt that this was an important question to address,” Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, a high-risk obstetrician and perinatal epidemiologist at the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, told this news organization.

In a prospective cohort study of U.S. women with or at risk for HIV, Dr. Venkatesh and his colleagues found that ART exposure (including highly active antiretroviral therapy [HAART]) was associated with as much as an 80% decline in the likelihood of PTB (defined as birth less than 34 weeks). The study was published in HIV Medicine.
 

24 years of data analyzed

Dr. Venkatesh and his team analyzed self-reported birth data of women with singleton live-born pregnancies enrolled in the ongoing, multicenter, prospective observational Women’s Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) from Oct. 1, 1995, to March 31, 2019.

“We first looked at women with HIV versus without HIV, [who were] matched on many clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and at similarly high risk of some of these obstetrical outcomes like PTB,” explained Dr. Venkatesh. “We then looked at the relative impact of antiretroviral therapy amongst women living with HIV compared to no antiretroviral therapy.”

ART regimens were classified as none, monotherapy, dual therapy, or HAART. (HAART was defined as more than three antiretrovirals, including at least one protease inhibitor [PI], nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, integrase inhibitor, or entry inhibitor.) In this cohort, for 63.5% of women receiving ART, therapy was initiated before pregnancy (mean duration of HAART, 6 years), and most were virally suppressed.

Among the 4,944 women assessed in the WIHS trial, 74% (3,646) had HIV. In total, 383 women had 488 singleton deliveries, including 218 women with HIV (272 deliveries) and 165 without HIV (216 deliveries). Sociodemographics in both cohorts were well matched. For most participants, the mean age was 40-41 years at delivery, most were non-Hispanic Black persons, and the mean pregnancy body mass index was greater than or equal to 29 kg/m2. Of the women with HIV, 33% had chronic hypertension; of those without HIV, 42.1% had chronic hypertension; 4.7% and 5.0%, respectively, had pregestational diabetes.

The findings showed that PTB risk less than 34 weeks was similar between women with (10%) and without (8%) HIV (adjusted risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-2.31). Among deliveries to women with HIV who were receiving ART, PTB risk less than 34 weeks was lower with HAART (7%), compared with not receiving ART (26%) (aRR, 0.19), as well as with monotherapy or dual therapy (3% vs. no ART) (aRR, 0.12). Notably, 67% of deliveries to women receiving HAART included a PI-containing regimen, but these women were not significantly more likely to have a PTB less than 34 weeks, compared with women taking non-PI HAART regimens (aRR, 2.61; 95% CI, 0.65-10.59). Results were similar for secondary outcomes (PTB less than 28 weeks, less than 37 weeks).
 

Filling in the gaps toward the safest regimen

“This study spans 25 years, so it covers a lot of the history of HIV in pregnancy and is reassuring around using ART in pregnancy,” Shahin Lockman, MD, told this news organization. Dr. Lockman is an associate professor of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a co-PI of the Botswana Clinical Trials Unit at the Botswana Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership. She was not involved in the study. “One of the worst things for a mother and for pregnancy outcomes, for the fetus and baby’s health and development, is uncontrolled maternal HIV,’’ she said.

Dr. Lockman also noted potential confounders that drive poor birth outcomes in Southern African women, compared with U.S. women, making comparisons between this and other observational studies difficult. Still, she said that the question is not whether women should be receiving treatment but whether or not there are differences between antiretroviral regimens.

“One of the areas that we did not go deeper into was the subtype of antiretroviral therapy, given the relatively small study numbers [did not] allow us to do a robust analysis,” Dr. Venkatesh said.

Rather, he emphasized that the findings might lend more weight to speculation that immunologic characteristics associated with HIV status and immunotherapy – such as low CD4 cell counts prior to delivery, or duration of HIV infection – may be important drivers of adverse birth outcomes among women with HIV taking ART.

And at least in this cohort, many of these characteristics were similar between the treatment groups.

Both researchers agree that the findings – while reassuring – highlight the importance of collecting robust obstetric and safety data as part of prospective databases of individuals living with HIV, not only in resource-limited settings but also among the domestic U.S. population.

“We’ve learned a lot over the last 10 years,” Dr. Lockman said. “Some regimens (like lopinavir/ritonavir or nevirapine) are associated with significantly worse birth outcomes, whereas efavirenz doesn’t seem to be, or less so, and dolutegravir seems to be associated with even better outcomes. So, I think that where we are moving is to regimens that are the safest.”

Moving forward, Dr. Venkatesh explained, not only should researchers focus on exploring which antiretrovirals are safest in this context but also if the use of preexposure prophylaxis during conception periods affects birth outcomes.

Dr. Venkatesh and Dr. Lockman report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new surge in COVID-19 cases across Western Europe has led U.S. health officials to consider whether another pandemic wave will arrive soon, even as states and cities continue to lift restrictions amid low case numbers.

Infectious disease experts are watching BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that appears to be more transmissible than the original strain. BA.2 is fueling outbreaks across Europe and is growing in dominance across the United States.

“It’s picking up steam. It’s across at least 12 countries … from Finland to Greece,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told The Washington Post.

He has been following the surge and has posted recent charts of the outbreak on Twitter. Hospitalizations appear to be increasing in some places as well, he noted, despite the higher vaccination rates of many Western European countries.

“There’s no question there’s a significant wave there,” Dr. Topol said.

Germany recorded more than 260,000 new cases on March 15, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, but coronavirus restrictions are still being lifted this week. The U.K. is reporting more than 75,000 daily cases, and the Netherlands is reporting more than 60,000 daily cases, which are considered major numbers, compared to their population sizes. Meanwhile, France, Italy, and Switzerland are also reporting large increases in infections.

During the past 2 years, widespread outbreaks in Europe have been followed by similar surges in the U.S. weeks later. Most experts interviewed by the Post predicted that it’s likely to happen again.

In the United States, the BA.2 subvariant accounted for 23% of new COVID-19 cases for the week ending March 12, according to the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while the original Omicron strain made up about 66% of cases. The BA.2 percentage is up from 13.7% of new cases for the week ending March 5, 7.1% the previous week, and 4.1% the week before that. In parts of the Northeast and New England, BA.2 makes up more than 38% of new cases.

At the same time, the 7 -day average of COVID-19 cases continues to drop in the United States, with about 31,000 daily cases currently, the New York Times data tracker shows. About 25,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, which has fallen 44% in the past 2 weeks, and about 1,200 deaths are being reported daily.

Several variables could affect the course of a future surge, the Post reported. Vaccination rates, coronavirus safety protocols, and access to antiviral medications could dictate how another wave unfolds across the country.

About 82% of the eligible U.S. population has received at least one vaccine dose, and 69% is fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About half of those who are eligible for booster doses have received one. In Germany, nearly 76% of people are fully vaccinated, the newspaper reported, and in the United Kingdom, about 74% are fully vaccinated.

Health experts are also considering how natural immunity from a previous infection could affect a BA.2 surge. Millions of Americans were infected with the original Omicron strain, BA.1, which could provide protection. That said, researchers aren’t quite sure whether BA.1 infection protects against BA.2.

“It’s like a weather alert. Right now, the skies are sunny and bright, and we hope they stay that way,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told CNN.

“But we could have some bad weather by evening,” he said. “We just don’t know.”

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

A new surge in COVID-19 cases across Western Europe has led U.S. health officials to consider whether another pandemic wave will arrive soon, even as states and cities continue to lift restrictions amid low case numbers.

Infectious disease experts are watching BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that appears to be more transmissible than the original strain. BA.2 is fueling outbreaks across Europe and is growing in dominance across the United States.

“It’s picking up steam. It’s across at least 12 countries … from Finland to Greece,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told The Washington Post.

He has been following the surge and has posted recent charts of the outbreak on Twitter. Hospitalizations appear to be increasing in some places as well, he noted, despite the higher vaccination rates of many Western European countries.

“There’s no question there’s a significant wave there,” Dr. Topol said.

Germany recorded more than 260,000 new cases on March 15, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, but coronavirus restrictions are still being lifted this week. The U.K. is reporting more than 75,000 daily cases, and the Netherlands is reporting more than 60,000 daily cases, which are considered major numbers, compared to their population sizes. Meanwhile, France, Italy, and Switzerland are also reporting large increases in infections.

During the past 2 years, widespread outbreaks in Europe have been followed by similar surges in the U.S. weeks later. Most experts interviewed by the Post predicted that it’s likely to happen again.

In the United States, the BA.2 subvariant accounted for 23% of new COVID-19 cases for the week ending March 12, according to the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while the original Omicron strain made up about 66% of cases. The BA.2 percentage is up from 13.7% of new cases for the week ending March 5, 7.1% the previous week, and 4.1% the week before that. In parts of the Northeast and New England, BA.2 makes up more than 38% of new cases.

At the same time, the 7 -day average of COVID-19 cases continues to drop in the United States, with about 31,000 daily cases currently, the New York Times data tracker shows. About 25,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, which has fallen 44% in the past 2 weeks, and about 1,200 deaths are being reported daily.

Several variables could affect the course of a future surge, the Post reported. Vaccination rates, coronavirus safety protocols, and access to antiviral medications could dictate how another wave unfolds across the country.

About 82% of the eligible U.S. population has received at least one vaccine dose, and 69% is fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About half of those who are eligible for booster doses have received one. In Germany, nearly 76% of people are fully vaccinated, the newspaper reported, and in the United Kingdom, about 74% are fully vaccinated.

Health experts are also considering how natural immunity from a previous infection could affect a BA.2 surge. Millions of Americans were infected with the original Omicron strain, BA.1, which could provide protection. That said, researchers aren’t quite sure whether BA.1 infection protects against BA.2.

“It’s like a weather alert. Right now, the skies are sunny and bright, and we hope they stay that way,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told CNN.

“But we could have some bad weather by evening,” he said. “We just don’t know.”

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

A new surge in COVID-19 cases across Western Europe has led U.S. health officials to consider whether another pandemic wave will arrive soon, even as states and cities continue to lift restrictions amid low case numbers.

Infectious disease experts are watching BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that appears to be more transmissible than the original strain. BA.2 is fueling outbreaks across Europe and is growing in dominance across the United States.

“It’s picking up steam. It’s across at least 12 countries … from Finland to Greece,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told The Washington Post.

He has been following the surge and has posted recent charts of the outbreak on Twitter. Hospitalizations appear to be increasing in some places as well, he noted, despite the higher vaccination rates of many Western European countries.

“There’s no question there’s a significant wave there,” Dr. Topol said.

Germany recorded more than 260,000 new cases on March 15, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, but coronavirus restrictions are still being lifted this week. The U.K. is reporting more than 75,000 daily cases, and the Netherlands is reporting more than 60,000 daily cases, which are considered major numbers, compared to their population sizes. Meanwhile, France, Italy, and Switzerland are also reporting large increases in infections.

During the past 2 years, widespread outbreaks in Europe have been followed by similar surges in the U.S. weeks later. Most experts interviewed by the Post predicted that it’s likely to happen again.

In the United States, the BA.2 subvariant accounted for 23% of new COVID-19 cases for the week ending March 12, according to the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while the original Omicron strain made up about 66% of cases. The BA.2 percentage is up from 13.7% of new cases for the week ending March 5, 7.1% the previous week, and 4.1% the week before that. In parts of the Northeast and New England, BA.2 makes up more than 38% of new cases.

At the same time, the 7 -day average of COVID-19 cases continues to drop in the United States, with about 31,000 daily cases currently, the New York Times data tracker shows. About 25,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, which has fallen 44% in the past 2 weeks, and about 1,200 deaths are being reported daily.

Several variables could affect the course of a future surge, the Post reported. Vaccination rates, coronavirus safety protocols, and access to antiviral medications could dictate how another wave unfolds across the country.

About 82% of the eligible U.S. population has received at least one vaccine dose, and 69% is fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About half of those who are eligible for booster doses have received one. In Germany, nearly 76% of people are fully vaccinated, the newspaper reported, and in the United Kingdom, about 74% are fully vaccinated.

Health experts are also considering how natural immunity from a previous infection could affect a BA.2 surge. Millions of Americans were infected with the original Omicron strain, BA.1, which could provide protection. That said, researchers aren’t quite sure whether BA.1 infection protects against BA.2.

“It’s like a weather alert. Right now, the skies are sunny and bright, and we hope they stay that way,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told CNN.

“But we could have some bad weather by evening,” he said. “We just don’t know.”

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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