Infectious Disease Practitioner

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During a family medicine rotation at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, third-year medical students are preparing for a patient visit. Only, instead of entering a clinic room, students sit down at a computer. The patient they’re virtually examining – a 42-year-old male cattle rancher with knee problems – is an actor.

He asks for an MRI. A student explains that kneecap pain calls for rehab rather than a scan. The patient pushes back. “It would ease my mind,” he says. “I really need to make sure I can keep the ranch running.” The student must now try to digitally maintain rapport while explaining why imaging isn’t necessary.

When COVID-19 hit, telehealth training and remote learning became major parts of medical education, seemingly overnight. Since the start of the pandemic, students have contended with canceled classes, missed rotations, and revised training timelines, even as the demand for new doctors grows ever more pressing.

Institutions have been forced to rethink how to best establish solid, long-term foundations to ensure that young doctors are adequately trained. “They may find themselves the only doctors to be practicing in a small town,” said Stephen G. Post, PhD, bioethicist and professor at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University. “They have to be ready.”

With limited hands-on access to patients, students must learn in ways most never have before. Medical schools are now test-driving a mix of new and reimagined teaching strategies that aim to produce doctors who will enter medicine just as prepared as their more seasoned peers.

Hands-off education

Soon after starting her pediatrics rotation in March, recent Stanford (Calif.) University graduate Paloma Marin-Nevarez, MD, heard that children were being admitted to her hospital for evaluation to rule out COVID-19. Dr. Marin-Nevarez was assigned to help care for them but never physically met any – an approach called “virtual rounding.”

In virtual rounding, a provider typically goes in, examines a patient, and uses a portable device such as an iPad to send video or take notes about the encounter. Students or others in another room then give input on the patient’s care. “It was bizarre doing rounds on patients I had not met yet, discussing their treatment plans in one of the team rooms,” Dr. Marin-Nevarez said. “There was something very eerie about passing that particular unit that said: ‘Do not enter,’ and never being able to go inside.”

Within weeks, the Association of American Medical Colleges advised medical schools to suspend any activities – including clinical rotations – that involved direct student contact with patients, even those who weren’t COVID-19 positive.

Many schools hope to have students back and participating in some degree of patient care at non–COVID-19 hospital wards as early as July 1, said Michael Gisondi, MD, vice chair of education at Stanford’s department of emergency medicine. Returning students must now adapt to a restricted training environment, often while scrambling to make up training time. “This is uncharted territory for medical schools. Elective cases are down, surgical cases are down. That’s potentially going to decrease exposure to training opportunities.”

When students come back, lectures are still likely to remain on hold at most schools, replaced by Zoom conferences and virtual presentations. That’s not completely new: A trend away from large, traditional classes predated the pandemic. In a 2017-2018 AAMC survey, one in four second-year medical students said they almost never went to in-person lectures. COVID-19 has accelerated this shift.

For faculty who have long emphasized hands-on, in-person learning, the shift presents “a whole pedagogical issue – you don’t necessarily know how to adjust your practices to an online format,” Dr. Gisondi said. Instructors have to be even more flexible in order to engage students. “Every week I ask the students: ‘What’s working? What’s not working?’ ” Dr. Gisondi said about his online classes. “We have to solicit feedback.”

Changes to lectures are the easy part, says Elisabeth Fassas, a second-year student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before the pandemic, she was taking a clinical medicine course that involved time in the hospital, something that helped link the academic with the practical. “You really get to see the stuff you’re learning being relevant: ‘Here’s a patient who has a cardiology problem,’ ” she said. “[Capturing] that piece of connection to what you’re working toward is going to be tricky, I think.”

Some students who graduated this past spring worry about that clinical time they lost. Many remain acutely conscious of specific knowledge gaps. “I did not get a ton of experience examining crying children or holding babies,” said Dr. Marin-Nevarez, who starts an emergency medicine residency this year. “I am going to have to be transparent with my future instructors and let them know I missed out because of the pandemic.”

Such knowledge gaps mean new doctors will have to make up ground, said Jeremiah Tao, MD, who trains ophthalmology residents at the University of California, Irvine. But Dr. Tao doesn’t see these setbacks as a major long-term problem. His residents are already starting to make up the patient hours they missed in the spring and are refining the skills that got short shrift earlier on. For eligibility, “most boards require a certain number of days of experience. But most of the message from our board is [that] they’re understanding, and they’re going to leave it to the program directors to declare someone competent.”

Robert Johnson, MD, dean of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said short-term setbacks in training likely won’t translate into longer-term skill deficits. “What most schools have done is overprepare students. We’re sure they have acquired all the skills they need to practice.”

Closing the gaps

To fill existing knowledge gaps and prevent future deficits, institutions hope to strike a balance between keeping trainees safe and providing necessary on-site learning. In line with ongoing AAMC recommendations, which suggest schools curtail student involvement in direct patient care in areas with significant COVID-19 spread, virtual rounding will likely continue.

Many schools may use a hybrid approach, in which students take turns entering patient rooms to perform checkups or observations while other students and instructors watch a video broadcast. “It’s not that different from when I go into the room and supervise a trainee,” Dr. Gisondi said.

Some schools are going even further, transforming education in ways that reflect the demands of a COVID-19–era medical marketplace. Institutions such as Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and OHSU have invested in telemedicine training for years, but COVID-19 has given telehealth education an additional boost. These types of visits have surged dramatically, underscoring the importance of preparing new doctors to practice in a virtual setting – something that wasn’t common previously. In a 2019 survey, only about a quarter of sampled medical schools offered a telemedicine curriculum.

Simulated telehealth consults such as OHSU’s knee-pain scenario serve several purposes, says Ryan Palmer, EdD, associate dean of education at Northeast Ohio Universities, Rootstown. They virtually teach skills that students need – such as clearly explaining to patients why a care plan is called for – while allowing the trainees to practice forging an emotional connection with patients they are treating remotely.

“It’s less about how you use a specific system,” said Dr. Palmer, who developed OHSU’s TeleOSCE, a telehealth training system that has interested other schools. He sees this as an opportunity, inasmuch as telemedicine is likely to remain an important part of practice for the foreseeable future.

To that end, the AAMC recently hosted an online seminar to help faculty with telehealth instruction. But training such as this can only go so far, said Dr. Johnson. “There are techniques you do have to learn at the patient’s side.”

Dr. Johnson says that a traditional part of medical school at Rutgers has been having students spend time in general practitioners’ offices early on to see what the experience is like. “That’s going to be a problem – I expect many primary care practices will go out of business. Those types of shadowing experiences will probably go away. They may be replaced by experiences at larger clinics.”

Some learning in clinics may soon resume. Although fears about COVID-19 still loom large, Dr. Tao’s ophthalmology residents have started taking on something closer to a normal workload, thanks to patients returning for regular office visits. As people return to medical facilities in larger numbers, hospitals around the country have started separating patients with COVID-19 from others. Dr. Gisondi suggested that this means medical students may be able to circulate in non–COVID-19 wards, provided the institution has enough personal protective equipment. “The inpatient wards are really safe – there’s a low risk of transmission. That’s where core rotations occur.”

The road ahead

In settings where patients’ viral status remains uncertain, such as emergency wards and off-site clinics without rapid testing, in-person learning may be slower to resume. That’s where longer-term changes may come into play. Some schools are preparing digital learning platforms that have the potential to transform medical education.

For example, Haru Okuda, MD, an emergency medicine doctor and director of the Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation at the University of South Florida, Tampa, is testing a new virtual-reality platform called Immertec. Dr. Okuda said that, unlike older teaching tools, the system is not a stale, static virtual environment that will become obsolete. Instead, it uses a live camera to visually teleport students into the space of a real clinic or operating room.

“Let’s say you have students learning gross anatomy, how to dissect the chest. You’d have a cadaver on the table, demonstrating anatomy. The student has a headset – you can see like you’re in the room.” The wraparound visual device allows students to watch surgical maneuvers close up or view additional input from devices such as laparoscopes.

Dr. Okuda acknowledges that educators don’t yet know whether this works as well as older, hands-on methods. As yet, no virtual reality system has touch-based sensors sophisticated enough to simulate even skills such as tying a basic surgical knot, Dr. Gisondi said. And immersive platforms are expensive, which means a gap may occur between schools that can afford them and those that can’t.

The long-term consequences of COVID-19 go beyond costs that institutions may have to bear. Some students are concerned that the pandemic is affecting their mental well-being in ways that may make training a tougher slog. A few students graduated early to serve on the COVID-19 front lines. Others, rather than planning trips to celebrate the gap between medical school and residency, watched from home as young doctors they knew worked under abusive and unsafe conditions.

“Many of us felt powerless, given what we saw happening around us,” said recent University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, graduate Marina Haque, MD. She thinks those feelings, along with the rigors of practicing medicine during a pandemic, may leave her and her colleagues more prone to burnout.

The pandemic has also had a galvanizing effect on students – some excited new doctors are eager to line up for duty on COVID-19 wards. But supervisors say they must weigh young doctors’ desire to serve against the possible risks. “You don’t want people who have a big future ahead of them rushing into these situations and getting severely ill,” said Dr. Post. “There is a balance.”

All these changes, temporary or lasting, have led many to question whether doctors who complete their training under the cloud of the pandemic will be more – or less – prepared than those who came before them. But it’s not really a question of better or worse, says Dr. Johnson, who stresses that medical education has always required flexibility.

“You come into medicine with a plan in mind, but things happen,” he said. He reflected on the HIV pandemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s that influenced his medical career. He hopes young doctors come through the COVID-19 crucible more seasoned, resilient, and confident in crisis situations. “This is a pivotal event in their lives, and it will shape many careers.”

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

During a family medicine rotation at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, third-year medical students are preparing for a patient visit. Only, instead of entering a clinic room, students sit down at a computer. The patient they’re virtually examining – a 42-year-old male cattle rancher with knee problems – is an actor.

He asks for an MRI. A student explains that kneecap pain calls for rehab rather than a scan. The patient pushes back. “It would ease my mind,” he says. “I really need to make sure I can keep the ranch running.” The student must now try to digitally maintain rapport while explaining why imaging isn’t necessary.

When COVID-19 hit, telehealth training and remote learning became major parts of medical education, seemingly overnight. Since the start of the pandemic, students have contended with canceled classes, missed rotations, and revised training timelines, even as the demand for new doctors grows ever more pressing.

Institutions have been forced to rethink how to best establish solid, long-term foundations to ensure that young doctors are adequately trained. “They may find themselves the only doctors to be practicing in a small town,” said Stephen G. Post, PhD, bioethicist and professor at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University. “They have to be ready.”

With limited hands-on access to patients, students must learn in ways most never have before. Medical schools are now test-driving a mix of new and reimagined teaching strategies that aim to produce doctors who will enter medicine just as prepared as their more seasoned peers.

Hands-off education

Soon after starting her pediatrics rotation in March, recent Stanford (Calif.) University graduate Paloma Marin-Nevarez, MD, heard that children were being admitted to her hospital for evaluation to rule out COVID-19. Dr. Marin-Nevarez was assigned to help care for them but never physically met any – an approach called “virtual rounding.”

In virtual rounding, a provider typically goes in, examines a patient, and uses a portable device such as an iPad to send video or take notes about the encounter. Students or others in another room then give input on the patient’s care. “It was bizarre doing rounds on patients I had not met yet, discussing their treatment plans in one of the team rooms,” Dr. Marin-Nevarez said. “There was something very eerie about passing that particular unit that said: ‘Do not enter,’ and never being able to go inside.”

Within weeks, the Association of American Medical Colleges advised medical schools to suspend any activities – including clinical rotations – that involved direct student contact with patients, even those who weren’t COVID-19 positive.

Many schools hope to have students back and participating in some degree of patient care at non–COVID-19 hospital wards as early as July 1, said Michael Gisondi, MD, vice chair of education at Stanford’s department of emergency medicine. Returning students must now adapt to a restricted training environment, often while scrambling to make up training time. “This is uncharted territory for medical schools. Elective cases are down, surgical cases are down. That’s potentially going to decrease exposure to training opportunities.”

When students come back, lectures are still likely to remain on hold at most schools, replaced by Zoom conferences and virtual presentations. That’s not completely new: A trend away from large, traditional classes predated the pandemic. In a 2017-2018 AAMC survey, one in four second-year medical students said they almost never went to in-person lectures. COVID-19 has accelerated this shift.

For faculty who have long emphasized hands-on, in-person learning, the shift presents “a whole pedagogical issue – you don’t necessarily know how to adjust your practices to an online format,” Dr. Gisondi said. Instructors have to be even more flexible in order to engage students. “Every week I ask the students: ‘What’s working? What’s not working?’ ” Dr. Gisondi said about his online classes. “We have to solicit feedback.”

Changes to lectures are the easy part, says Elisabeth Fassas, a second-year student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before the pandemic, she was taking a clinical medicine course that involved time in the hospital, something that helped link the academic with the practical. “You really get to see the stuff you’re learning being relevant: ‘Here’s a patient who has a cardiology problem,’ ” she said. “[Capturing] that piece of connection to what you’re working toward is going to be tricky, I think.”

Some students who graduated this past spring worry about that clinical time they lost. Many remain acutely conscious of specific knowledge gaps. “I did not get a ton of experience examining crying children or holding babies,” said Dr. Marin-Nevarez, who starts an emergency medicine residency this year. “I am going to have to be transparent with my future instructors and let them know I missed out because of the pandemic.”

Such knowledge gaps mean new doctors will have to make up ground, said Jeremiah Tao, MD, who trains ophthalmology residents at the University of California, Irvine. But Dr. Tao doesn’t see these setbacks as a major long-term problem. His residents are already starting to make up the patient hours they missed in the spring and are refining the skills that got short shrift earlier on. For eligibility, “most boards require a certain number of days of experience. But most of the message from our board is [that] they’re understanding, and they’re going to leave it to the program directors to declare someone competent.”

Robert Johnson, MD, dean of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said short-term setbacks in training likely won’t translate into longer-term skill deficits. “What most schools have done is overprepare students. We’re sure they have acquired all the skills they need to practice.”

Closing the gaps

To fill existing knowledge gaps and prevent future deficits, institutions hope to strike a balance between keeping trainees safe and providing necessary on-site learning. In line with ongoing AAMC recommendations, which suggest schools curtail student involvement in direct patient care in areas with significant COVID-19 spread, virtual rounding will likely continue.

Many schools may use a hybrid approach, in which students take turns entering patient rooms to perform checkups or observations while other students and instructors watch a video broadcast. “It’s not that different from when I go into the room and supervise a trainee,” Dr. Gisondi said.

Some schools are going even further, transforming education in ways that reflect the demands of a COVID-19–era medical marketplace. Institutions such as Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and OHSU have invested in telemedicine training for years, but COVID-19 has given telehealth education an additional boost. These types of visits have surged dramatically, underscoring the importance of preparing new doctors to practice in a virtual setting – something that wasn’t common previously. In a 2019 survey, only about a quarter of sampled medical schools offered a telemedicine curriculum.

Simulated telehealth consults such as OHSU’s knee-pain scenario serve several purposes, says Ryan Palmer, EdD, associate dean of education at Northeast Ohio Universities, Rootstown. They virtually teach skills that students need – such as clearly explaining to patients why a care plan is called for – while allowing the trainees to practice forging an emotional connection with patients they are treating remotely.

“It’s less about how you use a specific system,” said Dr. Palmer, who developed OHSU’s TeleOSCE, a telehealth training system that has interested other schools. He sees this as an opportunity, inasmuch as telemedicine is likely to remain an important part of practice for the foreseeable future.

To that end, the AAMC recently hosted an online seminar to help faculty with telehealth instruction. But training such as this can only go so far, said Dr. Johnson. “There are techniques you do have to learn at the patient’s side.”

Dr. Johnson says that a traditional part of medical school at Rutgers has been having students spend time in general practitioners’ offices early on to see what the experience is like. “That’s going to be a problem – I expect many primary care practices will go out of business. Those types of shadowing experiences will probably go away. They may be replaced by experiences at larger clinics.”

Some learning in clinics may soon resume. Although fears about COVID-19 still loom large, Dr. Tao’s ophthalmology residents have started taking on something closer to a normal workload, thanks to patients returning for regular office visits. As people return to medical facilities in larger numbers, hospitals around the country have started separating patients with COVID-19 from others. Dr. Gisondi suggested that this means medical students may be able to circulate in non–COVID-19 wards, provided the institution has enough personal protective equipment. “The inpatient wards are really safe – there’s a low risk of transmission. That’s where core rotations occur.”

The road ahead

In settings where patients’ viral status remains uncertain, such as emergency wards and off-site clinics without rapid testing, in-person learning may be slower to resume. That’s where longer-term changes may come into play. Some schools are preparing digital learning platforms that have the potential to transform medical education.

For example, Haru Okuda, MD, an emergency medicine doctor and director of the Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation at the University of South Florida, Tampa, is testing a new virtual-reality platform called Immertec. Dr. Okuda said that, unlike older teaching tools, the system is not a stale, static virtual environment that will become obsolete. Instead, it uses a live camera to visually teleport students into the space of a real clinic or operating room.

“Let’s say you have students learning gross anatomy, how to dissect the chest. You’d have a cadaver on the table, demonstrating anatomy. The student has a headset – you can see like you’re in the room.” The wraparound visual device allows students to watch surgical maneuvers close up or view additional input from devices such as laparoscopes.

Dr. Okuda acknowledges that educators don’t yet know whether this works as well as older, hands-on methods. As yet, no virtual reality system has touch-based sensors sophisticated enough to simulate even skills such as tying a basic surgical knot, Dr. Gisondi said. And immersive platforms are expensive, which means a gap may occur between schools that can afford them and those that can’t.

The long-term consequences of COVID-19 go beyond costs that institutions may have to bear. Some students are concerned that the pandemic is affecting their mental well-being in ways that may make training a tougher slog. A few students graduated early to serve on the COVID-19 front lines. Others, rather than planning trips to celebrate the gap between medical school and residency, watched from home as young doctors they knew worked under abusive and unsafe conditions.

“Many of us felt powerless, given what we saw happening around us,” said recent University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, graduate Marina Haque, MD. She thinks those feelings, along with the rigors of practicing medicine during a pandemic, may leave her and her colleagues more prone to burnout.

The pandemic has also had a galvanizing effect on students – some excited new doctors are eager to line up for duty on COVID-19 wards. But supervisors say they must weigh young doctors’ desire to serve against the possible risks. “You don’t want people who have a big future ahead of them rushing into these situations and getting severely ill,” said Dr. Post. “There is a balance.”

All these changes, temporary or lasting, have led many to question whether doctors who complete their training under the cloud of the pandemic will be more – or less – prepared than those who came before them. But it’s not really a question of better or worse, says Dr. Johnson, who stresses that medical education has always required flexibility.

“You come into medicine with a plan in mind, but things happen,” he said. He reflected on the HIV pandemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s that influenced his medical career. He hopes young doctors come through the COVID-19 crucible more seasoned, resilient, and confident in crisis situations. “This is a pivotal event in their lives, and it will shape many careers.”

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

During a family medicine rotation at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, third-year medical students are preparing for a patient visit. Only, instead of entering a clinic room, students sit down at a computer. The patient they’re virtually examining – a 42-year-old male cattle rancher with knee problems – is an actor.

He asks for an MRI. A student explains that kneecap pain calls for rehab rather than a scan. The patient pushes back. “It would ease my mind,” he says. “I really need to make sure I can keep the ranch running.” The student must now try to digitally maintain rapport while explaining why imaging isn’t necessary.

When COVID-19 hit, telehealth training and remote learning became major parts of medical education, seemingly overnight. Since the start of the pandemic, students have contended with canceled classes, missed rotations, and revised training timelines, even as the demand for new doctors grows ever more pressing.

Institutions have been forced to rethink how to best establish solid, long-term foundations to ensure that young doctors are adequately trained. “They may find themselves the only doctors to be practicing in a small town,” said Stephen G. Post, PhD, bioethicist and professor at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University. “They have to be ready.”

With limited hands-on access to patients, students must learn in ways most never have before. Medical schools are now test-driving a mix of new and reimagined teaching strategies that aim to produce doctors who will enter medicine just as prepared as their more seasoned peers.

Hands-off education

Soon after starting her pediatrics rotation in March, recent Stanford (Calif.) University graduate Paloma Marin-Nevarez, MD, heard that children were being admitted to her hospital for evaluation to rule out COVID-19. Dr. Marin-Nevarez was assigned to help care for them but never physically met any – an approach called “virtual rounding.”

In virtual rounding, a provider typically goes in, examines a patient, and uses a portable device such as an iPad to send video or take notes about the encounter. Students or others in another room then give input on the patient’s care. “It was bizarre doing rounds on patients I had not met yet, discussing their treatment plans in one of the team rooms,” Dr. Marin-Nevarez said. “There was something very eerie about passing that particular unit that said: ‘Do not enter,’ and never being able to go inside.”

Within weeks, the Association of American Medical Colleges advised medical schools to suspend any activities – including clinical rotations – that involved direct student contact with patients, even those who weren’t COVID-19 positive.

Many schools hope to have students back and participating in some degree of patient care at non–COVID-19 hospital wards as early as July 1, said Michael Gisondi, MD, vice chair of education at Stanford’s department of emergency medicine. Returning students must now adapt to a restricted training environment, often while scrambling to make up training time. “This is uncharted territory for medical schools. Elective cases are down, surgical cases are down. That’s potentially going to decrease exposure to training opportunities.”

When students come back, lectures are still likely to remain on hold at most schools, replaced by Zoom conferences and virtual presentations. That’s not completely new: A trend away from large, traditional classes predated the pandemic. In a 2017-2018 AAMC survey, one in four second-year medical students said they almost never went to in-person lectures. COVID-19 has accelerated this shift.

For faculty who have long emphasized hands-on, in-person learning, the shift presents “a whole pedagogical issue – you don’t necessarily know how to adjust your practices to an online format,” Dr. Gisondi said. Instructors have to be even more flexible in order to engage students. “Every week I ask the students: ‘What’s working? What’s not working?’ ” Dr. Gisondi said about his online classes. “We have to solicit feedback.”

Changes to lectures are the easy part, says Elisabeth Fassas, a second-year student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before the pandemic, she was taking a clinical medicine course that involved time in the hospital, something that helped link the academic with the practical. “You really get to see the stuff you’re learning being relevant: ‘Here’s a patient who has a cardiology problem,’ ” she said. “[Capturing] that piece of connection to what you’re working toward is going to be tricky, I think.”

Some students who graduated this past spring worry about that clinical time they lost. Many remain acutely conscious of specific knowledge gaps. “I did not get a ton of experience examining crying children or holding babies,” said Dr. Marin-Nevarez, who starts an emergency medicine residency this year. “I am going to have to be transparent with my future instructors and let them know I missed out because of the pandemic.”

Such knowledge gaps mean new doctors will have to make up ground, said Jeremiah Tao, MD, who trains ophthalmology residents at the University of California, Irvine. But Dr. Tao doesn’t see these setbacks as a major long-term problem. His residents are already starting to make up the patient hours they missed in the spring and are refining the skills that got short shrift earlier on. For eligibility, “most boards require a certain number of days of experience. But most of the message from our board is [that] they’re understanding, and they’re going to leave it to the program directors to declare someone competent.”

Robert Johnson, MD, dean of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said short-term setbacks in training likely won’t translate into longer-term skill deficits. “What most schools have done is overprepare students. We’re sure they have acquired all the skills they need to practice.”

Closing the gaps

To fill existing knowledge gaps and prevent future deficits, institutions hope to strike a balance between keeping trainees safe and providing necessary on-site learning. In line with ongoing AAMC recommendations, which suggest schools curtail student involvement in direct patient care in areas with significant COVID-19 spread, virtual rounding will likely continue.

Many schools may use a hybrid approach, in which students take turns entering patient rooms to perform checkups or observations while other students and instructors watch a video broadcast. “It’s not that different from when I go into the room and supervise a trainee,” Dr. Gisondi said.

Some schools are going even further, transforming education in ways that reflect the demands of a COVID-19–era medical marketplace. Institutions such as Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and OHSU have invested in telemedicine training for years, but COVID-19 has given telehealth education an additional boost. These types of visits have surged dramatically, underscoring the importance of preparing new doctors to practice in a virtual setting – something that wasn’t common previously. In a 2019 survey, only about a quarter of sampled medical schools offered a telemedicine curriculum.

Simulated telehealth consults such as OHSU’s knee-pain scenario serve several purposes, says Ryan Palmer, EdD, associate dean of education at Northeast Ohio Universities, Rootstown. They virtually teach skills that students need – such as clearly explaining to patients why a care plan is called for – while allowing the trainees to practice forging an emotional connection with patients they are treating remotely.

“It’s less about how you use a specific system,” said Dr. Palmer, who developed OHSU’s TeleOSCE, a telehealth training system that has interested other schools. He sees this as an opportunity, inasmuch as telemedicine is likely to remain an important part of practice for the foreseeable future.

To that end, the AAMC recently hosted an online seminar to help faculty with telehealth instruction. But training such as this can only go so far, said Dr. Johnson. “There are techniques you do have to learn at the patient’s side.”

Dr. Johnson says that a traditional part of medical school at Rutgers has been having students spend time in general practitioners’ offices early on to see what the experience is like. “That’s going to be a problem – I expect many primary care practices will go out of business. Those types of shadowing experiences will probably go away. They may be replaced by experiences at larger clinics.”

Some learning in clinics may soon resume. Although fears about COVID-19 still loom large, Dr. Tao’s ophthalmology residents have started taking on something closer to a normal workload, thanks to patients returning for regular office visits. As people return to medical facilities in larger numbers, hospitals around the country have started separating patients with COVID-19 from others. Dr. Gisondi suggested that this means medical students may be able to circulate in non–COVID-19 wards, provided the institution has enough personal protective equipment. “The inpatient wards are really safe – there’s a low risk of transmission. That’s where core rotations occur.”

The road ahead

In settings where patients’ viral status remains uncertain, such as emergency wards and off-site clinics without rapid testing, in-person learning may be slower to resume. That’s where longer-term changes may come into play. Some schools are preparing digital learning platforms that have the potential to transform medical education.

For example, Haru Okuda, MD, an emergency medicine doctor and director of the Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation at the University of South Florida, Tampa, is testing a new virtual-reality platform called Immertec. Dr. Okuda said that, unlike older teaching tools, the system is not a stale, static virtual environment that will become obsolete. Instead, it uses a live camera to visually teleport students into the space of a real clinic or operating room.

“Let’s say you have students learning gross anatomy, how to dissect the chest. You’d have a cadaver on the table, demonstrating anatomy. The student has a headset – you can see like you’re in the room.” The wraparound visual device allows students to watch surgical maneuvers close up or view additional input from devices such as laparoscopes.

Dr. Okuda acknowledges that educators don’t yet know whether this works as well as older, hands-on methods. As yet, no virtual reality system has touch-based sensors sophisticated enough to simulate even skills such as tying a basic surgical knot, Dr. Gisondi said. And immersive platforms are expensive, which means a gap may occur between schools that can afford them and those that can’t.

The long-term consequences of COVID-19 go beyond costs that institutions may have to bear. Some students are concerned that the pandemic is affecting their mental well-being in ways that may make training a tougher slog. A few students graduated early to serve on the COVID-19 front lines. Others, rather than planning trips to celebrate the gap between medical school and residency, watched from home as young doctors they knew worked under abusive and unsafe conditions.

“Many of us felt powerless, given what we saw happening around us,” said recent University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, graduate Marina Haque, MD. She thinks those feelings, along with the rigors of practicing medicine during a pandemic, may leave her and her colleagues more prone to burnout.

The pandemic has also had a galvanizing effect on students – some excited new doctors are eager to line up for duty on COVID-19 wards. But supervisors say they must weigh young doctors’ desire to serve against the possible risks. “You don’t want people who have a big future ahead of them rushing into these situations and getting severely ill,” said Dr. Post. “There is a balance.”

All these changes, temporary or lasting, have led many to question whether doctors who complete their training under the cloud of the pandemic will be more – or less – prepared than those who came before them. But it’s not really a question of better or worse, says Dr. Johnson, who stresses that medical education has always required flexibility.

“You come into medicine with a plan in mind, but things happen,” he said. He reflected on the HIV pandemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s that influenced his medical career. He hopes young doctors come through the COVID-19 crucible more seasoned, resilient, and confident in crisis situations. “This is a pivotal event in their lives, and it will shape many careers.”

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

The longer researchers have looked for evidence of neural tube defects linked with dolutegravir treatment of HIV at the time of conception the fewer incident cases they’ve found.

The newest data, based on 3,591 deliveries among women in Botswana infected by HIV and treated with dolutegravir at the time of conception during a little more than 5.5 years through April 2020, showed that dolutegravir use at conception linked with 7 cases of neonatal neural tube defects (NTDs), a 0.19% rate that exceeded comparator rates by about 1 in every 1,000 deliveries, far below the 0.94% rate initially found and that raised a red flag 2 years ago (New Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 6;379[10]:979-81). “The prevalence of NTDs among infants born to women on dolutegravir at conception may be stabilizing at approximately 2 per 1,000,” said Rebecca Zash, MD, during the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference.

“This small absolute risk for neural tube defects is far outweighed by the potential benefits from dolutegravir” for better tolerability than alternative drugs and fewer drug-drug interactions. “This should allow for broader use of dolutegravir in women,” added Dr. Zash, an HIV specialist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and codirector of the Placental Scientific Working Group of the Harvard University Center for AIDS Research, both in Boston.

“What this has taught us is that women are not a niche population” of people infected with HIV, but rather constitute about half of HIV patients worldwide. “Maintaining gender equity in HIV treatment requires safety data for treatments during pregnancy,” she said during a press briefing.

The new findings mean that it’s “time to lay to rest” concerns about neural tube defects (NTDs) in infants born to women treated with dolutegravir, “given the incredible benefits of dolutegravir,” commented Monica Gandhi, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief of the division of HIV, infectious disease, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Another benefit from removing any caveats about use of dolutegravir in women who could become pregnant is that it would simplify treatment recommendations and make dolutegravir the unqualified first-line agent for treating HIV infection, Dr. Gandhi said during the briefing. “It’s super reassuring to have these data, as the incidence of NTDs goes down and down,” she added.

Following the alarm raised by initial findings from the Tsepamo study in 2018, Dr. Zash and associates first updated their data through March 2019, when they reported a revised cumulative NTD incidence rate of 0.3% (New Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 29;381[9]:827-40). The Tsepamo study began by following the pregnancy outcomes of women at eight Botswana sites during August 2014–July 2018, representing 45% of the country’s deliveries. This expanded to 18 sites and 72% of deliveries during July-September 2018, and then starting in September 2019 the scope slightly reduced to 16 Botswana sites with 70% of the nation’s deliveries.

Folate supplementation to women who might conceive is vital, but remains spotty in Botswana. “Folate supplementation is a no-brainer, but has had really slow adoption in many countries,” Dr. Zash said. “Folate supplementation, especially in food so that everyone gets it, will reduce NTDs by half.” The two most recent cases of infants born with a NTD to mothers who had been on dolutegravir at conception occurred in mothers who had received no folate supplementation, Dr. Zash reported.

The most recent HIV treatment guidelines for adults from the Department of Health & Human Services, which date from late 2019, designated dolutegravir plus lamivudine as a first-line regimen for most, but flagged it as an “alternative” antiretroviral drug when treating women who have childbearing potential and are either trying to conceive or are sexually active but not using contraception.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Zash has been a researcher in studies funded by CytoDyn, Fulcrum, and Gilead. Dr. Gandhi had no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The longer researchers have looked for evidence of neural tube defects linked with dolutegravir treatment of HIV at the time of conception the fewer incident cases they’ve found.

The newest data, based on 3,591 deliveries among women in Botswana infected by HIV and treated with dolutegravir at the time of conception during a little more than 5.5 years through April 2020, showed that dolutegravir use at conception linked with 7 cases of neonatal neural tube defects (NTDs), a 0.19% rate that exceeded comparator rates by about 1 in every 1,000 deliveries, far below the 0.94% rate initially found and that raised a red flag 2 years ago (New Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 6;379[10]:979-81). “The prevalence of NTDs among infants born to women on dolutegravir at conception may be stabilizing at approximately 2 per 1,000,” said Rebecca Zash, MD, during the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference.

“This small absolute risk for neural tube defects is far outweighed by the potential benefits from dolutegravir” for better tolerability than alternative drugs and fewer drug-drug interactions. “This should allow for broader use of dolutegravir in women,” added Dr. Zash, an HIV specialist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and codirector of the Placental Scientific Working Group of the Harvard University Center for AIDS Research, both in Boston.

“What this has taught us is that women are not a niche population” of people infected with HIV, but rather constitute about half of HIV patients worldwide. “Maintaining gender equity in HIV treatment requires safety data for treatments during pregnancy,” she said during a press briefing.

The new findings mean that it’s “time to lay to rest” concerns about neural tube defects (NTDs) in infants born to women treated with dolutegravir, “given the incredible benefits of dolutegravir,” commented Monica Gandhi, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief of the division of HIV, infectious disease, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Another benefit from removing any caveats about use of dolutegravir in women who could become pregnant is that it would simplify treatment recommendations and make dolutegravir the unqualified first-line agent for treating HIV infection, Dr. Gandhi said during the briefing. “It’s super reassuring to have these data, as the incidence of NTDs goes down and down,” she added.

Following the alarm raised by initial findings from the Tsepamo study in 2018, Dr. Zash and associates first updated their data through March 2019, when they reported a revised cumulative NTD incidence rate of 0.3% (New Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 29;381[9]:827-40). The Tsepamo study began by following the pregnancy outcomes of women at eight Botswana sites during August 2014–July 2018, representing 45% of the country’s deliveries. This expanded to 18 sites and 72% of deliveries during July-September 2018, and then starting in September 2019 the scope slightly reduced to 16 Botswana sites with 70% of the nation’s deliveries.

Folate supplementation to women who might conceive is vital, but remains spotty in Botswana. “Folate supplementation is a no-brainer, but has had really slow adoption in many countries,” Dr. Zash said. “Folate supplementation, especially in food so that everyone gets it, will reduce NTDs by half.” The two most recent cases of infants born with a NTD to mothers who had been on dolutegravir at conception occurred in mothers who had received no folate supplementation, Dr. Zash reported.

The most recent HIV treatment guidelines for adults from the Department of Health & Human Services, which date from late 2019, designated dolutegravir plus lamivudine as a first-line regimen for most, but flagged it as an “alternative” antiretroviral drug when treating women who have childbearing potential and are either trying to conceive or are sexually active but not using contraception.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Zash has been a researcher in studies funded by CytoDyn, Fulcrum, and Gilead. Dr. Gandhi had no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The longer researchers have looked for evidence of neural tube defects linked with dolutegravir treatment of HIV at the time of conception the fewer incident cases they’ve found.

The newest data, based on 3,591 deliveries among women in Botswana infected by HIV and treated with dolutegravir at the time of conception during a little more than 5.5 years through April 2020, showed that dolutegravir use at conception linked with 7 cases of neonatal neural tube defects (NTDs), a 0.19% rate that exceeded comparator rates by about 1 in every 1,000 deliveries, far below the 0.94% rate initially found and that raised a red flag 2 years ago (New Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 6;379[10]:979-81). “The prevalence of NTDs among infants born to women on dolutegravir at conception may be stabilizing at approximately 2 per 1,000,” said Rebecca Zash, MD, during the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference.

“This small absolute risk for neural tube defects is far outweighed by the potential benefits from dolutegravir” for better tolerability than alternative drugs and fewer drug-drug interactions. “This should allow for broader use of dolutegravir in women,” added Dr. Zash, an HIV specialist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and codirector of the Placental Scientific Working Group of the Harvard University Center for AIDS Research, both in Boston.

“What this has taught us is that women are not a niche population” of people infected with HIV, but rather constitute about half of HIV patients worldwide. “Maintaining gender equity in HIV treatment requires safety data for treatments during pregnancy,” she said during a press briefing.

The new findings mean that it’s “time to lay to rest” concerns about neural tube defects (NTDs) in infants born to women treated with dolutegravir, “given the incredible benefits of dolutegravir,” commented Monica Gandhi, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief of the division of HIV, infectious disease, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Another benefit from removing any caveats about use of dolutegravir in women who could become pregnant is that it would simplify treatment recommendations and make dolutegravir the unqualified first-line agent for treating HIV infection, Dr. Gandhi said during the briefing. “It’s super reassuring to have these data, as the incidence of NTDs goes down and down,” she added.

Following the alarm raised by initial findings from the Tsepamo study in 2018, Dr. Zash and associates first updated their data through March 2019, when they reported a revised cumulative NTD incidence rate of 0.3% (New Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 29;381[9]:827-40). The Tsepamo study began by following the pregnancy outcomes of women at eight Botswana sites during August 2014–July 2018, representing 45% of the country’s deliveries. This expanded to 18 sites and 72% of deliveries during July-September 2018, and then starting in September 2019 the scope slightly reduced to 16 Botswana sites with 70% of the nation’s deliveries.

Folate supplementation to women who might conceive is vital, but remains spotty in Botswana. “Folate supplementation is a no-brainer, but has had really slow adoption in many countries,” Dr. Zash said. “Folate supplementation, especially in food so that everyone gets it, will reduce NTDs by half.” The two most recent cases of infants born with a NTD to mothers who had been on dolutegravir at conception occurred in mothers who had received no folate supplementation, Dr. Zash reported.

The most recent HIV treatment guidelines for adults from the Department of Health & Human Services, which date from late 2019, designated dolutegravir plus lamivudine as a first-line regimen for most, but flagged it as an “alternative” antiretroviral drug when treating women who have childbearing potential and are either trying to conceive or are sexually active but not using contraception.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Zash has been a researcher in studies funded by CytoDyn, Fulcrum, and Gilead. Dr. Gandhi had no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A 35-year-old Brazilian man who participated in a trial in which he received an intensified antiretroviral regimen plus supplemental vitamin B₃ for 48 weeks has joined the short list of patients who have experienced a period of remission from HIV in the absence of effective treatment.

Along with the Mississippi baby, a San Francisco man, a 24-year-old Thai man, a 9-year-old South African child, and the London and Berlin patients, the Brazilian man has an undetectable viral load and, more than a year after stopping treatment, his HIV antibody test is negative.

But as with the Berlin and London patients, it seems unlikely that – even if the man remains HIV free into the future – the circumstances of his remission will be broadly applicable to other people with HIV, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

“I don’t think it’s replicable,” Dieffenbach told Medscape Medical News. Researchers should still try to confirm the finding, but they will probably learn more by studying the man’s unique genetic characteristics and immune system “than to go out and treat another 200 people with the same protocol.”
 

‘Shock-and-kill strategy’

The man had been on treatment since his HIV diagnosis in 2012, and was one of 30 people to enroll in a Brazilian study – the Multi Interventional Study Exploring HIV-1 Residual Replication: A Step Toward HIV Eradication and Sterilizing Cure – in 2016. At that point, his regimen consisted of the combination of efavirenz, lamivudine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (Symfi, Mylan Pharmaceuticals) and his viral load was undetectable.

He was one of five people in the study to be randomized to receive the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (Tivicay, ViiV Healthcare), the CCR5 receptor inhibitor maraviroc (Selzentry, ViiV Healthcare), and twice-daily nicotinamide 500 mg, a form of vitamin B₃, in addition to his regular regimen for 48 weeks.

Nicotinamide has been used for decades because of its anti-infective properties, particularly in tuberculosis. In vitro, it also works to reverse HIV latency, said study investigator Ricardo Diaz, MD, from the Federal University of São Paulo, who presented the data at a press conference for the International AIDS Conference (AIDS) 2020.

“This is a shock-and-kill strategy,” said Leila Giron, PhD, from the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, who was one of the study investigators. “We did in vitro studies to make sure nicotinamide took HIV out of the cells.”

“The cell machinery changed a lot,” she told Medscape Medical News. “And because it’s a B vitamin, all five participants didn’t have any side effects.”

But the patient was the only person in his treatment group to experience viral load “blips” during treatment – at weeks 16 and 24. And viral DNA was present at low levels in his peripheral blood spots and rectal tissue at baseline and at 48 weeks, and his HIV antibodies dropped from 91.8 RLU at baseline to 58.0 RLU at week 48.

“He had a decline in cell activation, inflammation, and a very deep decline in antibody titers,” Diaz reported.

After 48 weeks of the intensified treatment, the patient returned to his usual regimen for 3 years. Then, in March 2019, he agreed to try an analytical treatment interruption and discontinued all HIV treatment.

“What’s interesting is right before the analytical treatment interruption, the HIV DNA sequences were completely negative,” said Diaz.

Every 3 weeks for the next 64.7 weeks, his viral load came back undetectable, and so did HIV DNA in blood spots. One thing did change, though: in February 2020, the man’s HIV antibody test came back negative.

The team checked that he wasn’t still taking his antiretroviral medication, which might have explained the undetectable viral load, and he wasn’t.
 

Surprise, skepticism, and hope

The results have prompted surprise, skepticism, and questions from clinicians and researchers.

The remission is notable because it occurred without the invasive process of a stem cell transplant that both the London and Berlin patients underwent, said Anton Pozniak, MD, from Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, who is cochair of AIDS 2020.

“They need a bigger study to see whether or not [the participant] is one of these guys who stopped treatment and might take a year or two, or four, to rebound,” he said. But if other studies replicate the results, the control of HIV in “one in five people would still be huge.”

The rationale behind treatment intensification for HIV remission is that “the three-drug ART regimen was perhaps insufficient to completely block HIV replication” in the reservoirs, even though that replication could be happening below levels detectable with current tests, said Laura Persaud, MD, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, who is chair of the International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trial Network (IMPAACT) HIV Cure Committee and was not involved in the study.

“The idea was to see if you could accelerate the decay of the reservoir” if you added medications that targeted different parts of the HIV lifecycle. Symfi, for instance, targets just one step in the viral replication process: the point where HIV RNA reverse transcribes itself into DNA so it can integrate into immune cells. But CCR5 inhibitors block entry of HIV into the cell in the first place, and integrase inhibitors, like raltegravir (Isentress, Merck) and dolutegravir, prevent HIV DNA from integrating into the host chromosome after it has reverse transcribed itself.

Still, recent data suggest that treatment intensification might not be as effective as hypothesized, she said. And the nicotinamide study was in vitro. To what extent this is a direct result of this treatment strategy is unclear.

“It’s hard to believe, in this small study, that this agent [nicotinamide] would have such a striking effect on DNA proviral levels,” she said. “We learn from each of these cases. But this is a single case, with multiple mechanisms that may have contributed to the outcome here. To what extent this is a direct result of this treatment strategy is unclear.”

Only time will tell, and Persaud knows this first hand. Back in 2014, she presented data at another HIV conference on the Mississippi baby who, after 21 months of no treatment, still didn›t have an HIV viral load.

At the time, the baby was hailed as “functionally cured,” but just 6 months later, the virus returned.

Dieffenbach agrees. “There are 10,000 genetic variations that need to be considered, and it all adds up to a unique individual,” he said of the Brazilian patient. “This one is one person, and it’s still early days.”
 

Counseling patients on niacin supplementation

Some clinicians are already bracing for the flood of people with HIV now wanting to take, or who are already taking, a niacin supplement because of this case, said Laura Waters, MD, from Mortimer Market Centre in London, who is chair of the British HIV Association.

But nicotinamide is different than nicotinic acid, which is what many people mean when they talk about niacin supplementation, according to data from the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) at the National Institutes of Health. Nicotinic acid has been used as a supplement for people with high cholesterol for years. Most Americans get more than the recommended daily intake of both types of niacin – 16 mg for adult men and 14 mg for adult women – in their regular diet, according to the 2015/16 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

The Brazilian patient received a total daily dose of nicotinamide of 1000 mg, which is not associated with any adverse effects. Doses above 3000 mg daily can lead to diarrhea and a decrease in platelet count, according to the ODS.

Although Diaz said he doesn’t think people with HIV should run out and start taking a supplement right away, Waters said she sees it as inevitable.

The good news is that if people really are taking nicotinamide – not nicotinic acid – it seems “fairly well tolerated without many side effects,” she said, but added: “I expect shortages of nicotinamide from tomorrow.”

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 35-year-old Brazilian man who participated in a trial in which he received an intensified antiretroviral regimen plus supplemental vitamin B₃ for 48 weeks has joined the short list of patients who have experienced a period of remission from HIV in the absence of effective treatment.

Along with the Mississippi baby, a San Francisco man, a 24-year-old Thai man, a 9-year-old South African child, and the London and Berlin patients, the Brazilian man has an undetectable viral load and, more than a year after stopping treatment, his HIV antibody test is negative.

But as with the Berlin and London patients, it seems unlikely that – even if the man remains HIV free into the future – the circumstances of his remission will be broadly applicable to other people with HIV, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

“I don’t think it’s replicable,” Dieffenbach told Medscape Medical News. Researchers should still try to confirm the finding, but they will probably learn more by studying the man’s unique genetic characteristics and immune system “than to go out and treat another 200 people with the same protocol.”
 

‘Shock-and-kill strategy’

The man had been on treatment since his HIV diagnosis in 2012, and was one of 30 people to enroll in a Brazilian study – the Multi Interventional Study Exploring HIV-1 Residual Replication: A Step Toward HIV Eradication and Sterilizing Cure – in 2016. At that point, his regimen consisted of the combination of efavirenz, lamivudine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (Symfi, Mylan Pharmaceuticals) and his viral load was undetectable.

He was one of five people in the study to be randomized to receive the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (Tivicay, ViiV Healthcare), the CCR5 receptor inhibitor maraviroc (Selzentry, ViiV Healthcare), and twice-daily nicotinamide 500 mg, a form of vitamin B₃, in addition to his regular regimen for 48 weeks.

Nicotinamide has been used for decades because of its anti-infective properties, particularly in tuberculosis. In vitro, it also works to reverse HIV latency, said study investigator Ricardo Diaz, MD, from the Federal University of São Paulo, who presented the data at a press conference for the International AIDS Conference (AIDS) 2020.

“This is a shock-and-kill strategy,” said Leila Giron, PhD, from the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, who was one of the study investigators. “We did in vitro studies to make sure nicotinamide took HIV out of the cells.”

“The cell machinery changed a lot,” she told Medscape Medical News. “And because it’s a B vitamin, all five participants didn’t have any side effects.”

But the patient was the only person in his treatment group to experience viral load “blips” during treatment – at weeks 16 and 24. And viral DNA was present at low levels in his peripheral blood spots and rectal tissue at baseline and at 48 weeks, and his HIV antibodies dropped from 91.8 RLU at baseline to 58.0 RLU at week 48.

“He had a decline in cell activation, inflammation, and a very deep decline in antibody titers,” Diaz reported.

After 48 weeks of the intensified treatment, the patient returned to his usual regimen for 3 years. Then, in March 2019, he agreed to try an analytical treatment interruption and discontinued all HIV treatment.

“What’s interesting is right before the analytical treatment interruption, the HIV DNA sequences were completely negative,” said Diaz.

Every 3 weeks for the next 64.7 weeks, his viral load came back undetectable, and so did HIV DNA in blood spots. One thing did change, though: in February 2020, the man’s HIV antibody test came back negative.

The team checked that he wasn’t still taking his antiretroviral medication, which might have explained the undetectable viral load, and he wasn’t.
 

Surprise, skepticism, and hope

The results have prompted surprise, skepticism, and questions from clinicians and researchers.

The remission is notable because it occurred without the invasive process of a stem cell transplant that both the London and Berlin patients underwent, said Anton Pozniak, MD, from Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, who is cochair of AIDS 2020.

“They need a bigger study to see whether or not [the participant] is one of these guys who stopped treatment and might take a year or two, or four, to rebound,” he said. But if other studies replicate the results, the control of HIV in “one in five people would still be huge.”

The rationale behind treatment intensification for HIV remission is that “the three-drug ART regimen was perhaps insufficient to completely block HIV replication” in the reservoirs, even though that replication could be happening below levels detectable with current tests, said Laura Persaud, MD, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, who is chair of the International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trial Network (IMPAACT) HIV Cure Committee and was not involved in the study.

“The idea was to see if you could accelerate the decay of the reservoir” if you added medications that targeted different parts of the HIV lifecycle. Symfi, for instance, targets just one step in the viral replication process: the point where HIV RNA reverse transcribes itself into DNA so it can integrate into immune cells. But CCR5 inhibitors block entry of HIV into the cell in the first place, and integrase inhibitors, like raltegravir (Isentress, Merck) and dolutegravir, prevent HIV DNA from integrating into the host chromosome after it has reverse transcribed itself.

Still, recent data suggest that treatment intensification might not be as effective as hypothesized, she said. And the nicotinamide study was in vitro. To what extent this is a direct result of this treatment strategy is unclear.

“It’s hard to believe, in this small study, that this agent [nicotinamide] would have such a striking effect on DNA proviral levels,” she said. “We learn from each of these cases. But this is a single case, with multiple mechanisms that may have contributed to the outcome here. To what extent this is a direct result of this treatment strategy is unclear.”

Only time will tell, and Persaud knows this first hand. Back in 2014, she presented data at another HIV conference on the Mississippi baby who, after 21 months of no treatment, still didn›t have an HIV viral load.

At the time, the baby was hailed as “functionally cured,” but just 6 months later, the virus returned.

Dieffenbach agrees. “There are 10,000 genetic variations that need to be considered, and it all adds up to a unique individual,” he said of the Brazilian patient. “This one is one person, and it’s still early days.”
 

Counseling patients on niacin supplementation

Some clinicians are already bracing for the flood of people with HIV now wanting to take, or who are already taking, a niacin supplement because of this case, said Laura Waters, MD, from Mortimer Market Centre in London, who is chair of the British HIV Association.

But nicotinamide is different than nicotinic acid, which is what many people mean when they talk about niacin supplementation, according to data from the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) at the National Institutes of Health. Nicotinic acid has been used as a supplement for people with high cholesterol for years. Most Americans get more than the recommended daily intake of both types of niacin – 16 mg for adult men and 14 mg for adult women – in their regular diet, according to the 2015/16 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

The Brazilian patient received a total daily dose of nicotinamide of 1000 mg, which is not associated with any adverse effects. Doses above 3000 mg daily can lead to diarrhea and a decrease in platelet count, according to the ODS.

Although Diaz said he doesn’t think people with HIV should run out and start taking a supplement right away, Waters said she sees it as inevitable.

The good news is that if people really are taking nicotinamide – not nicotinic acid – it seems “fairly well tolerated without many side effects,” she said, but added: “I expect shortages of nicotinamide from tomorrow.”

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 35-year-old Brazilian man who participated in a trial in which he received an intensified antiretroviral regimen plus supplemental vitamin B₃ for 48 weeks has joined the short list of patients who have experienced a period of remission from HIV in the absence of effective treatment.

Along with the Mississippi baby, a San Francisco man, a 24-year-old Thai man, a 9-year-old South African child, and the London and Berlin patients, the Brazilian man has an undetectable viral load and, more than a year after stopping treatment, his HIV antibody test is negative.

But as with the Berlin and London patients, it seems unlikely that – even if the man remains HIV free into the future – the circumstances of his remission will be broadly applicable to other people with HIV, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

“I don’t think it’s replicable,” Dieffenbach told Medscape Medical News. Researchers should still try to confirm the finding, but they will probably learn more by studying the man’s unique genetic characteristics and immune system “than to go out and treat another 200 people with the same protocol.”
 

‘Shock-and-kill strategy’

The man had been on treatment since his HIV diagnosis in 2012, and was one of 30 people to enroll in a Brazilian study – the Multi Interventional Study Exploring HIV-1 Residual Replication: A Step Toward HIV Eradication and Sterilizing Cure – in 2016. At that point, his regimen consisted of the combination of efavirenz, lamivudine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (Symfi, Mylan Pharmaceuticals) and his viral load was undetectable.

He was one of five people in the study to be randomized to receive the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (Tivicay, ViiV Healthcare), the CCR5 receptor inhibitor maraviroc (Selzentry, ViiV Healthcare), and twice-daily nicotinamide 500 mg, a form of vitamin B₃, in addition to his regular regimen for 48 weeks.

Nicotinamide has been used for decades because of its anti-infective properties, particularly in tuberculosis. In vitro, it also works to reverse HIV latency, said study investigator Ricardo Diaz, MD, from the Federal University of São Paulo, who presented the data at a press conference for the International AIDS Conference (AIDS) 2020.

“This is a shock-and-kill strategy,” said Leila Giron, PhD, from the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, who was one of the study investigators. “We did in vitro studies to make sure nicotinamide took HIV out of the cells.”

“The cell machinery changed a lot,” she told Medscape Medical News. “And because it’s a B vitamin, all five participants didn’t have any side effects.”

But the patient was the only person in his treatment group to experience viral load “blips” during treatment – at weeks 16 and 24. And viral DNA was present at low levels in his peripheral blood spots and rectal tissue at baseline and at 48 weeks, and his HIV antibodies dropped from 91.8 RLU at baseline to 58.0 RLU at week 48.

“He had a decline in cell activation, inflammation, and a very deep decline in antibody titers,” Diaz reported.

After 48 weeks of the intensified treatment, the patient returned to his usual regimen for 3 years. Then, in March 2019, he agreed to try an analytical treatment interruption and discontinued all HIV treatment.

“What’s interesting is right before the analytical treatment interruption, the HIV DNA sequences were completely negative,” said Diaz.

Every 3 weeks for the next 64.7 weeks, his viral load came back undetectable, and so did HIV DNA in blood spots. One thing did change, though: in February 2020, the man’s HIV antibody test came back negative.

The team checked that he wasn’t still taking his antiretroviral medication, which might have explained the undetectable viral load, and he wasn’t.
 

Surprise, skepticism, and hope

The results have prompted surprise, skepticism, and questions from clinicians and researchers.

The remission is notable because it occurred without the invasive process of a stem cell transplant that both the London and Berlin patients underwent, said Anton Pozniak, MD, from Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, who is cochair of AIDS 2020.

“They need a bigger study to see whether or not [the participant] is one of these guys who stopped treatment and might take a year or two, or four, to rebound,” he said. But if other studies replicate the results, the control of HIV in “one in five people would still be huge.”

The rationale behind treatment intensification for HIV remission is that “the three-drug ART regimen was perhaps insufficient to completely block HIV replication” in the reservoirs, even though that replication could be happening below levels detectable with current tests, said Laura Persaud, MD, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, who is chair of the International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trial Network (IMPAACT) HIV Cure Committee and was not involved in the study.

“The idea was to see if you could accelerate the decay of the reservoir” if you added medications that targeted different parts of the HIV lifecycle. Symfi, for instance, targets just one step in the viral replication process: the point where HIV RNA reverse transcribes itself into DNA so it can integrate into immune cells. But CCR5 inhibitors block entry of HIV into the cell in the first place, and integrase inhibitors, like raltegravir (Isentress, Merck) and dolutegravir, prevent HIV DNA from integrating into the host chromosome after it has reverse transcribed itself.

Still, recent data suggest that treatment intensification might not be as effective as hypothesized, she said. And the nicotinamide study was in vitro. To what extent this is a direct result of this treatment strategy is unclear.

“It’s hard to believe, in this small study, that this agent [nicotinamide] would have such a striking effect on DNA proviral levels,” she said. “We learn from each of these cases. But this is a single case, with multiple mechanisms that may have contributed to the outcome here. To what extent this is a direct result of this treatment strategy is unclear.”

Only time will tell, and Persaud knows this first hand. Back in 2014, she presented data at another HIV conference on the Mississippi baby who, after 21 months of no treatment, still didn›t have an HIV viral load.

At the time, the baby was hailed as “functionally cured,” but just 6 months later, the virus returned.

Dieffenbach agrees. “There are 10,000 genetic variations that need to be considered, and it all adds up to a unique individual,” he said of the Brazilian patient. “This one is one person, and it’s still early days.”
 

Counseling patients on niacin supplementation

Some clinicians are already bracing for the flood of people with HIV now wanting to take, or who are already taking, a niacin supplement because of this case, said Laura Waters, MD, from Mortimer Market Centre in London, who is chair of the British HIV Association.

But nicotinamide is different than nicotinic acid, which is what many people mean when they talk about niacin supplementation, according to data from the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) at the National Institutes of Health. Nicotinic acid has been used as a supplement for people with high cholesterol for years. Most Americans get more than the recommended daily intake of both types of niacin – 16 mg for adult men and 14 mg for adult women – in their regular diet, according to the 2015/16 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

The Brazilian patient received a total daily dose of nicotinamide of 1000 mg, which is not associated with any adverse effects. Doses above 3000 mg daily can lead to diarrhea and a decrease in platelet count, according to the ODS.

Although Diaz said he doesn’t think people with HIV should run out and start taking a supplement right away, Waters said she sees it as inevitable.

The good news is that if people really are taking nicotinamide – not nicotinic acid – it seems “fairly well tolerated without many side effects,” she said, but added: “I expect shortages of nicotinamide from tomorrow.”

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The World Health Organization is preparing a scientific brief to address the continually emerging evidence on transmission of COVID-19 and plans to release its guidance “in the coming days.”

WHO will likely address airborne transmission of the virus after a commentary from almost 240 multidisciplinary scientists raised the alarm that virus particles could remain airborne longer that previously appreciated, particularly in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

“Airborne route of infection transmission is significant, but so far completely undermined, and not recognized by the decision makers and bodies responsible for infection control,” lead commentary author Lidia Morawska, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“This means that no control measures are taken to mitigate airborne transmission and, as a consequence, people are infected and can die,” said Morawska, director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. “We wanted to bring this to the attention of the world to prevent this from happening.”

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

WHO leaders defended their progress in announcing any changes regarding how COVID-19 can be transmitted during a virtual press briefing today. They have collaborated since April with some of the scientists who coauthored the commentary, for example, said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19.

“We have been working on a scientific brief ... to consolidate knowledge around transmission,” she added.

One focus will be on how masks protect healthcare workers. “We are also looking at the possible role of airborne transmission in other settings,” Van Kerkhove said. “We will be releasing our brief in the coming days.”

“We acknowledge there is emerging evidence in this field,” Benedetta Allegranzi, MD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19, said during the briefing from Geneva. “Therefore, we believe we have to be open to this evidence and its implications.”

WHO participated in an international research meeting last week that addressed means for controlling modes of COVID-19 transmission, Allegranzi said. “Our group and others really highlighted importance of research on different modes of transmission, including droplets of different sizes and their relative importance,” she said. Another aim was determining the dose of the virus required for airborne transmission.

“These fields of research are really growing but not definitive. More evidence needs to be gathered and evaluated,” she explained.

In the meantime, Allegranzi said, “the possibility of airborne transmission in public settings – especially closed, poorly ventilated settings – cannot be ruled out.”

Morawska said the evidence already exists. “A continuous surprise is that it takes the world such a long time to accept this, while this has such solid scientific foundation.” As an example, she cited an April report she coauthored in the journal Environment International. She and colleagues call for “national authorities to acknowledge the reality that the virus spreads through air and recommend that adequate control measures be implemented to prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in particularly removal of the virus-laden droplets from indoor air by ventilation.”

The take-home message from the commentary, Morawska said, is a call to action. The authors state there is a need “to provide sufficient and effective ventilation (supply clean outdoor air, minimize recirculating air) particularly in public buildings, workplace environments, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes.”

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, explained why the organization remains cautious about making premature pronouncements regarding airborne transmission. “Any guidance we put out has implications for billions of people around the world, so we want to be as careful as possible,” she said during the press briefing. “We have to consider the weight of the evidence.”

“We are constantly looking for information on how we can do better,” Swaminathan added. WHO officials are reviewing hundreds of scientific reports every day, she said, and not all are of good quality. For this reason, she and other scientists at WHO perform a “living systematic review” – updating the consensus of evidence on a weekly basis.  

“This process on COVID-19 will, I am sure, continue for the weeks and months to come,” she added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The World Health Organization is preparing a scientific brief to address the continually emerging evidence on transmission of COVID-19 and plans to release its guidance “in the coming days.”

WHO will likely address airborne transmission of the virus after a commentary from almost 240 multidisciplinary scientists raised the alarm that virus particles could remain airborne longer that previously appreciated, particularly in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

“Airborne route of infection transmission is significant, but so far completely undermined, and not recognized by the decision makers and bodies responsible for infection control,” lead commentary author Lidia Morawska, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“This means that no control measures are taken to mitigate airborne transmission and, as a consequence, people are infected and can die,” said Morawska, director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. “We wanted to bring this to the attention of the world to prevent this from happening.”

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

WHO leaders defended their progress in announcing any changes regarding how COVID-19 can be transmitted during a virtual press briefing today. They have collaborated since April with some of the scientists who coauthored the commentary, for example, said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19.

“We have been working on a scientific brief ... to consolidate knowledge around transmission,” she added.

One focus will be on how masks protect healthcare workers. “We are also looking at the possible role of airborne transmission in other settings,” Van Kerkhove said. “We will be releasing our brief in the coming days.”

“We acknowledge there is emerging evidence in this field,” Benedetta Allegranzi, MD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19, said during the briefing from Geneva. “Therefore, we believe we have to be open to this evidence and its implications.”

WHO participated in an international research meeting last week that addressed means for controlling modes of COVID-19 transmission, Allegranzi said. “Our group and others really highlighted importance of research on different modes of transmission, including droplets of different sizes and their relative importance,” she said. Another aim was determining the dose of the virus required for airborne transmission.

“These fields of research are really growing but not definitive. More evidence needs to be gathered and evaluated,” she explained.

In the meantime, Allegranzi said, “the possibility of airborne transmission in public settings – especially closed, poorly ventilated settings – cannot be ruled out.”

Morawska said the evidence already exists. “A continuous surprise is that it takes the world such a long time to accept this, while this has such solid scientific foundation.” As an example, she cited an April report she coauthored in the journal Environment International. She and colleagues call for “national authorities to acknowledge the reality that the virus spreads through air and recommend that adequate control measures be implemented to prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in particularly removal of the virus-laden droplets from indoor air by ventilation.”

The take-home message from the commentary, Morawska said, is a call to action. The authors state there is a need “to provide sufficient and effective ventilation (supply clean outdoor air, minimize recirculating air) particularly in public buildings, workplace environments, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes.”

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, explained why the organization remains cautious about making premature pronouncements regarding airborne transmission. “Any guidance we put out has implications for billions of people around the world, so we want to be as careful as possible,” she said during the press briefing. “We have to consider the weight of the evidence.”

“We are constantly looking for information on how we can do better,” Swaminathan added. WHO officials are reviewing hundreds of scientific reports every day, she said, and not all are of good quality. For this reason, she and other scientists at WHO perform a “living systematic review” – updating the consensus of evidence on a weekly basis.  

“This process on COVID-19 will, I am sure, continue for the weeks and months to come,” she added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The World Health Organization is preparing a scientific brief to address the continually emerging evidence on transmission of COVID-19 and plans to release its guidance “in the coming days.”

WHO will likely address airborne transmission of the virus after a commentary from almost 240 multidisciplinary scientists raised the alarm that virus particles could remain airborne longer that previously appreciated, particularly in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

“Airborne route of infection transmission is significant, but so far completely undermined, and not recognized by the decision makers and bodies responsible for infection control,” lead commentary author Lidia Morawska, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“This means that no control measures are taken to mitigate airborne transmission and, as a consequence, people are infected and can die,” said Morawska, director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. “We wanted to bring this to the attention of the world to prevent this from happening.”

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

WHO leaders defended their progress in announcing any changes regarding how COVID-19 can be transmitted during a virtual press briefing today. They have collaborated since April with some of the scientists who coauthored the commentary, for example, said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19.

“We have been working on a scientific brief ... to consolidate knowledge around transmission,” she added.

One focus will be on how masks protect healthcare workers. “We are also looking at the possible role of airborne transmission in other settings,” Van Kerkhove said. “We will be releasing our brief in the coming days.”

“We acknowledge there is emerging evidence in this field,” Benedetta Allegranzi, MD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19, said during the briefing from Geneva. “Therefore, we believe we have to be open to this evidence and its implications.”

WHO participated in an international research meeting last week that addressed means for controlling modes of COVID-19 transmission, Allegranzi said. “Our group and others really highlighted importance of research on different modes of transmission, including droplets of different sizes and their relative importance,” she said. Another aim was determining the dose of the virus required for airborne transmission.

“These fields of research are really growing but not definitive. More evidence needs to be gathered and evaluated,” she explained.

In the meantime, Allegranzi said, “the possibility of airborne transmission in public settings – especially closed, poorly ventilated settings – cannot be ruled out.”

Morawska said the evidence already exists. “A continuous surprise is that it takes the world such a long time to accept this, while this has such solid scientific foundation.” As an example, she cited an April report she coauthored in the journal Environment International. She and colleagues call for “national authorities to acknowledge the reality that the virus spreads through air and recommend that adequate control measures be implemented to prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in particularly removal of the virus-laden droplets from indoor air by ventilation.”

The take-home message from the commentary, Morawska said, is a call to action. The authors state there is a need “to provide sufficient and effective ventilation (supply clean outdoor air, minimize recirculating air) particularly in public buildings, workplace environments, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes.”

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, explained why the organization remains cautious about making premature pronouncements regarding airborne transmission. “Any guidance we put out has implications for billions of people around the world, so we want to be as careful as possible,” she said during the press briefing. “We have to consider the weight of the evidence.”

“We are constantly looking for information on how we can do better,” Swaminathan added. WHO officials are reviewing hundreds of scientific reports every day, she said, and not all are of good quality. For this reason, she and other scientists at WHO perform a “living systematic review” – updating the consensus of evidence on a weekly basis.  

“This process on COVID-19 will, I am sure, continue for the weeks and months to come,” she added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Gastroenterological Association has released a new guideline for consultative management of patients with COVID-19.

The recommendations, which were written by Shahnaz Sultan, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues, were based on a meta-analysis of data from 47 studies involving 10,890 unique patients.

“We seek to summarize international data on the GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19 infection and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “Additionally, this document provides evidence-based clinical guidance on clinical questions that gastroenterologists may be consulted for.”

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

The first three statements relate to COVID-19–related GI symptoms, which are estimated to occur in less than 10% of patients, and rarely in the absence of other COVID-19–related symptoms, according to Dr. Sultan and her copanelists.

“The overall prevalence of GI symptoms in the context of COVID-19, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, is lower than estimated previously,” the panelists wrote, referencing a previous meta-analysis by Ka Shing Cheung, MBBS, and colleagues that showed a prevalence of 17.6%.

“It is important to note that the majority of studies were focused on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the prevalence of diarrhea in patients with mild symptoms who were not hospitalized is not known.”

Since GI issues may precede other symptoms of COVID-19, the guideline recommends questioning outpatients with new-onset GI symptoms about other symptoms of COVID-19, with viral testing recommended in areas of high prevalence. Conversely, the panelists recommended that patients with suspected or known COVID-19 should undergo thorough history taking for GI symptoms, “including onset, characteristics, duration, and severity.”

The fourth practice statement advises against COVID-19 stool testing in routine clinical practice, either for diagnostic or monitoring purposes.

Although Dr. Cheung and colleagues reported that 48.1% of fecal specimens from patients with COVID-19 contained viral RNA, the panelists concluded that the practical relevance of this finding remains unknown.

“Stool infectivity and transmission have not been confirmed,” the panelists wrote, citing a lack of evidence and conflicting findings.

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

First, any patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who has elevated liver function tests should be evaluated for alternative etiologies. Second, hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should undergo baseline liver function testing, followed by liver monitoring throughout their stay, “particularly in the context of drug treatment for COVID-19.” And third, any patient receiving drugs to treat COVID-19 should be monitored for treatment-related hepatic and GI adverse effects.

Dr. Sultan and colleagues found that approximately 15% of patients with COVID-19 included in their meta-analysis had abnormal liver function tests, more often because of secondary effects rather than virally induced liver injury.

Although liver function test abnormalities were inconsistently reported across studies, and when available, often lacked relevant contextual data, such as information about underlying liver disease, published data suggest that abnormal liver values could predict more severe COVID-19, supporting baseline and serial liver testing, the panelists wrote.

Following these recommendations, the guideline includes a discussion of GI and hepatic adverse effects related to specific COVID-19 treatments.

According to the panelists, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may infrequently lead to GI disturbances, and rarely, liver injury, with the latter thought to be a sequela of a hypersensitivity reaction; among antiviral medications, lopinavir/ritonavir and favipiravir may cause GI adverse effects in approximately 5%-15% of patients, with potentially higher rates in children and those receiving higher doses.

“In particular, GI adverse events are poorly understood for both favipiravir and remdesivir,” the panelists wrote.

Hepatic adverse effects, ranging from mild elevations in aminotransferases to acute liver failure, have been documented, albeit rarely, among patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir, according to the panelists. For remdesivir, liver injury has also been reported, although frequency is unknown, and for favipiravir, hepatic adverse events may be seen in 3% of patients, although, again, the panelists noted a scarcity of relevant findings.

In their concluding remarks, Dr. Sultan and colleagues called for more high-quality data, and encouraged clinicians to contribute to international registries, as these could help guide COVID-19 recommendations for patient subgroups.

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

SOURCE: Sultan S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.001.

The American Gastroenterological Association has released a new guideline for consultative management of patients with COVID-19.

The recommendations, which were written by Shahnaz Sultan, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues, were based on a meta-analysis of data from 47 studies involving 10,890 unique patients.

“We seek to summarize international data on the GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19 infection and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “Additionally, this document provides evidence-based clinical guidance on clinical questions that gastroenterologists may be consulted for.”

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

The first three statements relate to COVID-19–related GI symptoms, which are estimated to occur in less than 10% of patients, and rarely in the absence of other COVID-19–related symptoms, according to Dr. Sultan and her copanelists.

“The overall prevalence of GI symptoms in the context of COVID-19, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, is lower than estimated previously,” the panelists wrote, referencing a previous meta-analysis by Ka Shing Cheung, MBBS, and colleagues that showed a prevalence of 17.6%.

“It is important to note that the majority of studies were focused on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the prevalence of diarrhea in patients with mild symptoms who were not hospitalized is not known.”

Since GI issues may precede other symptoms of COVID-19, the guideline recommends questioning outpatients with new-onset GI symptoms about other symptoms of COVID-19, with viral testing recommended in areas of high prevalence. Conversely, the panelists recommended that patients with suspected or known COVID-19 should undergo thorough history taking for GI symptoms, “including onset, characteristics, duration, and severity.”

The fourth practice statement advises against COVID-19 stool testing in routine clinical practice, either for diagnostic or monitoring purposes.

Although Dr. Cheung and colleagues reported that 48.1% of fecal specimens from patients with COVID-19 contained viral RNA, the panelists concluded that the practical relevance of this finding remains unknown.

“Stool infectivity and transmission have not been confirmed,” the panelists wrote, citing a lack of evidence and conflicting findings.

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

First, any patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who has elevated liver function tests should be evaluated for alternative etiologies. Second, hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should undergo baseline liver function testing, followed by liver monitoring throughout their stay, “particularly in the context of drug treatment for COVID-19.” And third, any patient receiving drugs to treat COVID-19 should be monitored for treatment-related hepatic and GI adverse effects.

Dr. Sultan and colleagues found that approximately 15% of patients with COVID-19 included in their meta-analysis had abnormal liver function tests, more often because of secondary effects rather than virally induced liver injury.

Although liver function test abnormalities were inconsistently reported across studies, and when available, often lacked relevant contextual data, such as information about underlying liver disease, published data suggest that abnormal liver values could predict more severe COVID-19, supporting baseline and serial liver testing, the panelists wrote.

Following these recommendations, the guideline includes a discussion of GI and hepatic adverse effects related to specific COVID-19 treatments.

According to the panelists, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may infrequently lead to GI disturbances, and rarely, liver injury, with the latter thought to be a sequela of a hypersensitivity reaction; among antiviral medications, lopinavir/ritonavir and favipiravir may cause GI adverse effects in approximately 5%-15% of patients, with potentially higher rates in children and those receiving higher doses.

“In particular, GI adverse events are poorly understood for both favipiravir and remdesivir,” the panelists wrote.

Hepatic adverse effects, ranging from mild elevations in aminotransferases to acute liver failure, have been documented, albeit rarely, among patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir, according to the panelists. For remdesivir, liver injury has also been reported, although frequency is unknown, and for favipiravir, hepatic adverse events may be seen in 3% of patients, although, again, the panelists noted a scarcity of relevant findings.

In their concluding remarks, Dr. Sultan and colleagues called for more high-quality data, and encouraged clinicians to contribute to international registries, as these could help guide COVID-19 recommendations for patient subgroups.

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

SOURCE: Sultan S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.001.

The American Gastroenterological Association has released a new guideline for consultative management of patients with COVID-19.

The recommendations, which were written by Shahnaz Sultan, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues, were based on a meta-analysis of data from 47 studies involving 10,890 unique patients.

“We seek to summarize international data on the GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19 infection and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “Additionally, this document provides evidence-based clinical guidance on clinical questions that gastroenterologists may be consulted for.”

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

The first three statements relate to COVID-19–related GI symptoms, which are estimated to occur in less than 10% of patients, and rarely in the absence of other COVID-19–related symptoms, according to Dr. Sultan and her copanelists.

“The overall prevalence of GI symptoms in the context of COVID-19, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, is lower than estimated previously,” the panelists wrote, referencing a previous meta-analysis by Ka Shing Cheung, MBBS, and colleagues that showed a prevalence of 17.6%.

“It is important to note that the majority of studies were focused on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the prevalence of diarrhea in patients with mild symptoms who were not hospitalized is not known.”

Since GI issues may precede other symptoms of COVID-19, the guideline recommends questioning outpatients with new-onset GI symptoms about other symptoms of COVID-19, with viral testing recommended in areas of high prevalence. Conversely, the panelists recommended that patients with suspected or known COVID-19 should undergo thorough history taking for GI symptoms, “including onset, characteristics, duration, and severity.”

The fourth practice statement advises against COVID-19 stool testing in routine clinical practice, either for diagnostic or monitoring purposes.

Although Dr. Cheung and colleagues reported that 48.1% of fecal specimens from patients with COVID-19 contained viral RNA, the panelists concluded that the practical relevance of this finding remains unknown.

“Stool infectivity and transmission have not been confirmed,” the panelists wrote, citing a lack of evidence and conflicting findings.

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

First, any patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who has elevated liver function tests should be evaluated for alternative etiologies. Second, hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should undergo baseline liver function testing, followed by liver monitoring throughout their stay, “particularly in the context of drug treatment for COVID-19.” And third, any patient receiving drugs to treat COVID-19 should be monitored for treatment-related hepatic and GI adverse effects.

Dr. Sultan and colleagues found that approximately 15% of patients with COVID-19 included in their meta-analysis had abnormal liver function tests, more often because of secondary effects rather than virally induced liver injury.

Although liver function test abnormalities were inconsistently reported across studies, and when available, often lacked relevant contextual data, such as information about underlying liver disease, published data suggest that abnormal liver values could predict more severe COVID-19, supporting baseline and serial liver testing, the panelists wrote.

Following these recommendations, the guideline includes a discussion of GI and hepatic adverse effects related to specific COVID-19 treatments.

According to the panelists, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may infrequently lead to GI disturbances, and rarely, liver injury, with the latter thought to be a sequela of a hypersensitivity reaction; among antiviral medications, lopinavir/ritonavir and favipiravir may cause GI adverse effects in approximately 5%-15% of patients, with potentially higher rates in children and those receiving higher doses.

“In particular, GI adverse events are poorly understood for both favipiravir and remdesivir,” the panelists wrote.

Hepatic adverse effects, ranging from mild elevations in aminotransferases to acute liver failure, have been documented, albeit rarely, among patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir, according to the panelists. For remdesivir, liver injury has also been reported, although frequency is unknown, and for favipiravir, hepatic adverse events may be seen in 3% of patients, although, again, the panelists noted a scarcity of relevant findings.

In their concluding remarks, Dr. Sultan and colleagues called for more high-quality data, and encouraged clinicians to contribute to international registries, as these could help guide COVID-19 recommendations for patient subgroups.

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

SOURCE: Sultan S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.001.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved fostemsavir (Rukobia, ViiV Healthcare), a first-in-class attachment inhibitor for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults.

Fostemsavir is indicated for use in combination with other antiretroviral (ARV) agents in heavily treatment-experienced adults with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection who fail to achieve viral suppression on other regimens due to resistance, intolerance, or safety considerations.

“This approval marks a new class of antiretroviral medications that may benefit patients who have run out of HIV treatment options,” Jeff Murray, MD, deputy director of the Division of Antivirals in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“The availability of new classes of antiretroviral drugs is critical for heavily treatment-experienced patients living with multidrug resistant HIV infection — helping people living with hard-to-treat HIV who are at greater risk for HIV-related complications to potentially live longer, healthier lives,” he said.

Fostemsavir 600 mg extended-release tablets are taken twice daily.

In the phase 3 BRIGHTE study, 60% of adults who added fostemsavir to optimized background ARV therapy achieved and maintained viral suppression through 96 weeks and saw clinically meaningful improvements in CD4+ T cells.

Most of the 371 participants in the study had been on anti-HIV therapy for more than 15 years (71%), had been exposed to five or more different HIV treatment regimens (85%), and/or had a history of AIDS (86%).

The most common adverse reactions with fostemsavir are nausea, fatigue, and diarrhea. Serious drug reactions included liver enzyme elevations in patients co-infected with hepatitis B or C virus and three cases of severe immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome. 

“Exciting” Advance

“There is a small group of heavily treatment-experienced adults living with HIV who are not able to maintain viral suppression with currently available medication and, without effective new options, are at great risk of progressing to AIDS,” Deborah Waterhouse, CEO of ViiV Healthcare, said in a news release.

“The approval of Rukobia is a culmination of incredibly complex research, development, and manufacturing efforts to ensure we leave no person living with HIV behind,” she said.

“As a novel HIV attachment inhibitor, fostemsavir targets the first step of the viral lifecycle offering a new mechanism of action to treat people living with HIV,” Jacob P. Lalezari, MD, chief executive officer and director of Quest Clinical Research, commented in the release.

Fostemsavir is an “exciting” advance for the heavily treatment-experienced population and “an advancement the HIV community has long been waiting for. As an activist as well as researcher, I am very grateful to ViiV Healthcare for their commitment to heavily-treatment experienced people living with HIV,” he added.

Fostemsavir was reviewed and approved under the FDA’s fast track and breakthrough therapy designations, which are intended to facilitate and expedite the development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition.

Full prescribing information is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved fostemsavir (Rukobia, ViiV Healthcare), a first-in-class attachment inhibitor for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults.

Fostemsavir is indicated for use in combination with other antiretroviral (ARV) agents in heavily treatment-experienced adults with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection who fail to achieve viral suppression on other regimens due to resistance, intolerance, or safety considerations.

“This approval marks a new class of antiretroviral medications that may benefit patients who have run out of HIV treatment options,” Jeff Murray, MD, deputy director of the Division of Antivirals in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“The availability of new classes of antiretroviral drugs is critical for heavily treatment-experienced patients living with multidrug resistant HIV infection — helping people living with hard-to-treat HIV who are at greater risk for HIV-related complications to potentially live longer, healthier lives,” he said.

Fostemsavir 600 mg extended-release tablets are taken twice daily.

In the phase 3 BRIGHTE study, 60% of adults who added fostemsavir to optimized background ARV therapy achieved and maintained viral suppression through 96 weeks and saw clinically meaningful improvements in CD4+ T cells.

Most of the 371 participants in the study had been on anti-HIV therapy for more than 15 years (71%), had been exposed to five or more different HIV treatment regimens (85%), and/or had a history of AIDS (86%).

The most common adverse reactions with fostemsavir are nausea, fatigue, and diarrhea. Serious drug reactions included liver enzyme elevations in patients co-infected with hepatitis B or C virus and three cases of severe immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome. 

“Exciting” Advance

“There is a small group of heavily treatment-experienced adults living with HIV who are not able to maintain viral suppression with currently available medication and, without effective new options, are at great risk of progressing to AIDS,” Deborah Waterhouse, CEO of ViiV Healthcare, said in a news release.

“The approval of Rukobia is a culmination of incredibly complex research, development, and manufacturing efforts to ensure we leave no person living with HIV behind,” she said.

“As a novel HIV attachment inhibitor, fostemsavir targets the first step of the viral lifecycle offering a new mechanism of action to treat people living with HIV,” Jacob P. Lalezari, MD, chief executive officer and director of Quest Clinical Research, commented in the release.

Fostemsavir is an “exciting” advance for the heavily treatment-experienced population and “an advancement the HIV community has long been waiting for. As an activist as well as researcher, I am very grateful to ViiV Healthcare for their commitment to heavily-treatment experienced people living with HIV,” he added.

Fostemsavir was reviewed and approved under the FDA’s fast track and breakthrough therapy designations, which are intended to facilitate and expedite the development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition.

Full prescribing information is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved fostemsavir (Rukobia, ViiV Healthcare), a first-in-class attachment inhibitor for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults.

Fostemsavir is indicated for use in combination with other antiretroviral (ARV) agents in heavily treatment-experienced adults with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection who fail to achieve viral suppression on other regimens due to resistance, intolerance, or safety considerations.

“This approval marks a new class of antiretroviral medications that may benefit patients who have run out of HIV treatment options,” Jeff Murray, MD, deputy director of the Division of Antivirals in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“The availability of new classes of antiretroviral drugs is critical for heavily treatment-experienced patients living with multidrug resistant HIV infection — helping people living with hard-to-treat HIV who are at greater risk for HIV-related complications to potentially live longer, healthier lives,” he said.

Fostemsavir 600 mg extended-release tablets are taken twice daily.

In the phase 3 BRIGHTE study, 60% of adults who added fostemsavir to optimized background ARV therapy achieved and maintained viral suppression through 96 weeks and saw clinically meaningful improvements in CD4+ T cells.

Most of the 371 participants in the study had been on anti-HIV therapy for more than 15 years (71%), had been exposed to five or more different HIV treatment regimens (85%), and/or had a history of AIDS (86%).

The most common adverse reactions with fostemsavir are nausea, fatigue, and diarrhea. Serious drug reactions included liver enzyme elevations in patients co-infected with hepatitis B or C virus and three cases of severe immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome. 

“Exciting” Advance

“There is a small group of heavily treatment-experienced adults living with HIV who are not able to maintain viral suppression with currently available medication and, without effective new options, are at great risk of progressing to AIDS,” Deborah Waterhouse, CEO of ViiV Healthcare, said in a news release.

“The approval of Rukobia is a culmination of incredibly complex research, development, and manufacturing efforts to ensure we leave no person living with HIV behind,” she said.

“As a novel HIV attachment inhibitor, fostemsavir targets the first step of the viral lifecycle offering a new mechanism of action to treat people living with HIV,” Jacob P. Lalezari, MD, chief executive officer and director of Quest Clinical Research, commented in the release.

Fostemsavir is an “exciting” advance for the heavily treatment-experienced population and “an advancement the HIV community has long been waiting for. As an activist as well as researcher, I am very grateful to ViiV Healthcare for their commitment to heavily-treatment experienced people living with HIV,” he added.

Fostemsavir was reviewed and approved under the FDA’s fast track and breakthrough therapy designations, which are intended to facilitate and expedite the development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition.

Full prescribing information is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Several HIV management efforts in African groups have developed differentiated service delivery models for people living with HIV who also have noncommunicable diseases, offering diagnostic and management strategies that can treat HIV patients holistically and address their range of health issues.

These efforts allow “countries with effective HIV programs to leverage lessons learned and best practices to enhance chronic noncommunicable disease” management, Miriam Rabkin, MD, said at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference. This approach aims to address the “growing prevalence of chronic noncommunicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries,” and the recognition that ”people living with HIV have the same or higher prevalence” of chronic noncommunicable diseases as that of others in the region where they live, said Dr. Rabkin, an epidemiologist at Columbia University in New York and director for health systems strengthening at ICAP, an international AIDS care program run at Columbia. The differentiated service delivery model derived from the premise that “one size does not fit all,” and that effective interventions must be “tailored” to the social and clinical circumstances of specific regions, she explained.

One program has focused on introducing more contemporary methods for diagnosing leukemias, lymphomas, and melanomas using flow cytometry at the Uganda National Health Laboratory Service in Kampala. This change in testing, which became available to patients starting in February 2019, has allowed diagnostics with fresh specimens that require minimal processing and results returned to referring physicians within 48 hours, a significant upgrade from the 1- to 4-week delay that was typical in the past, said Steven J. Kussick, MD, a hematopathologist and associate medical director of PhenoPath, a commercial pathology laboratory in Seattle.

The idea was to “leverage existing HIV laboratory capabilities to transform cancer diagnosis in sub-Saharan Africa,” he said during his talk at the conference. The flow cytometry approach allows an experienced pathologist like Dr. Kussick to diagnose clearcut cases in “5 seconds,” he said. The lab has already run specimens from more than 200 patients, and estimates an ability to handle specimens from about 250 patients per year at a total annual cost of roughly $60,000, an apparently sustainable operating model, said Dr. Kussick, who serves as a full-time consultant to the operation and was also instrumental in the 5-year process that created the diagnostic program. Future improvements planned for this program include bringing on-line a higher complexity diagnostic assay that’s closer to what is currently standard U.S. testing, digital imaging to facilitate consultation with remote experts, adding immunochemistry assays to allow diagnosis of solid tumors, and opening of a second laboratory in Kenya.

Another noncommunicable disease intervention in Africa that’s building on existing infrastructure for dealing with HIV infection is targeting hypertension, the most lethal risk factor globally for preventable deaths, said Jennifer Cohn, MD, senior vice president for cardiovascular health at the New York–based Resolve to Save Lives initiative. “We need to learn from what’s been done for HIV to rapidly incorporate and scale differentiated service models,” she said.

HIV and hypertension, along with diabetes, “are beginning to be recognized as ‘syndemics,’ ”synergistic pandemics, that need a holistic approach. A recent review of the topic reported that in the seven sub-Saharan countries with the highest HIV infection prevalence the percentage of adults with hypertension ranged from 20% to 24% (Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2020 Jul;15[4]:356-60). Projections call for a “dramatic” increase in the prevalence of hypertension in both the general population and among people living with HIV, Dr. Cohn said.

As an example of the potential for combining HIV and antihypertensive care into a one-stop protocol, she cited a model program launched at Makarere University in Kampala, Uganda, that integrates HIV and antihypertensive treatment. Recent data from the program showed that among HIV-infected individuals 24% also had hypertension, and while the program lagged in putting only 28% of these hypertensive patients on a blood pressure-lowering regimen, more than three quarters of these patients on treatment successfully reached their goal blood pressure, proving the feasibility of the combined approach, Dr. Cohn said.

“Starting and scaling with differentiated service delivery models for noncommunicable diseases can help overcome barriers to uptake of care,” concluded Dr. Cohn. “As HIV cohorts age, we have to adapt and ensure we are providing quality, holistic care, including care for high impact noncommunicable diseases such as hypertension.”

Dr. Rabkin and Dr. Cohn had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Several HIV management efforts in African groups have developed differentiated service delivery models for people living with HIV who also have noncommunicable diseases, offering diagnostic and management strategies that can treat HIV patients holistically and address their range of health issues.

These efforts allow “countries with effective HIV programs to leverage lessons learned and best practices to enhance chronic noncommunicable disease” management, Miriam Rabkin, MD, said at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference. This approach aims to address the “growing prevalence of chronic noncommunicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries,” and the recognition that ”people living with HIV have the same or higher prevalence” of chronic noncommunicable diseases as that of others in the region where they live, said Dr. Rabkin, an epidemiologist at Columbia University in New York and director for health systems strengthening at ICAP, an international AIDS care program run at Columbia. The differentiated service delivery model derived from the premise that “one size does not fit all,” and that effective interventions must be “tailored” to the social and clinical circumstances of specific regions, she explained.

One program has focused on introducing more contemporary methods for diagnosing leukemias, lymphomas, and melanomas using flow cytometry at the Uganda National Health Laboratory Service in Kampala. This change in testing, which became available to patients starting in February 2019, has allowed diagnostics with fresh specimens that require minimal processing and results returned to referring physicians within 48 hours, a significant upgrade from the 1- to 4-week delay that was typical in the past, said Steven J. Kussick, MD, a hematopathologist and associate medical director of PhenoPath, a commercial pathology laboratory in Seattle.

The idea was to “leverage existing HIV laboratory capabilities to transform cancer diagnosis in sub-Saharan Africa,” he said during his talk at the conference. The flow cytometry approach allows an experienced pathologist like Dr. Kussick to diagnose clearcut cases in “5 seconds,” he said. The lab has already run specimens from more than 200 patients, and estimates an ability to handle specimens from about 250 patients per year at a total annual cost of roughly $60,000, an apparently sustainable operating model, said Dr. Kussick, who serves as a full-time consultant to the operation and was also instrumental in the 5-year process that created the diagnostic program. Future improvements planned for this program include bringing on-line a higher complexity diagnostic assay that’s closer to what is currently standard U.S. testing, digital imaging to facilitate consultation with remote experts, adding immunochemistry assays to allow diagnosis of solid tumors, and opening of a second laboratory in Kenya.

Another noncommunicable disease intervention in Africa that’s building on existing infrastructure for dealing with HIV infection is targeting hypertension, the most lethal risk factor globally for preventable deaths, said Jennifer Cohn, MD, senior vice president for cardiovascular health at the New York–based Resolve to Save Lives initiative. “We need to learn from what’s been done for HIV to rapidly incorporate and scale differentiated service models,” she said.

HIV and hypertension, along with diabetes, “are beginning to be recognized as ‘syndemics,’ ”synergistic pandemics, that need a holistic approach. A recent review of the topic reported that in the seven sub-Saharan countries with the highest HIV infection prevalence the percentage of adults with hypertension ranged from 20% to 24% (Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2020 Jul;15[4]:356-60). Projections call for a “dramatic” increase in the prevalence of hypertension in both the general population and among people living with HIV, Dr. Cohn said.

As an example of the potential for combining HIV and antihypertensive care into a one-stop protocol, she cited a model program launched at Makarere University in Kampala, Uganda, that integrates HIV and antihypertensive treatment. Recent data from the program showed that among HIV-infected individuals 24% also had hypertension, and while the program lagged in putting only 28% of these hypertensive patients on a blood pressure-lowering regimen, more than three quarters of these patients on treatment successfully reached their goal blood pressure, proving the feasibility of the combined approach, Dr. Cohn said.

“Starting and scaling with differentiated service delivery models for noncommunicable diseases can help overcome barriers to uptake of care,” concluded Dr. Cohn. “As HIV cohorts age, we have to adapt and ensure we are providing quality, holistic care, including care for high impact noncommunicable diseases such as hypertension.”

Dr. Rabkin and Dr. Cohn had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Several HIV management efforts in African groups have developed differentiated service delivery models for people living with HIV who also have noncommunicable diseases, offering diagnostic and management strategies that can treat HIV patients holistically and address their range of health issues.

These efforts allow “countries with effective HIV programs to leverage lessons learned and best practices to enhance chronic noncommunicable disease” management, Miriam Rabkin, MD, said at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference. This approach aims to address the “growing prevalence of chronic noncommunicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries,” and the recognition that ”people living with HIV have the same or higher prevalence” of chronic noncommunicable diseases as that of others in the region where they live, said Dr. Rabkin, an epidemiologist at Columbia University in New York and director for health systems strengthening at ICAP, an international AIDS care program run at Columbia. The differentiated service delivery model derived from the premise that “one size does not fit all,” and that effective interventions must be “tailored” to the social and clinical circumstances of specific regions, she explained.

One program has focused on introducing more contemporary methods for diagnosing leukemias, lymphomas, and melanomas using flow cytometry at the Uganda National Health Laboratory Service in Kampala. This change in testing, which became available to patients starting in February 2019, has allowed diagnostics with fresh specimens that require minimal processing and results returned to referring physicians within 48 hours, a significant upgrade from the 1- to 4-week delay that was typical in the past, said Steven J. Kussick, MD, a hematopathologist and associate medical director of PhenoPath, a commercial pathology laboratory in Seattle.

The idea was to “leverage existing HIV laboratory capabilities to transform cancer diagnosis in sub-Saharan Africa,” he said during his talk at the conference. The flow cytometry approach allows an experienced pathologist like Dr. Kussick to diagnose clearcut cases in “5 seconds,” he said. The lab has already run specimens from more than 200 patients, and estimates an ability to handle specimens from about 250 patients per year at a total annual cost of roughly $60,000, an apparently sustainable operating model, said Dr. Kussick, who serves as a full-time consultant to the operation and was also instrumental in the 5-year process that created the diagnostic program. Future improvements planned for this program include bringing on-line a higher complexity diagnostic assay that’s closer to what is currently standard U.S. testing, digital imaging to facilitate consultation with remote experts, adding immunochemistry assays to allow diagnosis of solid tumors, and opening of a second laboratory in Kenya.

Another noncommunicable disease intervention in Africa that’s building on existing infrastructure for dealing with HIV infection is targeting hypertension, the most lethal risk factor globally for preventable deaths, said Jennifer Cohn, MD, senior vice president for cardiovascular health at the New York–based Resolve to Save Lives initiative. “We need to learn from what’s been done for HIV to rapidly incorporate and scale differentiated service models,” she said.

HIV and hypertension, along with diabetes, “are beginning to be recognized as ‘syndemics,’ ”synergistic pandemics, that need a holistic approach. A recent review of the topic reported that in the seven sub-Saharan countries with the highest HIV infection prevalence the percentage of adults with hypertension ranged from 20% to 24% (Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2020 Jul;15[4]:356-60). Projections call for a “dramatic” increase in the prevalence of hypertension in both the general population and among people living with HIV, Dr. Cohn said.

As an example of the potential for combining HIV and antihypertensive care into a one-stop protocol, she cited a model program launched at Makarere University in Kampala, Uganda, that integrates HIV and antihypertensive treatment. Recent data from the program showed that among HIV-infected individuals 24% also had hypertension, and while the program lagged in putting only 28% of these hypertensive patients on a blood pressure-lowering regimen, more than three quarters of these patients on treatment successfully reached their goal blood pressure, proving the feasibility of the combined approach, Dr. Cohn said.

“Starting and scaling with differentiated service delivery models for noncommunicable diseases can help overcome barriers to uptake of care,” concluded Dr. Cohn. “As HIV cohorts age, we have to adapt and ensure we are providing quality, holistic care, including care for high impact noncommunicable diseases such as hypertension.”

Dr. Rabkin and Dr. Cohn had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

When the COVID-19 pandemic led to a blanket shelter-in-place order in California in March, it did more than shut down in-person visits at Ward 86, the HIV clinic for publicly insured patients at San Francisco General Hospital. It also led to a decrease in viral suppression among the clinic›s clients. By the end of June, the percentage of patients with an undetectable viral load had dropped by nearly one-third.

This is exactly what Monica Gandhi, MD, associate division chief of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and medical director of the clinic, was afraid of.

“We’re profoundly worried about the impact of COVID-19 on actual treatment outcomes,” said Dr. Gandhi, cochair of the virtual International AIDS Conference (AIDS) 2020.

And it’s not just the clinic’s clients at risk. Of the 106 countries served by the Global Fund to Fight HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, 85% saw disruptions in HIV programs, according to a report released last month.

These service disruptions are considerable and “life threatening,” affecting some of the people at greatest risk for HIV acquisition and poor outcomes – such as people engaged in transactional sex (40%), men who have sex with men (37%), and transgender people (31%) – the 2020 Global AIDS Update, released today by UNAIDS, reports.

“In sub-Saharan Africa alone, if there is a 6-month interruption in HIV treatment services, it will account for an additional 500,000 deaths. That doubles the number of deaths in sub-Saharan Africa alone and brings us back to 2008 mortality levels,” said Shannon Hader, MD, deputy executive director of UNAIDS. “We just can’t allow that to happen.”

In addition, 73 countries are at risk of running out of HIV medications, according to a World Health Organization report, also released today.
 

Quantifying the impact

The impact is not the same for all patients, said Anton Pozniak, MD, consulting physician in HIV medicine at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, and international cochair of AIDS 2020.

For some, COVID-19 has not changed much. Their viral loads remain undetectable and all they need is multimonth supplies of their antiretroviral therapy (ART) medications, he told Medscape Medical News. Still, he said he worries about the well-documented effects that social isolation is having on the mental health of these patients, and the increase in substance use associated with the pandemic.

Then there is a small group of patients with HIV who had put off starting ART before the pandemic, but now want to start, he reported.

And finally, there are the people for whom the fear of COVID-19 has crippled their ability to get care.

There are people who have decided they don’t want to come to the hospital or come to the clinic because they’re scared of getting COVID-19.

“It’s really very striking,” said Dr. Pozniak. “There are people who have decided they don’t want to come to the hospital or come to the clinic because they’re scared of getting COVID-19. We’ve offered to deliver treatment, but they don’t want the stigma of parcels of drugs arriving.”

In a study presented at the conference, four of 12 care and substance-use treatment facilities in Europe and North America – including Seattle and Philadelphia – reported patients taking longer to fill ART prescriptions. And four of the 12 also reported that clients who injected drugs and were at risk for or living with HIV were having trouble adhering to prescribed therapies. In addition, at 11 of the sites, HIV testing has either nearly or completely shut down.
 

Structural barriers to telemedicine

And then there are structural barriers to care – poverty, lack of transportation, lack of or slow internet access, and lack of insurance – which affect 10% to 20% of the people with HIV that Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, sees at the 1917 Ryan White HIV clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

These are the patients she said she worries about most, the ones who, even before COVID-19, were barely managing to pay their rent, car payments, and cell phone bills.

“With COVID-19 and being at home or being laid off, those things could no longer be paid. They’ve lost their phone, they’ve lost their car,” said Dionne-Odom, chief of women’s health services for the clinic. “That’s a really significant impact, because that’s exactly the group you can’t reach by telemedicine.”

In March, when the 1917 Clinic began providing the majority of services online, these people fell off the radar, said Aadia Rana, MD, associate professor of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who also works at the clinic.

This is not for lack of trying, she explained. Staff called patients weekly to check in and reschedule appointments, but there were some they just couldn’t reach.

Although the data for the second quarter have not yet been analyzed, “I would expect that our typically close to 90% viral suppression rate is going to decrease,” she said.

This decrease is likely widespread, said Rana, who is principle investigator of the Long-Acting Therapy to Improve Treatment Success in Daily Life (LATITUDE) study.

Many of the 33 sites involved in LATITUDE shut down in the early months of the pandemic, but some are now coming back online. In fact, “we are getting all these pleas from sites around the country saying, ‘Hey, once LATITUDE is open for enrollment, we have so many people who would now be eligible’,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“Why are they now eligible and they weren’t eligible before? I’m assuming it’s because they now have a detectable viral load,” which is one of the requirements for enrollment in LATITUDE, she explained.
 

Impact on the LGBTI community

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Erik Lamontagne, senior economist at UNAIDS, wondered how the quarantine was affecting LGBTI people.

To find out, he and his colleagues launched a survey asking just that. He is also coprinciple investigator of the LGBT Happiness Survey, a multicountry survey of LGBTI people launched last year.

The 13,562 LGBTI respondents came from 138 countries or territories. Of the 1,140 respondents living with HIV, 26% had seen their HIV care disrupted or restricted in some way during the pandemic, and 55% of those had no more than a month’s worth of HIV medications on hand.

But the pandemic hasn’t just affected people already living with HIV, Mr. Lamontagne reported. Nine of 10 respondents were living under some form of stay-at-home order, 73% were not meeting their basic needs, 37% had missed meals as a result of economic hardship, and half of those who were still working expected to lose their jobs.

Many could not afford to quarantine, Mr. Lamontagne told Medscape Medical News. And financial resources were stretched so thin that about 1% of respondents reported engaging in transactional sex for the first time. Some reported that their economic circumstances were so dire that they couldn’t require clients to wear condoms, increasing their risk for both COVID-19 and HIV.

“What they can eat in the evening is what they can earn during the day,” Mr. Lamontagne explained.

Unfortunately, it is the people already in a situation of economic vulnerability – often those from the LGBTI community – who are most affected by COVID-19, he added.
 

PrEP use changing

The pandemic has also affected the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

South African women taking PrEP to protect themselves from HIV during pregnancy were 2.36 times more likely to miss a clinic visit to refill their prescription after COVID-19 lockdowns began than before, data presented at the conference showed. The women cited fear of acquiring COVID-19 at the medical facility, fear of police, transportation barriers, and long clinic wait times to explain the missed visits.

A study on the use of PrEP at Fenway Health, a sexual health clinic in Boston, showed a 278% increase in unfilled PrEP prescriptions after stay-at-home orders and a 72.1% drop in new PrEP prescriptions.

It’s unclear what these data, which will be presented at the conference later this week, mean, said Douglas Krakower, MD, assistant professor of medicine and population medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

“We don’t know whether this represents people having trouble accessing PrEP” out of concern about getting COVID “or concerns about financial implications,” he explained.

“They may have had hardships from unemployment or other financial constraints” and have lost insurance or are still having to pay copays, he told Medscape Medical News. Or it could just be that they’re not going out or having sex, so they’ve discontinued the medication.

“Anecdotally we’ve heard that some patients are sheltering in place and not having sex and so have chosen not to use PrEP,” he added.

It’s also possible that people are rationing pills or have moved themselves to the PrEP 2-1-1 protocol, which is used only when someone is having sex, said Dr. Krakower, citing a study showing that sexual behavior is continuing as usual during quarantine for about half the gay men in the United States.
 

Resilience and fragility

It’s not just people living with HIV whose routines have changed during the pandemic. A survey of HIV clinicians around the world conducted by the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care showed that 88% of HIV clinicians have been pulled away from their regular work to manage COVID-19 in their communities.

But the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of stopping, and clinicians are now having to re-engage with their HIV patients.

“What COVID-19 has represented for us is a looking glass to see the resilience, but also the fragility, in HIV responses, not just in the global south, but also in the global north,” José Zuniga, PhD, IAPAC president and chief executive officer, said during a preconference session on controlling the HIV epidemic.

For Dr. Dionne-Odom, reopening the 1917 Clinic in Alabama meant tracking down patients who could not participate in telemedicine. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), the clinic, which serves a population with a high level of economic insecurity, has worked to get as many phone numbers as possible for each patient. So when the clinic opened back up, staff was able to call family members, friends, and trusted contacts to bring their patients back into the clinic.

“No one wanted to reopen too quickly,” said Dr. Dionne-Odom. “But having people come in allowed us to do all the other things that are the key part of HIV care: getting them connected with a social worker and making sure they have enough food, helping them with their electricity bills and their housing issues, all the wrap-around services that are so crucial for these patients.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the COVID-19 pandemic led to a blanket shelter-in-place order in California in March, it did more than shut down in-person visits at Ward 86, the HIV clinic for publicly insured patients at San Francisco General Hospital. It also led to a decrease in viral suppression among the clinic›s clients. By the end of June, the percentage of patients with an undetectable viral load had dropped by nearly one-third.

This is exactly what Monica Gandhi, MD, associate division chief of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and medical director of the clinic, was afraid of.

“We’re profoundly worried about the impact of COVID-19 on actual treatment outcomes,” said Dr. Gandhi, cochair of the virtual International AIDS Conference (AIDS) 2020.

And it’s not just the clinic’s clients at risk. Of the 106 countries served by the Global Fund to Fight HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, 85% saw disruptions in HIV programs, according to a report released last month.

These service disruptions are considerable and “life threatening,” affecting some of the people at greatest risk for HIV acquisition and poor outcomes – such as people engaged in transactional sex (40%), men who have sex with men (37%), and transgender people (31%) – the 2020 Global AIDS Update, released today by UNAIDS, reports.

“In sub-Saharan Africa alone, if there is a 6-month interruption in HIV treatment services, it will account for an additional 500,000 deaths. That doubles the number of deaths in sub-Saharan Africa alone and brings us back to 2008 mortality levels,” said Shannon Hader, MD, deputy executive director of UNAIDS. “We just can’t allow that to happen.”

In addition, 73 countries are at risk of running out of HIV medications, according to a World Health Organization report, also released today.
 

Quantifying the impact

The impact is not the same for all patients, said Anton Pozniak, MD, consulting physician in HIV medicine at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, and international cochair of AIDS 2020.

For some, COVID-19 has not changed much. Their viral loads remain undetectable and all they need is multimonth supplies of their antiretroviral therapy (ART) medications, he told Medscape Medical News. Still, he said he worries about the well-documented effects that social isolation is having on the mental health of these patients, and the increase in substance use associated with the pandemic.

Then there is a small group of patients with HIV who had put off starting ART before the pandemic, but now want to start, he reported.

And finally, there are the people for whom the fear of COVID-19 has crippled their ability to get care.

There are people who have decided they don’t want to come to the hospital or come to the clinic because they’re scared of getting COVID-19.

“It’s really very striking,” said Dr. Pozniak. “There are people who have decided they don’t want to come to the hospital or come to the clinic because they’re scared of getting COVID-19. We’ve offered to deliver treatment, but they don’t want the stigma of parcels of drugs arriving.”

In a study presented at the conference, four of 12 care and substance-use treatment facilities in Europe and North America – including Seattle and Philadelphia – reported patients taking longer to fill ART prescriptions. And four of the 12 also reported that clients who injected drugs and were at risk for or living with HIV were having trouble adhering to prescribed therapies. In addition, at 11 of the sites, HIV testing has either nearly or completely shut down.
 

Structural barriers to telemedicine

And then there are structural barriers to care – poverty, lack of transportation, lack of or slow internet access, and lack of insurance – which affect 10% to 20% of the people with HIV that Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, sees at the 1917 Ryan White HIV clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

These are the patients she said she worries about most, the ones who, even before COVID-19, were barely managing to pay their rent, car payments, and cell phone bills.

“With COVID-19 and being at home or being laid off, those things could no longer be paid. They’ve lost their phone, they’ve lost their car,” said Dionne-Odom, chief of women’s health services for the clinic. “That’s a really significant impact, because that’s exactly the group you can’t reach by telemedicine.”

In March, when the 1917 Clinic began providing the majority of services online, these people fell off the radar, said Aadia Rana, MD, associate professor of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who also works at the clinic.

This is not for lack of trying, she explained. Staff called patients weekly to check in and reschedule appointments, but there were some they just couldn’t reach.

Although the data for the second quarter have not yet been analyzed, “I would expect that our typically close to 90% viral suppression rate is going to decrease,” she said.

This decrease is likely widespread, said Rana, who is principle investigator of the Long-Acting Therapy to Improve Treatment Success in Daily Life (LATITUDE) study.

Many of the 33 sites involved in LATITUDE shut down in the early months of the pandemic, but some are now coming back online. In fact, “we are getting all these pleas from sites around the country saying, ‘Hey, once LATITUDE is open for enrollment, we have so many people who would now be eligible’,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“Why are they now eligible and they weren’t eligible before? I’m assuming it’s because they now have a detectable viral load,” which is one of the requirements for enrollment in LATITUDE, she explained.
 

Impact on the LGBTI community

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Erik Lamontagne, senior economist at UNAIDS, wondered how the quarantine was affecting LGBTI people.

To find out, he and his colleagues launched a survey asking just that. He is also coprinciple investigator of the LGBT Happiness Survey, a multicountry survey of LGBTI people launched last year.

The 13,562 LGBTI respondents came from 138 countries or territories. Of the 1,140 respondents living with HIV, 26% had seen their HIV care disrupted or restricted in some way during the pandemic, and 55% of those had no more than a month’s worth of HIV medications on hand.

But the pandemic hasn’t just affected people already living with HIV, Mr. Lamontagne reported. Nine of 10 respondents were living under some form of stay-at-home order, 73% were not meeting their basic needs, 37% had missed meals as a result of economic hardship, and half of those who were still working expected to lose their jobs.

Many could not afford to quarantine, Mr. Lamontagne told Medscape Medical News. And financial resources were stretched so thin that about 1% of respondents reported engaging in transactional sex for the first time. Some reported that their economic circumstances were so dire that they couldn’t require clients to wear condoms, increasing their risk for both COVID-19 and HIV.

“What they can eat in the evening is what they can earn during the day,” Mr. Lamontagne explained.

Unfortunately, it is the people already in a situation of economic vulnerability – often those from the LGBTI community – who are most affected by COVID-19, he added.
 

PrEP use changing

The pandemic has also affected the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

South African women taking PrEP to protect themselves from HIV during pregnancy were 2.36 times more likely to miss a clinic visit to refill their prescription after COVID-19 lockdowns began than before, data presented at the conference showed. The women cited fear of acquiring COVID-19 at the medical facility, fear of police, transportation barriers, and long clinic wait times to explain the missed visits.

A study on the use of PrEP at Fenway Health, a sexual health clinic in Boston, showed a 278% increase in unfilled PrEP prescriptions after stay-at-home orders and a 72.1% drop in new PrEP prescriptions.

It’s unclear what these data, which will be presented at the conference later this week, mean, said Douglas Krakower, MD, assistant professor of medicine and population medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

“We don’t know whether this represents people having trouble accessing PrEP” out of concern about getting COVID “or concerns about financial implications,” he explained.

“They may have had hardships from unemployment or other financial constraints” and have lost insurance or are still having to pay copays, he told Medscape Medical News. Or it could just be that they’re not going out or having sex, so they’ve discontinued the medication.

“Anecdotally we’ve heard that some patients are sheltering in place and not having sex and so have chosen not to use PrEP,” he added.

It’s also possible that people are rationing pills or have moved themselves to the PrEP 2-1-1 protocol, which is used only when someone is having sex, said Dr. Krakower, citing a study showing that sexual behavior is continuing as usual during quarantine for about half the gay men in the United States.
 

Resilience and fragility

It’s not just people living with HIV whose routines have changed during the pandemic. A survey of HIV clinicians around the world conducted by the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care showed that 88% of HIV clinicians have been pulled away from their regular work to manage COVID-19 in their communities.

But the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of stopping, and clinicians are now having to re-engage with their HIV patients.

“What COVID-19 has represented for us is a looking glass to see the resilience, but also the fragility, in HIV responses, not just in the global south, but also in the global north,” José Zuniga, PhD, IAPAC president and chief executive officer, said during a preconference session on controlling the HIV epidemic.

For Dr. Dionne-Odom, reopening the 1917 Clinic in Alabama meant tracking down patients who could not participate in telemedicine. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), the clinic, which serves a population with a high level of economic insecurity, has worked to get as many phone numbers as possible for each patient. So when the clinic opened back up, staff was able to call family members, friends, and trusted contacts to bring their patients back into the clinic.

“No one wanted to reopen too quickly,” said Dr. Dionne-Odom. “But having people come in allowed us to do all the other things that are the key part of HIV care: getting them connected with a social worker and making sure they have enough food, helping them with their electricity bills and their housing issues, all the wrap-around services that are so crucial for these patients.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the COVID-19 pandemic led to a blanket shelter-in-place order in California in March, it did more than shut down in-person visits at Ward 86, the HIV clinic for publicly insured patients at San Francisco General Hospital. It also led to a decrease in viral suppression among the clinic›s clients. By the end of June, the percentage of patients with an undetectable viral load had dropped by nearly one-third.

This is exactly what Monica Gandhi, MD, associate division chief of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and medical director of the clinic, was afraid of.

“We’re profoundly worried about the impact of COVID-19 on actual treatment outcomes,” said Dr. Gandhi, cochair of the virtual International AIDS Conference (AIDS) 2020.

And it’s not just the clinic’s clients at risk. Of the 106 countries served by the Global Fund to Fight HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, 85% saw disruptions in HIV programs, according to a report released last month.

These service disruptions are considerable and “life threatening,” affecting some of the people at greatest risk for HIV acquisition and poor outcomes – such as people engaged in transactional sex (40%), men who have sex with men (37%), and transgender people (31%) – the 2020 Global AIDS Update, released today by UNAIDS, reports.

“In sub-Saharan Africa alone, if there is a 6-month interruption in HIV treatment services, it will account for an additional 500,000 deaths. That doubles the number of deaths in sub-Saharan Africa alone and brings us back to 2008 mortality levels,” said Shannon Hader, MD, deputy executive director of UNAIDS. “We just can’t allow that to happen.”

In addition, 73 countries are at risk of running out of HIV medications, according to a World Health Organization report, also released today.
 

Quantifying the impact

The impact is not the same for all patients, said Anton Pozniak, MD, consulting physician in HIV medicine at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, and international cochair of AIDS 2020.

For some, COVID-19 has not changed much. Their viral loads remain undetectable and all they need is multimonth supplies of their antiretroviral therapy (ART) medications, he told Medscape Medical News. Still, he said he worries about the well-documented effects that social isolation is having on the mental health of these patients, and the increase in substance use associated with the pandemic.

Then there is a small group of patients with HIV who had put off starting ART before the pandemic, but now want to start, he reported.

And finally, there are the people for whom the fear of COVID-19 has crippled their ability to get care.

There are people who have decided they don’t want to come to the hospital or come to the clinic because they’re scared of getting COVID-19.

“It’s really very striking,” said Dr. Pozniak. “There are people who have decided they don’t want to come to the hospital or come to the clinic because they’re scared of getting COVID-19. We’ve offered to deliver treatment, but they don’t want the stigma of parcels of drugs arriving.”

In a study presented at the conference, four of 12 care and substance-use treatment facilities in Europe and North America – including Seattle and Philadelphia – reported patients taking longer to fill ART prescriptions. And four of the 12 also reported that clients who injected drugs and were at risk for or living with HIV were having trouble adhering to prescribed therapies. In addition, at 11 of the sites, HIV testing has either nearly or completely shut down.
 

Structural barriers to telemedicine

And then there are structural barriers to care – poverty, lack of transportation, lack of or slow internet access, and lack of insurance – which affect 10% to 20% of the people with HIV that Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, sees at the 1917 Ryan White HIV clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

These are the patients she said she worries about most, the ones who, even before COVID-19, were barely managing to pay their rent, car payments, and cell phone bills.

“With COVID-19 and being at home or being laid off, those things could no longer be paid. They’ve lost their phone, they’ve lost their car,” said Dionne-Odom, chief of women’s health services for the clinic. “That’s a really significant impact, because that’s exactly the group you can’t reach by telemedicine.”

In March, when the 1917 Clinic began providing the majority of services online, these people fell off the radar, said Aadia Rana, MD, associate professor of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who also works at the clinic.

This is not for lack of trying, she explained. Staff called patients weekly to check in and reschedule appointments, but there were some they just couldn’t reach.

Although the data for the second quarter have not yet been analyzed, “I would expect that our typically close to 90% viral suppression rate is going to decrease,” she said.

This decrease is likely widespread, said Rana, who is principle investigator of the Long-Acting Therapy to Improve Treatment Success in Daily Life (LATITUDE) study.

Many of the 33 sites involved in LATITUDE shut down in the early months of the pandemic, but some are now coming back online. In fact, “we are getting all these pleas from sites around the country saying, ‘Hey, once LATITUDE is open for enrollment, we have so many people who would now be eligible’,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“Why are they now eligible and they weren’t eligible before? I’m assuming it’s because they now have a detectable viral load,” which is one of the requirements for enrollment in LATITUDE, she explained.
 

Impact on the LGBTI community

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Erik Lamontagne, senior economist at UNAIDS, wondered how the quarantine was affecting LGBTI people.

To find out, he and his colleagues launched a survey asking just that. He is also coprinciple investigator of the LGBT Happiness Survey, a multicountry survey of LGBTI people launched last year.

The 13,562 LGBTI respondents came from 138 countries or territories. Of the 1,140 respondents living with HIV, 26% had seen their HIV care disrupted or restricted in some way during the pandemic, and 55% of those had no more than a month’s worth of HIV medications on hand.

But the pandemic hasn’t just affected people already living with HIV, Mr. Lamontagne reported. Nine of 10 respondents were living under some form of stay-at-home order, 73% were not meeting their basic needs, 37% had missed meals as a result of economic hardship, and half of those who were still working expected to lose their jobs.

Many could not afford to quarantine, Mr. Lamontagne told Medscape Medical News. And financial resources were stretched so thin that about 1% of respondents reported engaging in transactional sex for the first time. Some reported that their economic circumstances were so dire that they couldn’t require clients to wear condoms, increasing their risk for both COVID-19 and HIV.

“What they can eat in the evening is what they can earn during the day,” Mr. Lamontagne explained.

Unfortunately, it is the people already in a situation of economic vulnerability – often those from the LGBTI community – who are most affected by COVID-19, he added.
 

PrEP use changing

The pandemic has also affected the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

South African women taking PrEP to protect themselves from HIV during pregnancy were 2.36 times more likely to miss a clinic visit to refill their prescription after COVID-19 lockdowns began than before, data presented at the conference showed. The women cited fear of acquiring COVID-19 at the medical facility, fear of police, transportation barriers, and long clinic wait times to explain the missed visits.

A study on the use of PrEP at Fenway Health, a sexual health clinic in Boston, showed a 278% increase in unfilled PrEP prescriptions after stay-at-home orders and a 72.1% drop in new PrEP prescriptions.

It’s unclear what these data, which will be presented at the conference later this week, mean, said Douglas Krakower, MD, assistant professor of medicine and population medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

“We don’t know whether this represents people having trouble accessing PrEP” out of concern about getting COVID “or concerns about financial implications,” he explained.

“They may have had hardships from unemployment or other financial constraints” and have lost insurance or are still having to pay copays, he told Medscape Medical News. Or it could just be that they’re not going out or having sex, so they’ve discontinued the medication.

“Anecdotally we’ve heard that some patients are sheltering in place and not having sex and so have chosen not to use PrEP,” he added.

It’s also possible that people are rationing pills or have moved themselves to the PrEP 2-1-1 protocol, which is used only when someone is having sex, said Dr. Krakower, citing a study showing that sexual behavior is continuing as usual during quarantine for about half the gay men in the United States.
 

Resilience and fragility

It’s not just people living with HIV whose routines have changed during the pandemic. A survey of HIV clinicians around the world conducted by the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care showed that 88% of HIV clinicians have been pulled away from their regular work to manage COVID-19 in their communities.

But the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of stopping, and clinicians are now having to re-engage with their HIV patients.

“What COVID-19 has represented for us is a looking glass to see the resilience, but also the fragility, in HIV responses, not just in the global south, but also in the global north,” José Zuniga, PhD, IAPAC president and chief executive officer, said during a preconference session on controlling the HIV epidemic.

For Dr. Dionne-Odom, reopening the 1917 Clinic in Alabama meant tracking down patients who could not participate in telemedicine. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), the clinic, which serves a population with a high level of economic insecurity, has worked to get as many phone numbers as possible for each patient. So when the clinic opened back up, staff was able to call family members, friends, and trusted contacts to bring their patients back into the clinic.

“No one wanted to reopen too quickly,” said Dr. Dionne-Odom. “But having people come in allowed us to do all the other things that are the key part of HIV care: getting them connected with a social worker and making sure they have enough food, helping them with their electricity bills and their housing issues, all the wrap-around services that are so crucial for these patients.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.