Infectious Disease Practitioner

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

The number of Americans aged 60 years and older who report receiving shingles vaccination had risen steadily since 2008 and has leveled off during the past few years, new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics reveal.

The proportion of people in this age group who were vaccinated rose from 6.7% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2018, for example.

“The take-home message of our report is that, among adults aged 60 and over, shingles vaccination has increased since 2008. However, disparities in receipt of this vaccination still remain,” Emily Terlizzi, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The report was published online July 9 in NCHS Data Brief.
 

Similar rates for men and women

Rates of people who reported receiving at least one vaccination with Zostavax (Merck) or Shingrix (GlaxoSmithKline) varied by factors that included Hispanic origin, education, and family income. An unexpected finding was that rates did not vary significantly between men and women.

“One finding that I would say surprised me was that, although the percentage who had ever received a shingles vaccine among women aged 60 and over was higher than that among men in this age group, this difference was not statistically significant,” said Ms. Terlizzi, a health statistician in the Data Analysis and Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Health Interview Statistics, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, for example, 35.4% of women and 33.5% of men reported ever receiving a shingles vaccine.

The similarity of rates was less of a surprise to Len Horovitz, MD, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not affiliated with the report. “In my anecdotal experience, I don’t see a preponderance of one sex getting shingles more than another. It’s pretty evenly distributed,” he said in an interview.

Ms. Terlizzi and coauthor Lindsey I. Black, MPH, say their findings align with prior research. However, they noted: “Our report uses more recent data from a large, nationally representative data source to update these estimates and describe these disparities.” Data come from results of the annual National Health Interview Survey of households nationwide.
 

Multiple factors explain vaccination differences

Non-Hispanic White adults were more likely to report receiving the vaccine than were Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black survey respondents. Non-Hispanic White adults were about twice as likely to report vaccination – 38.6% – compared with 19.5% of Hispanic adults and 18.8% of non-Hispanic Black adults.

The disparity in vaccination by race was “disappointing news,” Kenneth E. Schmader, MD, said in an interview.

“The health disparity with regard to lower vaccination rates in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations is reported with other vaccines as well and points to the need for better efforts to vaccinate Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations,” added Dr. Schmader, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

On a positive note, “It was good to see increasing use of shingles vaccination over time, given how devastating zoster can be in older adults and the fact that the vaccines are effective,” said Dr. Schmader, who also serves on the working groups for the Herpes Zoster, Influenza and General Adult Immunization Guidelines for the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Self-reports of receiving vaccination increased in association with higher education and family income levels. For example, 39.9% of respondents who had more than a high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development) reported receiving the shingles vaccine. In contrast, only 21.2% of people with lower educational attainment reported receiving a vaccine.

In terms of income, 20.4% of poor adults reported being vaccinated, compared with 38.4% of adults who were not poor.

The investigators also evaluated the data by geographic region. They found that rates of vaccinations varied from 26.3% in the East South Central part of the United States (which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama) to 42.8% in the West North Central region (which includes the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Nebraska).
 

Clinical and research considerations

For most of the decade evaluated in the study, ACIP recommended vaccination against shingles for Americans aged 60 years and older. The current findings, therefore, do not account for ACIP’s expanding its recommendations in 2017 to include adults aged 50 years and older.

Zostavax is expected to be discontinued this year. It was the only shingles vaccine available before the approval of Shingrix in 2018. The shift to a single product could alter vaccination patterns further.

Ms. Terlizzi plans to continue monitoring trends to “see what changes occur in the next few years,” she said.
 

Compliance a concern

Data on vaccination rates for shingles are important given the large proportion of the population at risk, Dr. Horovitz said. “People over age 50 who have had chickenpox have a one third chance over their lifetimes to get shingles. That is a lot of people.”

Multiple factors could be contributing to the fact that vaccination rates have hovered around 34% in recent years, he said. “Whenever you see variations in vaccination rates, you have to think about cultural differences and questions about differences in access, accessibility, and attitudes. Attitudes toward vaccines vary widely – from people who don’t believe in vaccination to people who are eager to take vaccinations.

“I don’t know how to dissect all that out of these data,” he added.

Compliance with recommendations also contributes to vaccination rates, Dr. Horovitz said. The fact that in about 10% of people, a flulike syndrome develops the day after being vaccinated with Shingrix can cause some to postpone or rethink immunization, he added. In addition, Shingrix requires two shots. “People have to come back, and that always sets up an issue with recalling someone.”

Marketplace shortages of the Shingrix vaccine could also contribute to lower vaccination rates. However, Dr. Horovitz said that, in his practice, availability was only a problem during the first year after approval in 2017.

On a related note, manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced that a decrease in vaccination demand during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed the supply to catch up. Shingrix no longer qualifies for the CDC’s shortages list, according to a July 9 report.

Ms. Terlizzi, Dr. Horovitz, and Dr. Schmader have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of Americans aged 60 years and older who report receiving shingles vaccination had risen steadily since 2008 and has leveled off during the past few years, new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics reveal.

The proportion of people in this age group who were vaccinated rose from 6.7% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2018, for example.

“The take-home message of our report is that, among adults aged 60 and over, shingles vaccination has increased since 2008. However, disparities in receipt of this vaccination still remain,” Emily Terlizzi, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The report was published online July 9 in NCHS Data Brief.
 

Similar rates for men and women

Rates of people who reported receiving at least one vaccination with Zostavax (Merck) or Shingrix (GlaxoSmithKline) varied by factors that included Hispanic origin, education, and family income. An unexpected finding was that rates did not vary significantly between men and women.

“One finding that I would say surprised me was that, although the percentage who had ever received a shingles vaccine among women aged 60 and over was higher than that among men in this age group, this difference was not statistically significant,” said Ms. Terlizzi, a health statistician in the Data Analysis and Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Health Interview Statistics, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, for example, 35.4% of women and 33.5% of men reported ever receiving a shingles vaccine.

The similarity of rates was less of a surprise to Len Horovitz, MD, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not affiliated with the report. “In my anecdotal experience, I don’t see a preponderance of one sex getting shingles more than another. It’s pretty evenly distributed,” he said in an interview.

Ms. Terlizzi and coauthor Lindsey I. Black, MPH, say their findings align with prior research. However, they noted: “Our report uses more recent data from a large, nationally representative data source to update these estimates and describe these disparities.” Data come from results of the annual National Health Interview Survey of households nationwide.
 

Multiple factors explain vaccination differences

Non-Hispanic White adults were more likely to report receiving the vaccine than were Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black survey respondents. Non-Hispanic White adults were about twice as likely to report vaccination – 38.6% – compared with 19.5% of Hispanic adults and 18.8% of non-Hispanic Black adults.

The disparity in vaccination by race was “disappointing news,” Kenneth E. Schmader, MD, said in an interview.

“The health disparity with regard to lower vaccination rates in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations is reported with other vaccines as well and points to the need for better efforts to vaccinate Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations,” added Dr. Schmader, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

On a positive note, “It was good to see increasing use of shingles vaccination over time, given how devastating zoster can be in older adults and the fact that the vaccines are effective,” said Dr. Schmader, who also serves on the working groups for the Herpes Zoster, Influenza and General Adult Immunization Guidelines for the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Self-reports of receiving vaccination increased in association with higher education and family income levels. For example, 39.9% of respondents who had more than a high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development) reported receiving the shingles vaccine. In contrast, only 21.2% of people with lower educational attainment reported receiving a vaccine.

In terms of income, 20.4% of poor adults reported being vaccinated, compared with 38.4% of adults who were not poor.

The investigators also evaluated the data by geographic region. They found that rates of vaccinations varied from 26.3% in the East South Central part of the United States (which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama) to 42.8% in the West North Central region (which includes the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Nebraska).
 

Clinical and research considerations

For most of the decade evaluated in the study, ACIP recommended vaccination against shingles for Americans aged 60 years and older. The current findings, therefore, do not account for ACIP’s expanding its recommendations in 2017 to include adults aged 50 years and older.

Zostavax is expected to be discontinued this year. It was the only shingles vaccine available before the approval of Shingrix in 2018. The shift to a single product could alter vaccination patterns further.

Ms. Terlizzi plans to continue monitoring trends to “see what changes occur in the next few years,” she said.
 

Compliance a concern

Data on vaccination rates for shingles are important given the large proportion of the population at risk, Dr. Horovitz said. “People over age 50 who have had chickenpox have a one third chance over their lifetimes to get shingles. That is a lot of people.”

Multiple factors could be contributing to the fact that vaccination rates have hovered around 34% in recent years, he said. “Whenever you see variations in vaccination rates, you have to think about cultural differences and questions about differences in access, accessibility, and attitudes. Attitudes toward vaccines vary widely – from people who don’t believe in vaccination to people who are eager to take vaccinations.

“I don’t know how to dissect all that out of these data,” he added.

Compliance with recommendations also contributes to vaccination rates, Dr. Horovitz said. The fact that in about 10% of people, a flulike syndrome develops the day after being vaccinated with Shingrix can cause some to postpone or rethink immunization, he added. In addition, Shingrix requires two shots. “People have to come back, and that always sets up an issue with recalling someone.”

Marketplace shortages of the Shingrix vaccine could also contribute to lower vaccination rates. However, Dr. Horovitz said that, in his practice, availability was only a problem during the first year after approval in 2017.

On a related note, manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced that a decrease in vaccination demand during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed the supply to catch up. Shingrix no longer qualifies for the CDC’s shortages list, according to a July 9 report.

Ms. Terlizzi, Dr. Horovitz, and Dr. Schmader have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of Americans aged 60 years and older who report receiving shingles vaccination had risen steadily since 2008 and has leveled off during the past few years, new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics reveal.

The proportion of people in this age group who were vaccinated rose from 6.7% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2018, for example.

“The take-home message of our report is that, among adults aged 60 and over, shingles vaccination has increased since 2008. However, disparities in receipt of this vaccination still remain,” Emily Terlizzi, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The report was published online July 9 in NCHS Data Brief.
 

Similar rates for men and women

Rates of people who reported receiving at least one vaccination with Zostavax (Merck) or Shingrix (GlaxoSmithKline) varied by factors that included Hispanic origin, education, and family income. An unexpected finding was that rates did not vary significantly between men and women.

“One finding that I would say surprised me was that, although the percentage who had ever received a shingles vaccine among women aged 60 and over was higher than that among men in this age group, this difference was not statistically significant,” said Ms. Terlizzi, a health statistician in the Data Analysis and Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Health Interview Statistics, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, for example, 35.4% of women and 33.5% of men reported ever receiving a shingles vaccine.

The similarity of rates was less of a surprise to Len Horovitz, MD, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not affiliated with the report. “In my anecdotal experience, I don’t see a preponderance of one sex getting shingles more than another. It’s pretty evenly distributed,” he said in an interview.

Ms. Terlizzi and coauthor Lindsey I. Black, MPH, say their findings align with prior research. However, they noted: “Our report uses more recent data from a large, nationally representative data source to update these estimates and describe these disparities.” Data come from results of the annual National Health Interview Survey of households nationwide.
 

Multiple factors explain vaccination differences

Non-Hispanic White adults were more likely to report receiving the vaccine than were Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black survey respondents. Non-Hispanic White adults were about twice as likely to report vaccination – 38.6% – compared with 19.5% of Hispanic adults and 18.8% of non-Hispanic Black adults.

The disparity in vaccination by race was “disappointing news,” Kenneth E. Schmader, MD, said in an interview.

“The health disparity with regard to lower vaccination rates in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations is reported with other vaccines as well and points to the need for better efforts to vaccinate Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations,” added Dr. Schmader, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

On a positive note, “It was good to see increasing use of shingles vaccination over time, given how devastating zoster can be in older adults and the fact that the vaccines are effective,” said Dr. Schmader, who also serves on the working groups for the Herpes Zoster, Influenza and General Adult Immunization Guidelines for the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Self-reports of receiving vaccination increased in association with higher education and family income levels. For example, 39.9% of respondents who had more than a high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development) reported receiving the shingles vaccine. In contrast, only 21.2% of people with lower educational attainment reported receiving a vaccine.

In terms of income, 20.4% of poor adults reported being vaccinated, compared with 38.4% of adults who were not poor.

The investigators also evaluated the data by geographic region. They found that rates of vaccinations varied from 26.3% in the East South Central part of the United States (which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama) to 42.8% in the West North Central region (which includes the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Nebraska).
 

Clinical and research considerations

For most of the decade evaluated in the study, ACIP recommended vaccination against shingles for Americans aged 60 years and older. The current findings, therefore, do not account for ACIP’s expanding its recommendations in 2017 to include adults aged 50 years and older.

Zostavax is expected to be discontinued this year. It was the only shingles vaccine available before the approval of Shingrix in 2018. The shift to a single product could alter vaccination patterns further.

Ms. Terlizzi plans to continue monitoring trends to “see what changes occur in the next few years,” she said.
 

Compliance a concern

Data on vaccination rates for shingles are important given the large proportion of the population at risk, Dr. Horovitz said. “People over age 50 who have had chickenpox have a one third chance over their lifetimes to get shingles. That is a lot of people.”

Multiple factors could be contributing to the fact that vaccination rates have hovered around 34% in recent years, he said. “Whenever you see variations in vaccination rates, you have to think about cultural differences and questions about differences in access, accessibility, and attitudes. Attitudes toward vaccines vary widely – from people who don’t believe in vaccination to people who are eager to take vaccinations.

“I don’t know how to dissect all that out of these data,” he added.

Compliance with recommendations also contributes to vaccination rates, Dr. Horovitz said. The fact that in about 10% of people, a flulike syndrome develops the day after being vaccinated with Shingrix can cause some to postpone or rethink immunization, he added. In addition, Shingrix requires two shots. “People have to come back, and that always sets up an issue with recalling someone.”

Marketplace shortages of the Shingrix vaccine could also contribute to lower vaccination rates. However, Dr. Horovitz said that, in his practice, availability was only a problem during the first year after approval in 2017.

On a related note, manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced that a decrease in vaccination demand during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed the supply to catch up. Shingrix no longer qualifies for the CDC’s shortages list, according to a July 9 report.

Ms. Terlizzi, Dr. Horovitz, and Dr. Schmader have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While guidelines for bronchiolitis aim to reduce gratuitous tests and treatments, one-third of infants presenting at EDs with bronchiolitis receive an unnecessary intervention, according to a new global study.

For infants with symptoms of bronchiolitis, viral testing, blood tests, and chest x-rays are discouraged in most cases. Antibiotics are not recommended as treatment.

In a study published in Pediatrics, Amy Zipursky, MD, of the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, reviewed records for 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months diagnosed with bronchiolitis during the year 2013. The data came from a network of 38 EDs in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Dr. Zipursky and colleagues found that, while 8% of infants in the cohort had been treated with antibiotics, 33% had received at least one nonrecommended test, with rates ranging widely across regions. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, for example, only 15% received such a test, compared with 50% in Spain and Portugal.

Of the children given antibiotics, two-thirds had suspected bacterial infections, the researchers found. Antibiotic use was highest in the United States, at 11% of infants seen for bronchiolitis, and lowest in the United Kingdom and Ireland at 4%. Administration of chest x-rays – which occurred in nearly a quarter of the cohort – increased the likelihood of antibiotics being administered (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.24) independent of fever or severe symptoms.

The most common nonrecommended tests performed in the study were:

• Nasopharyngeal viral testing without admission to hospital (n = 591).
• Chest x-ray without ICU admission (n = 507).
• Complete blood counts (n = 222).
• Blood cultures (n = 129).
• Urinalysis in the absence of fever (n = 86).
• Febrile infants 3 months of age or less had blood cultures (n = 49).

In some treatment centers the rate of nonrecommended tests performed was 6%, while others saw rates of 74%.

“Despite the evidence that laboratory testing rarely impacts bronchiolitis management and that bacterial infections in bronchiolitis are uncommon, our study reveals that these tests continue to be performed frequently in many parts of the world,” Dr. Zipursky and colleagues wrote in their analysis.

“Plausible reasons may include ‘automatic’ blood draws with intravenous placement, uncertainty about institutional policies, perceived need for reassurance about the diagnosis, perception of ‘doing something,’ and parental desire for a viral label,” the authors surmised. “Because parental pressure to provide interventions may be a driver of care in infants with bronchiolitis in some countries, ED clinicians need to have higher confidence in the evidence-based bronchiolitis care and convey this trust to families.”

The researchers listed among the weaknesses of their study its retrospective design, and that results from x-rays and lab tests performed were not available.

In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Joseph J. Zorc, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that some of the regional differences seen in the study may be attributable to different clinical criteria used to diagnose bronchiolitis. In the United Kingdom, for example, national guidelines include the presence of crackles, while in North America guidelines focus on wheeze. “Perhaps clinicians in the United Kingdom accept the presence of crackles as an expected finding in infant with bronchiolitis and are less likely to order imaging,” Dr. Zorc said (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146[2]:e20193684).

He also pointed out that the coronavirus pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID- 19) could have an impact on global testing and treatment practices for bronchiolitis, as coronaviruses are a known cause of bronchiolitis. The Pediatric Emergency Research Network, comprising the 38 EDs from which Dr. Zipursky and colleagues drew their data, is conducting a prospective study looking at pediatric disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

The “collaboration of international networks of pediatric emergency providers is an encouraging sign of potential opportunities to come ... [providing] an opportunity to evaluate variation that can lead to innovation,” Dr. Zorc concluded.

Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zorc reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.

While guidelines for bronchiolitis aim to reduce gratuitous tests and treatments, one-third of infants presenting at EDs with bronchiolitis receive an unnecessary intervention, according to a new global study.

For infants with symptoms of bronchiolitis, viral testing, blood tests, and chest x-rays are discouraged in most cases. Antibiotics are not recommended as treatment.

In a study published in Pediatrics, Amy Zipursky, MD, of the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, reviewed records for 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months diagnosed with bronchiolitis during the year 2013. The data came from a network of 38 EDs in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Dr. Zipursky and colleagues found that, while 8% of infants in the cohort had been treated with antibiotics, 33% had received at least one nonrecommended test, with rates ranging widely across regions. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, for example, only 15% received such a test, compared with 50% in Spain and Portugal.

Of the children given antibiotics, two-thirds had suspected bacterial infections, the researchers found. Antibiotic use was highest in the United States, at 11% of infants seen for bronchiolitis, and lowest in the United Kingdom and Ireland at 4%. Administration of chest x-rays – which occurred in nearly a quarter of the cohort – increased the likelihood of antibiotics being administered (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.24) independent of fever or severe symptoms.

The most common nonrecommended tests performed in the study were:

• Nasopharyngeal viral testing without admission to hospital (n = 591).
• Chest x-ray without ICU admission (n = 507).
• Complete blood counts (n = 222).
• Blood cultures (n = 129).
• Urinalysis in the absence of fever (n = 86).
• Febrile infants 3 months of age or less had blood cultures (n = 49).

In some treatment centers the rate of nonrecommended tests performed was 6%, while others saw rates of 74%.

“Despite the evidence that laboratory testing rarely impacts bronchiolitis management and that bacterial infections in bronchiolitis are uncommon, our study reveals that these tests continue to be performed frequently in many parts of the world,” Dr. Zipursky and colleagues wrote in their analysis.

“Plausible reasons may include ‘automatic’ blood draws with intravenous placement, uncertainty about institutional policies, perceived need for reassurance about the diagnosis, perception of ‘doing something,’ and parental desire for a viral label,” the authors surmised. “Because parental pressure to provide interventions may be a driver of care in infants with bronchiolitis in some countries, ED clinicians need to have higher confidence in the evidence-based bronchiolitis care and convey this trust to families.”

The researchers listed among the weaknesses of their study its retrospective design, and that results from x-rays and lab tests performed were not available.

In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Joseph J. Zorc, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that some of the regional differences seen in the study may be attributable to different clinical criteria used to diagnose bronchiolitis. In the United Kingdom, for example, national guidelines include the presence of crackles, while in North America guidelines focus on wheeze. “Perhaps clinicians in the United Kingdom accept the presence of crackles as an expected finding in infant with bronchiolitis and are less likely to order imaging,” Dr. Zorc said (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146[2]:e20193684).

He also pointed out that the coronavirus pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID- 19) could have an impact on global testing and treatment practices for bronchiolitis, as coronaviruses are a known cause of bronchiolitis. The Pediatric Emergency Research Network, comprising the 38 EDs from which Dr. Zipursky and colleagues drew their data, is conducting a prospective study looking at pediatric disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

The “collaboration of international networks of pediatric emergency providers is an encouraging sign of potential opportunities to come ... [providing] an opportunity to evaluate variation that can lead to innovation,” Dr. Zorc concluded.

Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zorc reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.

While guidelines for bronchiolitis aim to reduce gratuitous tests and treatments, one-third of infants presenting at EDs with bronchiolitis receive an unnecessary intervention, according to a new global study.

For infants with symptoms of bronchiolitis, viral testing, blood tests, and chest x-rays are discouraged in most cases. Antibiotics are not recommended as treatment.

In a study published in Pediatrics, Amy Zipursky, MD, of the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, reviewed records for 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months diagnosed with bronchiolitis during the year 2013. The data came from a network of 38 EDs in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Dr. Zipursky and colleagues found that, while 8% of infants in the cohort had been treated with antibiotics, 33% had received at least one nonrecommended test, with rates ranging widely across regions. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, for example, only 15% received such a test, compared with 50% in Spain and Portugal.

Of the children given antibiotics, two-thirds had suspected bacterial infections, the researchers found. Antibiotic use was highest in the United States, at 11% of infants seen for bronchiolitis, and lowest in the United Kingdom and Ireland at 4%. Administration of chest x-rays – which occurred in nearly a quarter of the cohort – increased the likelihood of antibiotics being administered (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.24) independent of fever or severe symptoms.

The most common nonrecommended tests performed in the study were:

• Nasopharyngeal viral testing without admission to hospital (n = 591).
• Chest x-ray without ICU admission (n = 507).
• Complete blood counts (n = 222).
• Blood cultures (n = 129).
• Urinalysis in the absence of fever (n = 86).
• Febrile infants 3 months of age or less had blood cultures (n = 49).

In some treatment centers the rate of nonrecommended tests performed was 6%, while others saw rates of 74%.

“Despite the evidence that laboratory testing rarely impacts bronchiolitis management and that bacterial infections in bronchiolitis are uncommon, our study reveals that these tests continue to be performed frequently in many parts of the world,” Dr. Zipursky and colleagues wrote in their analysis.

“Plausible reasons may include ‘automatic’ blood draws with intravenous placement, uncertainty about institutional policies, perceived need for reassurance about the diagnosis, perception of ‘doing something,’ and parental desire for a viral label,” the authors surmised. “Because parental pressure to provide interventions may be a driver of care in infants with bronchiolitis in some countries, ED clinicians need to have higher confidence in the evidence-based bronchiolitis care and convey this trust to families.”

The researchers listed among the weaknesses of their study its retrospective design, and that results from x-rays and lab tests performed were not available.

In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Joseph J. Zorc, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that some of the regional differences seen in the study may be attributable to different clinical criteria used to diagnose bronchiolitis. In the United Kingdom, for example, national guidelines include the presence of crackles, while in North America guidelines focus on wheeze. “Perhaps clinicians in the United Kingdom accept the presence of crackles as an expected finding in infant with bronchiolitis and are less likely to order imaging,” Dr. Zorc said (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146[2]:e20193684).

He also pointed out that the coronavirus pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID- 19) could have an impact on global testing and treatment practices for bronchiolitis, as coronaviruses are a known cause of bronchiolitis. The Pediatric Emergency Research Network, comprising the 38 EDs from which Dr. Zipursky and colleagues drew their data, is conducting a prospective study looking at pediatric disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

The “collaboration of international networks of pediatric emergency providers is an encouraging sign of potential opportunities to come ... [providing] an opportunity to evaluate variation that can lead to innovation,” Dr. Zorc concluded.

Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zorc reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.

The efficacy of the influenza vaccine when given to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is similar to that in healthy controls, Jackie Nguyen reported at the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine published cohort studies including 417 MS patients and more than 500 healthy controls, all of whom received inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine.

The impetus for this project was a recognition that the great majority of the research on the impact of influenza vaccine in patients with MS has focused on safety and MS relapse rates. In contrast, the nine studies included in the meta-analysis contained data on influenza vaccine efficacy as reflected in the ability to mount an adequate immune response. This was defined in standard fashion either by seroconversion, which required at least a fourfold increase in antibody titers following vaccination, or seroprotection, with a postvaccination antihemagglutination immunoglobulin G titer of at least 40. The analysis included patients with MS irrespective of disease duration or severity or treatment regimen, noted Ms. Nguyen, a third-year medical student at Nova Southeastern University College of Allopathic Medicine in Davie, Fla.

The researchers found that there was no significant difference between patients with MS and healthy controls in the rates of an adequate immune response for influenza H1N1, H3N2, or influenza B virus. “The vaccine should thus continue to be recommended for MS patients, as the data shows it to be efficacious,” she said.

Her conclusion is consistent with guidance provided in the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline update on immunization in MS, highlighted elsewhere at CMSC 2020 in a presentation by Marijean Buhse, PhD, of Stony Brook University in New York.

The guideline, updated for the first time in 17 years, states that all MS patients should be advised to receive influenza vaccine annually: “With known risks of exacerbation and other morbidity with influenza infection and no identified risks of exacerbation with influenza vaccines, benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios. The exception involves the relatively few MS patients having a specific contraindication to the influenza vaccine, such as a previous severe reaction, noted Dr. Buhse, who wasn’t involved in developing the evidence-based guidelines.

The available evidence indicates that some but not all disease-modifying therapies for MS reduce the effectiveness of vaccination against influenza.

According to the guideline, “it is possible” that persons with MS being treated with glatiramer acetate have a reduced likelihood of seroprotection from influenza vaccine, a conclusion the guidelines committee drew with “low confidence in the evidence.” Further, the guideline states that “it is probable” MS patients on fingolimod have a lower likelihood of obtaining seroprotection from influenza vaccine than patients not on the drug, with moderate confidence in the evidence. Also, it is deemed probable that patients with MS who are taking mitoxantrone have a reduced likelihood of response to influenza vaccination, compared with healthy controls. But it is probable that patients with MS who are receiving interferon-beta have no diminution in the likelihood of seroprotection. According to the guideline, there is insufficient evidence to say whether patients with MS who are on natalizumab, teriflunomide, or methotrexate have a diminished response to influenza vaccination.

Dr. Buhse noted that rituximab is off-label therapy for MS, so there are no data available regarding the likelihood of seroprotection in response to influenza vaccination in that setting. However, rituximab profoundly decreases the immunogenicity of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It is therefore recommended that inactivated influenza vaccine be given to patients with MS at least 2 weeks prior to starting rituximab or 6 months after the last dose in order to optimize the humoral results. Ms. Nguyen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation. Dr. Buhse reported having received honoraria from Genzyme and Biogen.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The efficacy of the influenza vaccine when given to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is similar to that in healthy controls, Jackie Nguyen reported at the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine published cohort studies including 417 MS patients and more than 500 healthy controls, all of whom received inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine.

The impetus for this project was a recognition that the great majority of the research on the impact of influenza vaccine in patients with MS has focused on safety and MS relapse rates. In contrast, the nine studies included in the meta-analysis contained data on influenza vaccine efficacy as reflected in the ability to mount an adequate immune response. This was defined in standard fashion either by seroconversion, which required at least a fourfold increase in antibody titers following vaccination, or seroprotection, with a postvaccination antihemagglutination immunoglobulin G titer of at least 40. The analysis included patients with MS irrespective of disease duration or severity or treatment regimen, noted Ms. Nguyen, a third-year medical student at Nova Southeastern University College of Allopathic Medicine in Davie, Fla.

The researchers found that there was no significant difference between patients with MS and healthy controls in the rates of an adequate immune response for influenza H1N1, H3N2, or influenza B virus. “The vaccine should thus continue to be recommended for MS patients, as the data shows it to be efficacious,” she said.

Her conclusion is consistent with guidance provided in the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline update on immunization in MS, highlighted elsewhere at CMSC 2020 in a presentation by Marijean Buhse, PhD, of Stony Brook University in New York.

The guideline, updated for the first time in 17 years, states that all MS patients should be advised to receive influenza vaccine annually: “With known risks of exacerbation and other morbidity with influenza infection and no identified risks of exacerbation with influenza vaccines, benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios. The exception involves the relatively few MS patients having a specific contraindication to the influenza vaccine, such as a previous severe reaction, noted Dr. Buhse, who wasn’t involved in developing the evidence-based guidelines.

The available evidence indicates that some but not all disease-modifying therapies for MS reduce the effectiveness of vaccination against influenza.

According to the guideline, “it is possible” that persons with MS being treated with glatiramer acetate have a reduced likelihood of seroprotection from influenza vaccine, a conclusion the guidelines committee drew with “low confidence in the evidence.” Further, the guideline states that “it is probable” MS patients on fingolimod have a lower likelihood of obtaining seroprotection from influenza vaccine than patients not on the drug, with moderate confidence in the evidence. Also, it is deemed probable that patients with MS who are taking mitoxantrone have a reduced likelihood of response to influenza vaccination, compared with healthy controls. But it is probable that patients with MS who are receiving interferon-beta have no diminution in the likelihood of seroprotection. According to the guideline, there is insufficient evidence to say whether patients with MS who are on natalizumab, teriflunomide, or methotrexate have a diminished response to influenza vaccination.

Dr. Buhse noted that rituximab is off-label therapy for MS, so there are no data available regarding the likelihood of seroprotection in response to influenza vaccination in that setting. However, rituximab profoundly decreases the immunogenicity of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It is therefore recommended that inactivated influenza vaccine be given to patients with MS at least 2 weeks prior to starting rituximab or 6 months after the last dose in order to optimize the humoral results. Ms. Nguyen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation. Dr. Buhse reported having received honoraria from Genzyme and Biogen.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The efficacy of the influenza vaccine when given to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is similar to that in healthy controls, Jackie Nguyen reported at the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine published cohort studies including 417 MS patients and more than 500 healthy controls, all of whom received inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine.

The impetus for this project was a recognition that the great majority of the research on the impact of influenza vaccine in patients with MS has focused on safety and MS relapse rates. In contrast, the nine studies included in the meta-analysis contained data on influenza vaccine efficacy as reflected in the ability to mount an adequate immune response. This was defined in standard fashion either by seroconversion, which required at least a fourfold increase in antibody titers following vaccination, or seroprotection, with a postvaccination antihemagglutination immunoglobulin G titer of at least 40. The analysis included patients with MS irrespective of disease duration or severity or treatment regimen, noted Ms. Nguyen, a third-year medical student at Nova Southeastern University College of Allopathic Medicine in Davie, Fla.

The researchers found that there was no significant difference between patients with MS and healthy controls in the rates of an adequate immune response for influenza H1N1, H3N2, or influenza B virus. “The vaccine should thus continue to be recommended for MS patients, as the data shows it to be efficacious,” she said.

Her conclusion is consistent with guidance provided in the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline update on immunization in MS, highlighted elsewhere at CMSC 2020 in a presentation by Marijean Buhse, PhD, of Stony Brook University in New York.

The guideline, updated for the first time in 17 years, states that all MS patients should be advised to receive influenza vaccine annually: “With known risks of exacerbation and other morbidity with influenza infection and no identified risks of exacerbation with influenza vaccines, benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios. The exception involves the relatively few MS patients having a specific contraindication to the influenza vaccine, such as a previous severe reaction, noted Dr. Buhse, who wasn’t involved in developing the evidence-based guidelines.

The available evidence indicates that some but not all disease-modifying therapies for MS reduce the effectiveness of vaccination against influenza.

According to the guideline, “it is possible” that persons with MS being treated with glatiramer acetate have a reduced likelihood of seroprotection from influenza vaccine, a conclusion the guidelines committee drew with “low confidence in the evidence.” Further, the guideline states that “it is probable” MS patients on fingolimod have a lower likelihood of obtaining seroprotection from influenza vaccine than patients not on the drug, with moderate confidence in the evidence. Also, it is deemed probable that patients with MS who are taking mitoxantrone have a reduced likelihood of response to influenza vaccination, compared with healthy controls. But it is probable that patients with MS who are receiving interferon-beta have no diminution in the likelihood of seroprotection. According to the guideline, there is insufficient evidence to say whether patients with MS who are on natalizumab, teriflunomide, or methotrexate have a diminished response to influenza vaccination.

Dr. Buhse noted that rituximab is off-label therapy for MS, so there are no data available regarding the likelihood of seroprotection in response to influenza vaccination in that setting. However, rituximab profoundly decreases the immunogenicity of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It is therefore recommended that inactivated influenza vaccine be given to patients with MS at least 2 weeks prior to starting rituximab or 6 months after the last dose in order to optimize the humoral results. Ms. Nguyen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation. Dr. Buhse reported having received honoraria from Genzyme and Biogen.

bjancin@mdedge.com

What do you do now?

Your waiting room is filled with mask-wearing individuals, except for one person. Your staff offers a mask to this person, citing your office policy of requiring masks for all persons in order to prevent asymptomatic COVID-19 spread, and the patient refuses to put it on.

What can you/should you/must you do? Are you required to see a patient who refuses to wear a mask? If you ask the patient to leave without being seen, can you be accused of patient abandonment? If you allow the patient to stay, could you be liable for negligence for exposing others to a deadly illness?

The rules on mask-wearing, while initially downright confusing, have inexorably come to a rough consensus. By governors’ orders, masks are now mandatory in most states, though when and where they are required varies. For example, effective July 7, the governor of Washington has ordered that a business not allow a customer to enter without a face covering.

So far, there are no cases or court decisions to guide us about whether it is negligence to allow an unmasked patient to commingle in a medical practice. Nor do we have case law to help us determine whether patient abandonment would apply if a patient is sent home without being seen.

We can apply the legal principles and cases from other situations to this one, however, to tell us what constitutes negligence or patient abandonment. The practical questions, legally, are who might sue and on what basis?

Who might sue?

Someone who is injured in a public place may sue the owner for negligence if the owner knew or should have known of a danger and didn’t do anything about it. For example, individuals have sued grocery stores successfully after they slipped on a banana peel and fell. If, say, the banana peel was black, that indicates that it had been there for a while, and judges have found that the store management should have known about it and removed it.

Compare the banana peel scenario with the scenario where most news outlets and health departments are telling people, every day, to wear masks while in indoor public spaces, yet owners of a medical practice or facility allow individuals who are not wearing masks to sit in their waiting room. If an individual who was also in the waiting room with the unmasked individual develops COVID-19 2 days later, the ill individual may sue the medical practice for negligence for not removing the unmasked individual.

What about the individual’s responsibility to move away from the person not wearing a mask? That is the aspect of this scenario that attorneys and experts could argue about, for days, in a court case. But to go back to the banana peel case, one could argue that a customer in a grocery store should be looking out for banana peels on the floor and avoid them, yet courts have assigned liability to grocery stores when customers slip and fall.

Let’s review the four elements of negligence which a plaintiff would need to prove:

• Duty: Obligation of one person to another
• Breach: Improper act or omission, in the context of proper behavior to avoid imposing undue risks of harm to other persons and their property
• Damage
• Causation: That the act or omission caused the harm

Those who run medical offices and facilities have a duty to provide reasonably safe public spaces. Unmasked individuals are a risk to others nearby, so the “breach” element is satisfied if a practice fails to impose safety measures. Causation could be proven, or at least inferred, if contact tracing of an individual with COVID-19 showed that the only contact likely to have exposed the ill individual to the virus was an unmasked individual in a medical practice’s waiting room, especially if the unmasked individual was COVID-19 positive before, during, or shortly after the visit to the practice.

What about patient abandonment?

“Patient abandonment” is the legal term for terminating the physician-patient relationship in such a manner that the patient is denied necessary medical care. It is a form of negligence.

Refusing to see a patient unless the patient wears a mask is not denying care, in this attorney’s view, but rather establishing reasonable conditions for getting care. The patient simply needs to put on a mask.

What about the patient who refuses to wear a mask for medical reasons? There are exceptions in most of the governors’ orders for individuals with medical conditions that preclude covering nose and mouth with a mask. A medical office is the perfect place to test an individual’s ability or inability to breathe well while wearing a mask. “Put the mask on and we’ll see how you do” is a reasonable response. Monitor the patient visually and apply a pulse oximeter with mask off and mask on.

One physician recently wrote about measuring her own oxygen levels while wearing four different masks for 5 minutes each, with no change in breathing.

Editor’s note: Read more about mask exemptions in a Medscape interview with pulmonologist Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association.

What are some practical tips?

Assuming that a patient is not in acute distress, options in this scenario include:

• Send the patient home and offer a return visit if masked or when the pandemic is over.
• Offer a telehealth visit, with the patient at home.

What if the unmasked person is not a patient but the companion of a patient? What if the individual refusing to wear a mask is an employee? In neither of these two hypotheticals is there a basis for legal action against a practice whose policy requires that everyone wear masks on the premises.

A companion who arrives without a mask should leave the office. An employee who refuses to mask up could be sent home. If the employee has a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, then the practice may need to make reasonable accommodations so that the employee works in a room alone if unable to work from home.

Those who manage medical practices should check the websites of the state health department and medical societies at least weekly, to see whether the agencies have issued guidance. For example, the Texas Medical Association has issued limited guidance.

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

What do you do now?

Your waiting room is filled with mask-wearing individuals, except for one person. Your staff offers a mask to this person, citing your office policy of requiring masks for all persons in order to prevent asymptomatic COVID-19 spread, and the patient refuses to put it on.

What can you/should you/must you do? Are you required to see a patient who refuses to wear a mask? If you ask the patient to leave without being seen, can you be accused of patient abandonment? If you allow the patient to stay, could you be liable for negligence for exposing others to a deadly illness?

The rules on mask-wearing, while initially downright confusing, have inexorably come to a rough consensus. By governors’ orders, masks are now mandatory in most states, though when and where they are required varies. For example, effective July 7, the governor of Washington has ordered that a business not allow a customer to enter without a face covering.

So far, there are no cases or court decisions to guide us about whether it is negligence to allow an unmasked patient to commingle in a medical practice. Nor do we have case law to help us determine whether patient abandonment would apply if a patient is sent home without being seen.

We can apply the legal principles and cases from other situations to this one, however, to tell us what constitutes negligence or patient abandonment. The practical questions, legally, are who might sue and on what basis?

Who might sue?

Someone who is injured in a public place may sue the owner for negligence if the owner knew or should have known of a danger and didn’t do anything about it. For example, individuals have sued grocery stores successfully after they slipped on a banana peel and fell. If, say, the banana peel was black, that indicates that it had been there for a while, and judges have found that the store management should have known about it and removed it.

Compare the banana peel scenario with the scenario where most news outlets and health departments are telling people, every day, to wear masks while in indoor public spaces, yet owners of a medical practice or facility allow individuals who are not wearing masks to sit in their waiting room. If an individual who was also in the waiting room with the unmasked individual develops COVID-19 2 days later, the ill individual may sue the medical practice for negligence for not removing the unmasked individual.

What about the individual’s responsibility to move away from the person not wearing a mask? That is the aspect of this scenario that attorneys and experts could argue about, for days, in a court case. But to go back to the banana peel case, one could argue that a customer in a grocery store should be looking out for banana peels on the floor and avoid them, yet courts have assigned liability to grocery stores when customers slip and fall.

Let’s review the four elements of negligence which a plaintiff would need to prove:

• Duty: Obligation of one person to another
• Breach: Improper act or omission, in the context of proper behavior to avoid imposing undue risks of harm to other persons and their property
• Damage
• Causation: That the act or omission caused the harm

Those who run medical offices and facilities have a duty to provide reasonably safe public spaces. Unmasked individuals are a risk to others nearby, so the “breach” element is satisfied if a practice fails to impose safety measures. Causation could be proven, or at least inferred, if contact tracing of an individual with COVID-19 showed that the only contact likely to have exposed the ill individual to the virus was an unmasked individual in a medical practice’s waiting room, especially if the unmasked individual was COVID-19 positive before, during, or shortly after the visit to the practice.

What about patient abandonment?

“Patient abandonment” is the legal term for terminating the physician-patient relationship in such a manner that the patient is denied necessary medical care. It is a form of negligence.

Refusing to see a patient unless the patient wears a mask is not denying care, in this attorney’s view, but rather establishing reasonable conditions for getting care. The patient simply needs to put on a mask.

What about the patient who refuses to wear a mask for medical reasons? There are exceptions in most of the governors’ orders for individuals with medical conditions that preclude covering nose and mouth with a mask. A medical office is the perfect place to test an individual’s ability or inability to breathe well while wearing a mask. “Put the mask on and we’ll see how you do” is a reasonable response. Monitor the patient visually and apply a pulse oximeter with mask off and mask on.

One physician recently wrote about measuring her own oxygen levels while wearing four different masks for 5 minutes each, with no change in breathing.

Editor’s note: Read more about mask exemptions in a Medscape interview with pulmonologist Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association.

What are some practical tips?

Assuming that a patient is not in acute distress, options in this scenario include:

• Send the patient home and offer a return visit if masked or when the pandemic is over.
• Offer a telehealth visit, with the patient at home.

What if the unmasked person is not a patient but the companion of a patient? What if the individual refusing to wear a mask is an employee? In neither of these two hypotheticals is there a basis for legal action against a practice whose policy requires that everyone wear masks on the premises.

A companion who arrives without a mask should leave the office. An employee who refuses to mask up could be sent home. If the employee has a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, then the practice may need to make reasonable accommodations so that the employee works in a room alone if unable to work from home.

Those who manage medical practices should check the websites of the state health department and medical societies at least weekly, to see whether the agencies have issued guidance. For example, the Texas Medical Association has issued limited guidance.

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

What do you do now?

Your waiting room is filled with mask-wearing individuals, except for one person. Your staff offers a mask to this person, citing your office policy of requiring masks for all persons in order to prevent asymptomatic COVID-19 spread, and the patient refuses to put it on.

What can you/should you/must you do? Are you required to see a patient who refuses to wear a mask? If you ask the patient to leave without being seen, can you be accused of patient abandonment? If you allow the patient to stay, could you be liable for negligence for exposing others to a deadly illness?

The rules on mask-wearing, while initially downright confusing, have inexorably come to a rough consensus. By governors’ orders, masks are now mandatory in most states, though when and where they are required varies. For example, effective July 7, the governor of Washington has ordered that a business not allow a customer to enter without a face covering.

So far, there are no cases or court decisions to guide us about whether it is negligence to allow an unmasked patient to commingle in a medical practice. Nor do we have case law to help us determine whether patient abandonment would apply if a patient is sent home without being seen.

We can apply the legal principles and cases from other situations to this one, however, to tell us what constitutes negligence or patient abandonment. The practical questions, legally, are who might sue and on what basis?

Who might sue?

Someone who is injured in a public place may sue the owner for negligence if the owner knew or should have known of a danger and didn’t do anything about it. For example, individuals have sued grocery stores successfully after they slipped on a banana peel and fell. If, say, the banana peel was black, that indicates that it had been there for a while, and judges have found that the store management should have known about it and removed it.

Compare the banana peel scenario with the scenario where most news outlets and health departments are telling people, every day, to wear masks while in indoor public spaces, yet owners of a medical practice or facility allow individuals who are not wearing masks to sit in their waiting room. If an individual who was also in the waiting room with the unmasked individual develops COVID-19 2 days later, the ill individual may sue the medical practice for negligence for not removing the unmasked individual.

What about the individual’s responsibility to move away from the person not wearing a mask? That is the aspect of this scenario that attorneys and experts could argue about, for days, in a court case. But to go back to the banana peel case, one could argue that a customer in a grocery store should be looking out for banana peels on the floor and avoid them, yet courts have assigned liability to grocery stores when customers slip and fall.

Let’s review the four elements of negligence which a plaintiff would need to prove:

• Duty: Obligation of one person to another
• Breach: Improper act or omission, in the context of proper behavior to avoid imposing undue risks of harm to other persons and their property
• Damage
• Causation: That the act or omission caused the harm

Those who run medical offices and facilities have a duty to provide reasonably safe public spaces. Unmasked individuals are a risk to others nearby, so the “breach” element is satisfied if a practice fails to impose safety measures. Causation could be proven, or at least inferred, if contact tracing of an individual with COVID-19 showed that the only contact likely to have exposed the ill individual to the virus was an unmasked individual in a medical practice’s waiting room, especially if the unmasked individual was COVID-19 positive before, during, or shortly after the visit to the practice.

What about patient abandonment?

“Patient abandonment” is the legal term for terminating the physician-patient relationship in such a manner that the patient is denied necessary medical care. It is a form of negligence.

Refusing to see a patient unless the patient wears a mask is not denying care, in this attorney’s view, but rather establishing reasonable conditions for getting care. The patient simply needs to put on a mask.

What about the patient who refuses to wear a mask for medical reasons? There are exceptions in most of the governors’ orders for individuals with medical conditions that preclude covering nose and mouth with a mask. A medical office is the perfect place to test an individual’s ability or inability to breathe well while wearing a mask. “Put the mask on and we’ll see how you do” is a reasonable response. Monitor the patient visually and apply a pulse oximeter with mask off and mask on.

One physician recently wrote about measuring her own oxygen levels while wearing four different masks for 5 minutes each, with no change in breathing.

Editor’s note: Read more about mask exemptions in a Medscape interview with pulmonologist Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association.

What are some practical tips?

Assuming that a patient is not in acute distress, options in this scenario include:

• Send the patient home and offer a return visit if masked or when the pandemic is over.
• Offer a telehealth visit, with the patient at home.

What if the unmasked person is not a patient but the companion of a patient? What if the individual refusing to wear a mask is an employee? In neither of these two hypotheticals is there a basis for legal action against a practice whose policy requires that everyone wear masks on the premises.

A companion who arrives without a mask should leave the office. An employee who refuses to mask up could be sent home. If the employee has a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, then the practice may need to make reasonable accommodations so that the employee works in a room alone if unable to work from home.

Those who manage medical practices should check the websites of the state health department and medical societies at least weekly, to see whether the agencies have issued guidance. For example, the Texas Medical Association has issued limited guidance.

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

Injections of cabotegravir (ViiV Healthcare) given every other month are more effective in blocking HIV transmission than is the once-a-day combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (Truvada, Gilead Science), new data from the HPTN 083 trial show.

The findings “could transform the HIV prevention landscape for so many people,” said Megan Coleman, DNP, from Whitman-Walker Health in Washington, DC, who regularly prescribes Truvada as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

At Whitman-Walker alone, about 3000 people were taking the pill in early 2020, but “for some people, taking a pill every day just isn’t a viable option,” said Coleman. “To have something that can support a patient’s choice and a patient’s ability to reduce their own risk of HIV is amazing.”

Final results from the trial — which looked at the drug in cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men — were presented at the International AIDS Conference 2020.
 

Early Study Termination

Half of the 4566 study participants — from 43 sites in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the United States — were younger than 30 years, 12.4% were transgender women, 29.7% were black, and 46.1% were Hispanic.

By design, ViiV Healthcare, the study sponsor, required that 50% of American participants be black to reflect the population at risk for HIV in the United States, said Raphael Landovitz, MD, from the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, who is protocol chair for HPTN 083. In fact, 49.7% of the American cohort was black and 17.8% was Hispanic.

Patients randomized to the cabotegravir group received daily oral cabotegravir plus daily oral placebo for 5 weeks, to assess safety, followed by a cabotegravir injection at weeks 5 and 9 and every 2 months thereafter out to week 153 plus daily oral placebo. Patients randomized to the Truvada group received daily oral Truvada plus daily oral placebo for 5 weeks, followed by daily oral Truvada plus placebo injection, on the same schedule, out to week 153.

After the final injection, all participants continued on daily oral Truvada for 48 weeks.

The researchers expected to wait until 172 participants acquired HIV; they decided at the outset that this number would be sufficient to power a decision on whether or not cabotegravir injections are better than daily oral Truvada. But by May 2020, when 52 of the study participants had acquired HIV, the results were so lopsided in favor of cabotegravir that the trial was stopped. At that point, all participants were offered cabotegravir injections every 2 months.

Thirty-nine of the 52 (75%) new HIV infections occurred in the Truvada group. In fact, people in the cabotegravir group were less likely to acquire HIV than those in the Truvada group (hazard ratio, 0.34).

“This definitively establishes the superiority of cabotegravir,” said Landovitz.

He and his colleagues had been legitimately concerned that HIV acquisition would be so low in the trial that they wouldn’t be able to show how effective the injectable was. The success of Truvada PrEP has made it difficult to design prevention trials.

“We know that Truvada works extremely well, so the fact that we were able to show that cabotegravir in this population works better” is a powerful observation, said Landovitz. This is especially true because the rates of sexually transmitted infections — which are thought to increase risk for HIV transmission — were so high. Overall, 16.5% of the participants tested positive for syphilis during the trial, 13.3% tested positive for gonorrhea, and 21.1% tested positive for Chlamydia.
 

Five Surprising Seroconversions

Eleven of the 15 HIV infections in the cabotegravir group occurred in people who had received at least one injection. Three of these infections actually occurred during the first 5 weeks of the study when participants were taking oral cabotegravir, two occurred when participants chose to discontinue the injection and return to daily oral Truvada, and one occurred after a participant missed the injection for a prolonged period of time.

But five of the transmissions occurred in participants who appeared to be perfectly adherent.

Landovitz offered a number of possible reasons for this surprising finding.

“Number one could be that there’s something about these five particular individuals such that they grind up and eliminate the cabotegravir faster than other people, so an 8-week interval is too long for them,” he explained. “Another possibility, although pretty rare, is that there is a rare circulating virus that is intrinsically resistant to cabotegravir.”

Breakthrough HIV transmissions have been rare in people taking oral PrEP.

Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have meant that the researchers don’t yet have the data on drug-resistant mutations or drug levels for these five participants, but they will.

“I suspect the truth is that there will never be a 100% failsafe HIV prevention mechanism,” said Landovitz.
 

“Impressive” Findings

The findings were greeted with excitement, although questions remain.

They are “impressive,” especially the data on black and Hispanic participants, said Paul Sax, MD, medical director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

However, he said he is interested in the data showing that although participants in both groups gained weight during the study, there was early weight loss in the Truvada group, meaning that those in the cabotegravir group weighed more at the end of the study than those in the Truvada group.

“I’ve been watching the data on weight with integrase inhibitors,” he explained, including weight data specific to Truvada and to the combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (Descovy, Gilead). It looks like Truvada “has some sort of weight-suppressive effects. That’s going to be a thing we’re going to have to watch.”

Coleman said she is already thinking about patients at Whitman-Walker who might do well on cabotegravir and those who can start PrEP for the first time with this option.

“Not only would people probably switch to this option, but maybe people would be interested in starting a biomedical prevention approach that isn’t a pill every day,” she said. “It’s just exciting to have another option. Hopefully, in a few years, we’ll have implantable devices and rings; I can’t even imagine what all those brilliant minds are coming up with.”

But that’s still a ways off. First, cabotegravir has yet to be approved for HIV prevention, and ideally, eventually, there will be a way to determine if cabotegravir is safe for each patient that doesn’t involve a month of daily pills.

“We need to solve that problem because it’s so complicated to do an oral lead-in for a month or so,” said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health. “Otherwise it’s not going to be feasible.”

We need to make sure this gets licensed for men and women and transgender individuals.

Even with these positive data, Dieffenbach and other officials are not keen to have ViiV apply for licensing right away. Last October, Descovy was the second oral PrEP pill approved for HIV prevention, but only for use by gay men and transgender women — it hadn’t been well studied in cisgender women — causing an outcry. Now, officials are suggesting that ViiV not make the same mistake.

They are urging the company to hold off until data from the sister study of the medication in women — HPTN 084 — is completed in 2022.

“We need to make sure this gets licensed for men and women and transgender individuals,” Dieffenbach told Medscape Medical News. “We just need to give this a little more time and then build a plan with contingencies, so that if something happens, we still have collected all the safety data in women so we can say it’s safe.”
 

ViiV seems to be making such a plan.

“Our goal is to seek approval across all genders and we will work with the FDA and other regulatory agencies to map out a plan to achieve this goal,” said Kimberly Smith, MD, head of research and development at ViiV Healthcare.

The World Health Organization (WHO), meanwhile, doesn’t expect to change its guidelines on HIV prevention medications until data from HPTN 084 are reported.

“What’s important when we look at guidelines is that we also look across populations,” said Meg Doherty, coordinator of treatment and care in the Department of HIV/AIDS at WHO. “We’re waiting to know more about how cabotegravir works in women, because we certainly want to have prevention drugs that can be used in men and women at different age ranges and, ideally, during pregnancy.”

International AIDS Conference 2020: Abstracts OAXLB01. Presented July 8, 2020.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Injections of cabotegravir (ViiV Healthcare) given every other month are more effective in blocking HIV transmission than is the once-a-day combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (Truvada, Gilead Science), new data from the HPTN 083 trial show.

The findings “could transform the HIV prevention landscape for so many people,” said Megan Coleman, DNP, from Whitman-Walker Health in Washington, DC, who regularly prescribes Truvada as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

At Whitman-Walker alone, about 3000 people were taking the pill in early 2020, but “for some people, taking a pill every day just isn’t a viable option,” said Coleman. “To have something that can support a patient’s choice and a patient’s ability to reduce their own risk of HIV is amazing.”

Final results from the trial — which looked at the drug in cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men — were presented at the International AIDS Conference 2020.
 

Early Study Termination

Half of the 4566 study participants — from 43 sites in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the United States — were younger than 30 years, 12.4% were transgender women, 29.7% were black, and 46.1% were Hispanic.

By design, ViiV Healthcare, the study sponsor, required that 50% of American participants be black to reflect the population at risk for HIV in the United States, said Raphael Landovitz, MD, from the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, who is protocol chair for HPTN 083. In fact, 49.7% of the American cohort was black and 17.8% was Hispanic.

Patients randomized to the cabotegravir group received daily oral cabotegravir plus daily oral placebo for 5 weeks, to assess safety, followed by a cabotegravir injection at weeks 5 and 9 and every 2 months thereafter out to week 153 plus daily oral placebo. Patients randomized to the Truvada group received daily oral Truvada plus daily oral placebo for 5 weeks, followed by daily oral Truvada plus placebo injection, on the same schedule, out to week 153.

After the final injection, all participants continued on daily oral Truvada for 48 weeks.

The researchers expected to wait until 172 participants acquired HIV; they decided at the outset that this number would be sufficient to power a decision on whether or not cabotegravir injections are better than daily oral Truvada. But by May 2020, when 52 of the study participants had acquired HIV, the results were so lopsided in favor of cabotegravir that the trial was stopped. At that point, all participants were offered cabotegravir injections every 2 months.

Thirty-nine of the 52 (75%) new HIV infections occurred in the Truvada group. In fact, people in the cabotegravir group were less likely to acquire HIV than those in the Truvada group (hazard ratio, 0.34).

“This definitively establishes the superiority of cabotegravir,” said Landovitz.

He and his colleagues had been legitimately concerned that HIV acquisition would be so low in the trial that they wouldn’t be able to show how effective the injectable was. The success of Truvada PrEP has made it difficult to design prevention trials.

“We know that Truvada works extremely well, so the fact that we were able to show that cabotegravir in this population works better” is a powerful observation, said Landovitz. This is especially true because the rates of sexually transmitted infections — which are thought to increase risk for HIV transmission — were so high. Overall, 16.5% of the participants tested positive for syphilis during the trial, 13.3% tested positive for gonorrhea, and 21.1% tested positive for Chlamydia.
 

Five Surprising Seroconversions

Eleven of the 15 HIV infections in the cabotegravir group occurred in people who had received at least one injection. Three of these infections actually occurred during the first 5 weeks of the study when participants were taking oral cabotegravir, two occurred when participants chose to discontinue the injection and return to daily oral Truvada, and one occurred after a participant missed the injection for a prolonged period of time.

But five of the transmissions occurred in participants who appeared to be perfectly adherent.

Landovitz offered a number of possible reasons for this surprising finding.

“Number one could be that there’s something about these five particular individuals such that they grind up and eliminate the cabotegravir faster than other people, so an 8-week interval is too long for them,” he explained. “Another possibility, although pretty rare, is that there is a rare circulating virus that is intrinsically resistant to cabotegravir.”

Breakthrough HIV transmissions have been rare in people taking oral PrEP.

Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have meant that the researchers don’t yet have the data on drug-resistant mutations or drug levels for these five participants, but they will.

“I suspect the truth is that there will never be a 100% failsafe HIV prevention mechanism,” said Landovitz.
 

“Impressive” Findings

The findings were greeted with excitement, although questions remain.

They are “impressive,” especially the data on black and Hispanic participants, said Paul Sax, MD, medical director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

However, he said he is interested in the data showing that although participants in both groups gained weight during the study, there was early weight loss in the Truvada group, meaning that those in the cabotegravir group weighed more at the end of the study than those in the Truvada group.

“I’ve been watching the data on weight with integrase inhibitors,” he explained, including weight data specific to Truvada and to the combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (Descovy, Gilead). It looks like Truvada “has some sort of weight-suppressive effects. That’s going to be a thing we’re going to have to watch.”

Coleman said she is already thinking about patients at Whitman-Walker who might do well on cabotegravir and those who can start PrEP for the first time with this option.

“Not only would people probably switch to this option, but maybe people would be interested in starting a biomedical prevention approach that isn’t a pill every day,” she said. “It’s just exciting to have another option. Hopefully, in a few years, we’ll have implantable devices and rings; I can’t even imagine what all those brilliant minds are coming up with.”

But that’s still a ways off. First, cabotegravir has yet to be approved for HIV prevention, and ideally, eventually, there will be a way to determine if cabotegravir is safe for each patient that doesn’t involve a month of daily pills.

“We need to solve that problem because it’s so complicated to do an oral lead-in for a month or so,” said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health. “Otherwise it’s not going to be feasible.”

We need to make sure this gets licensed for men and women and transgender individuals.

Even with these positive data, Dieffenbach and other officials are not keen to have ViiV apply for licensing right away. Last October, Descovy was the second oral PrEP pill approved for HIV prevention, but only for use by gay men and transgender women — it hadn’t been well studied in cisgender women — causing an outcry. Now, officials are suggesting that ViiV not make the same mistake.

They are urging the company to hold off until data from the sister study of the medication in women — HPTN 084 — is completed in 2022.

“We need to make sure this gets licensed for men and women and transgender individuals,” Dieffenbach told Medscape Medical News. “We just need to give this a little more time and then build a plan with contingencies, so that if something happens, we still have collected all the safety data in women so we can say it’s safe.”
 

ViiV seems to be making such a plan.

“Our goal is to seek approval across all genders and we will work with the FDA and other regulatory agencies to map out a plan to achieve this goal,” said Kimberly Smith, MD, head of research and development at ViiV Healthcare.

The World Health Organization (WHO), meanwhile, doesn’t expect to change its guidelines on HIV prevention medications until data from HPTN 084 are reported.

“What’s important when we look at guidelines is that we also look across populations,” said Meg Doherty, coordinator of treatment and care in the Department of HIV/AIDS at WHO. “We’re waiting to know more about how cabotegravir works in women, because we certainly want to have prevention drugs that can be used in men and women at different age ranges and, ideally, during pregnancy.”

International AIDS Conference 2020: Abstracts OAXLB01. Presented July 8, 2020.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Injections of cabotegravir (ViiV Healthcare) given every other month are more effective in blocking HIV transmission than is the once-a-day combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (Truvada, Gilead Science), new data from the HPTN 083 trial show.

The findings “could transform the HIV prevention landscape for so many people,” said Megan Coleman, DNP, from Whitman-Walker Health in Washington, DC, who regularly prescribes Truvada as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

At Whitman-Walker alone, about 3000 people were taking the pill in early 2020, but “for some people, taking a pill every day just isn’t a viable option,” said Coleman. “To have something that can support a patient’s choice and a patient’s ability to reduce their own risk of HIV is amazing.”

Final results from the trial — which looked at the drug in cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men — were presented at the International AIDS Conference 2020.
 

Early Study Termination

Half of the 4566 study participants — from 43 sites in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the United States — were younger than 30 years, 12.4% were transgender women, 29.7% were black, and 46.1% were Hispanic.

By design, ViiV Healthcare, the study sponsor, required that 50% of American participants be black to reflect the population at risk for HIV in the United States, said Raphael Landovitz, MD, from the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, who is protocol chair for HPTN 083. In fact, 49.7% of the American cohort was black and 17.8% was Hispanic.

Patients randomized to the cabotegravir group received daily oral cabotegravir plus daily oral placebo for 5 weeks, to assess safety, followed by a cabotegravir injection at weeks 5 and 9 and every 2 months thereafter out to week 153 plus daily oral placebo. Patients randomized to the Truvada group received daily oral Truvada plus daily oral placebo for 5 weeks, followed by daily oral Truvada plus placebo injection, on the same schedule, out to week 153.

After the final injection, all participants continued on daily oral Truvada for 48 weeks.

The researchers expected to wait until 172 participants acquired HIV; they decided at the outset that this number would be sufficient to power a decision on whether or not cabotegravir injections are better than daily oral Truvada. But by May 2020, when 52 of the study participants had acquired HIV, the results were so lopsided in favor of cabotegravir that the trial was stopped. At that point, all participants were offered cabotegravir injections every 2 months.

Thirty-nine of the 52 (75%) new HIV infections occurred in the Truvada group. In fact, people in the cabotegravir group were less likely to acquire HIV than those in the Truvada group (hazard ratio, 0.34).

“This definitively establishes the superiority of cabotegravir,” said Landovitz.

He and his colleagues had been legitimately concerned that HIV acquisition would be so low in the trial that they wouldn’t be able to show how effective the injectable was. The success of Truvada PrEP has made it difficult to design prevention trials.

“We know that Truvada works extremely well, so the fact that we were able to show that cabotegravir in this population works better” is a powerful observation, said Landovitz. This is especially true because the rates of sexually transmitted infections — which are thought to increase risk for HIV transmission — were so high. Overall, 16.5% of the participants tested positive for syphilis during the trial, 13.3% tested positive for gonorrhea, and 21.1% tested positive for Chlamydia.
 

Five Surprising Seroconversions

Eleven of the 15 HIV infections in the cabotegravir group occurred in people who had received at least one injection. Three of these infections actually occurred during the first 5 weeks of the study when participants were taking oral cabotegravir, two occurred when participants chose to discontinue the injection and return to daily oral Truvada, and one occurred after a participant missed the injection for a prolonged period of time.

But five of the transmissions occurred in participants who appeared to be perfectly adherent.

Landovitz offered a number of possible reasons for this surprising finding.

“Number one could be that there’s something about these five particular individuals such that they grind up and eliminate the cabotegravir faster than other people, so an 8-week interval is too long for them,” he explained. “Another possibility, although pretty rare, is that there is a rare circulating virus that is intrinsically resistant to cabotegravir.”

Breakthrough HIV transmissions have been rare in people taking oral PrEP.

Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have meant that the researchers don’t yet have the data on drug-resistant mutations or drug levels for these five participants, but they will.

“I suspect the truth is that there will never be a 100% failsafe HIV prevention mechanism,” said Landovitz.
 

“Impressive” Findings

The findings were greeted with excitement, although questions remain.

They are “impressive,” especially the data on black and Hispanic participants, said Paul Sax, MD, medical director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

However, he said he is interested in the data showing that although participants in both groups gained weight during the study, there was early weight loss in the Truvada group, meaning that those in the cabotegravir group weighed more at the end of the study than those in the Truvada group.

“I’ve been watching the data on weight with integrase inhibitors,” he explained, including weight data specific to Truvada and to the combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (Descovy, Gilead). It looks like Truvada “has some sort of weight-suppressive effects. That’s going to be a thing we’re going to have to watch.”

Coleman said she is already thinking about patients at Whitman-Walker who might do well on cabotegravir and those who can start PrEP for the first time with this option.

“Not only would people probably switch to this option, but maybe people would be interested in starting a biomedical prevention approach that isn’t a pill every day,” she said. “It’s just exciting to have another option. Hopefully, in a few years, we’ll have implantable devices and rings; I can’t even imagine what all those brilliant minds are coming up with.”

But that’s still a ways off. First, cabotegravir has yet to be approved for HIV prevention, and ideally, eventually, there will be a way to determine if cabotegravir is safe for each patient that doesn’t involve a month of daily pills.

“We need to solve that problem because it’s so complicated to do an oral lead-in for a month or so,” said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health. “Otherwise it’s not going to be feasible.”

We need to make sure this gets licensed for men and women and transgender individuals.

Even with these positive data, Dieffenbach and other officials are not keen to have ViiV apply for licensing right away. Last October, Descovy was the second oral PrEP pill approved for HIV prevention, but only for use by gay men and transgender women — it hadn’t been well studied in cisgender women — causing an outcry. Now, officials are suggesting that ViiV not make the same mistake.

They are urging the company to hold off until data from the sister study of the medication in women — HPTN 084 — is completed in 2022.

“We need to make sure this gets licensed for men and women and transgender individuals,” Dieffenbach told Medscape Medical News. “We just need to give this a little more time and then build a plan with contingencies, so that if something happens, we still have collected all the safety data in women so we can say it’s safe.”
 

ViiV seems to be making such a plan.

“Our goal is to seek approval across all genders and we will work with the FDA and other regulatory agencies to map out a plan to achieve this goal,” said Kimberly Smith, MD, head of research and development at ViiV Healthcare.

The World Health Organization (WHO), meanwhile, doesn’t expect to change its guidelines on HIV prevention medications until data from HPTN 084 are reported.

“What’s important when we look at guidelines is that we also look across populations,” said Meg Doherty, coordinator of treatment and care in the Department of HIV/AIDS at WHO. “We’re waiting to know more about how cabotegravir works in women, because we certainly want to have prevention drugs that can be used in men and women at different age ranges and, ideally, during pregnancy.”

International AIDS Conference 2020: Abstracts OAXLB01. Presented July 8, 2020.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.