MDedge Neurology

Cynthia H. Moran, MD, has a medical degree, a passion for treating the elderly, and a desire to work. What she doesn’t have is a job or hopes of getting one anytime soon.

The Houston physician has never been charged with a crime, but she did run afoul of the Texas Medical Board, an experience she said has left her destitute and virtually unemployable in the medical field.

“By the time the board gets through with you, you will be bankrupt and have nothing,” she said.

Dr. Moran has a long, tangled history with the board involving self-prescribing, opioid abuse, depression, and unprofessional conduct. After years of license suspension, drug testing, additional CME, substance abuse treatment, and work restrictions, her supervision by the board ended in 2019, but she has been largely unable to find work as a physician.

“I feel like a felon. I really understand what it’s like to be someone who does their time but then can’t get a job, can’t get an apartment. It’s in your record and there’s nothing you can do about it,” she said.

Although Dr. Moran largely created her own troubles, her experience shows the power state medical licensing boards have when it comes to disciplining physicians.
 

Reprimands to revocations

Many physicians think of their state medical boards as simply the bodies that issue their medical licenses, but the boards have other functions, including investigating complaints against licensed medical professionals and sometimes disciplining them.

According to 2017 statistics from the Federation of State Medical Boards (the most recent available), state boards took 8,813 actions that year. These included 796 suspensions, 764 probations, 570 surrendered licenses, and 264 revoked licenses.

Boards also can order doctors to enter state-run physician health plans to receive treatment for substance abuse, or they can allow physicians to practice only under the supervision of colleagues.

Although they vary by state, the boards are fundamentally similar. Members are appointed by the governor. A majority of them are physicians, and the remainder are nonmedical professionals. Their investigators, often retired law enforcement officials, have broad powers to collect evidence, including medical records. Their authority is backed by the state attorney general.

Although physicians tend to worry more about being sued for malpractice, a medical board investigation can be more worrisome, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an ED physician and attorney in Illinois who has represented doctors before that state’s board. Board disciplinary actions outnumber malpractice awards by four to one in that state.

“The gravity of this is something that many physicians don’t understand,” he said.
 

You can be the subject of anonymous complaints and investigations

Anyone can file a complaint against a physician with a state board. The grievances can be about anything from a crowded waiting room to physician impairment.

Of course, the most trivial complaints (out-of-date magazines in the waiting room) are dismissed out of hand, but boards have the authority to investigate whatever it chooses. The most common investigations center around complaints of impairment, substance abuse, improper prescribing, faulty medical records, mental and physical health problems, and standard of care. Boards also will act if a physician is found guilty of a crime or misconduct unrelated to his or her medical practice.

“There are a lot of ways doctors get into trouble,” said Edward Dauer, MD, a radiologist who served on the Florida board for 11 years.

Investigations often expand beyond their original scope into all aspects of a practice. “Once you’re on their radar, they can find something,” Dr. Sullivan said.

All punitive actions taken by state boards are reported to the Department of Health & Human Services’ National Practitioner Data Bank, which is accessible to all state boards. Sanctioned physicians who set up practice in another state often find that their new home has adopted the sanctions leveled by the original state, something boards can do without conducting their own investigations.

“For doctors, discipline is forever. It never goes off your record,” Dr. Dauer said.

In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers can exclude disciplined physicians, which can cripple a practice’s finances. So what can doctors do to avoid problems with the boards?
 

Don’t do anything wrong

That sounds glib and obvious, but many physicians get into trouble by unwittingly violating state medical regulations regarding such things as CME, insurance requirements, failure to notify the board of address changes, and personal relationships with current or former patients.

“The best advice to avoid these issues is to do a Google search for the Medical Practice Act in the state in which they practice,” said Dr. Sullivan. He noted that doctors should regularly check for changes in regulations.

Keeping on good terms with colleagues and patients also helps, he said, noting that many complaints stem from personal disputes and grievances.

But what if a physician becomes the subject of an investigation? What should they do?
 

Take any complaint seriously

Too many physicians dismiss investigations initially. “Some people have the wrong idea that if they ignore it, it will go away. It won’t go away,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Whether the initial contact comes through a letter or a visit from a board investigator, it should be treated with urgency. Ohio attorney Beth Collis said one client angrily scrawled one-word answers with a Sharpie on the questionnaire he was mailed – answers he was stuck defending throughout the rest of the investigation. Other doctors have ordered investigators out of their offices – another mistake. Failure to cooperate can result in an immediate license suspension.

“They should be speaking to these investigators like they were talking to a highway patrolman on the side of the road. They hold all the cards,” said Ms. Collis, who specializes in representing professionals before licensing boards.

Some physicians mistakenly assume that because their state board is made up mostly of fellow doctors, they will be able to make a complaint go away with some collegial chat.

Not so. “Medical board members see themselves as protecting the public. They’re very punitive,” Ms. Collis said.

At one time, state boards might have been lax in their supervision of physicians, but that changed in the 1980s when the watchdog group Public Citizen began ranking state medical boards by how effective they were in policing doctors.

Public Citizen used FSMB data on serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 doctors in each state to calculate its rankings, a practice that FSMB called incomplete and a misuse of its statistics. Nonetheless, the annual rankings generated a lot of publicity critical of state boards and might have spurred a tougher approach by regulators.

Public Citizen stopped publishing its annual rankings in 2013 after FSMB ceased supplying the data, but the get-tough approach remains, lawyers said.

About 95% of complaints are dismissed with nothing more serious than a letter to the doctor, but boards don’t hesitate to act when the misconduct is serious, said Dr. Dauer. “I felt it was my obligation to protect the public.”
 

Don’t try to fix it yourself

Although many complaints are anonymous, doctors can often figure out what or who it involves. Their impulse might be to contact a patient who complained, correct a medical record, or otherwise try to resolve the matter personally.

It’s better to leave things alone, the experts said. Don’t contact a patient. Give the board access to whatever information it asks for, but don’t alter anything, particularly medical records. “That’s how you’re going to get your license revoked,” Dr. Dauer said. He noted that when doctors add notations to records, they must date them.
 

Hire a lawyer

Many physicians assume they can resolve the complaint easily by explaining themselves to the board or investigators, or they don’t realize their license or practice could be at stake.

They’re better off letting a lawyer speak for them. Attorneys knowledgeable in this realm specialize in representing licensed professionals before regulatory boards and have the greatest knowledge of administrative law and how to negotiate the hearings and procedures.

Typically, a hearing is held before a subcommittee of the board, which can recommend a settlement to the full panel. Cases in which a settlement is not reached can go before the entire board.

Although full hearings can be similar to a trial, there are crucial differences regarding evidentiary rules and other matters, Ms. Collis said. For example, in Ohio, defendant physicians do not get to see the board’s full case against them before the hearing, which can make preparing a defense difficult. And the standard for burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, as in civil suits, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial.

Cases that go to full hearings and beyond to appeals in state courts can take years to resolve, and a physician’s license can be suspended for the duration.
 

Get help before it’s too late

Physicians looking for support and advice can turn to organizations such as the Coalition for Physician Rights, an organization formed in 2018 by Kernan Manion, MD, a former psychiatrist who was forced to deactivate his license after an investigation by the North Carolina medical board.

The Coalition for Physician Rights has advised hundreds of physicians, most of whom he said come to him once they realize they’re in over their heads. “Almost everyone comes in too late,” Dr. Manion said. “They’re sitting ducks. They don’t know how to respond.”

In addition to offering advice and support, the Coalition for Physician Rights lobbies for reform in how boards operate. A number of states, including Oklahoma, have made reforms in recent years.

The appointed boards are too reliant on their administration and staff and usually rubber-stamp disciplinary recommendations, Dr. Manion said. He also criticized the boards’ lack of accountability: “A board operates without external or internal oversight. It is an autonomous entity operating on its own.”

As for Dr. Moran, at age 61, she’s interviewing for physician jobs around the country, refusing to give up medicine.

“What else can I do?” she said. “It’s what I’ve done my entire life. It’s what I went to school for. I don’t know how to do anything else.”

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

Cynthia H. Moran, MD, has a medical degree, a passion for treating the elderly, and a desire to work. What she doesn’t have is a job or hopes of getting one anytime soon.

The Houston physician has never been charged with a crime, but she did run afoul of the Texas Medical Board, an experience she said has left her destitute and virtually unemployable in the medical field.

“By the time the board gets through with you, you will be bankrupt and have nothing,” she said.

Dr. Moran has a long, tangled history with the board involving self-prescribing, opioid abuse, depression, and unprofessional conduct. After years of license suspension, drug testing, additional CME, substance abuse treatment, and work restrictions, her supervision by the board ended in 2019, but she has been largely unable to find work as a physician.

“I feel like a felon. I really understand what it’s like to be someone who does their time but then can’t get a job, can’t get an apartment. It’s in your record and there’s nothing you can do about it,” she said.

Although Dr. Moran largely created her own troubles, her experience shows the power state medical licensing boards have when it comes to disciplining physicians.
 

Reprimands to revocations

Many physicians think of their state medical boards as simply the bodies that issue their medical licenses, but the boards have other functions, including investigating complaints against licensed medical professionals and sometimes disciplining them.

According to 2017 statistics from the Federation of State Medical Boards (the most recent available), state boards took 8,813 actions that year. These included 796 suspensions, 764 probations, 570 surrendered licenses, and 264 revoked licenses.

Boards also can order doctors to enter state-run physician health plans to receive treatment for substance abuse, or they can allow physicians to practice only under the supervision of colleagues.

Although they vary by state, the boards are fundamentally similar. Members are appointed by the governor. A majority of them are physicians, and the remainder are nonmedical professionals. Their investigators, often retired law enforcement officials, have broad powers to collect evidence, including medical records. Their authority is backed by the state attorney general.

Although physicians tend to worry more about being sued for malpractice, a medical board investigation can be more worrisome, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an ED physician and attorney in Illinois who has represented doctors before that state’s board. Board disciplinary actions outnumber malpractice awards by four to one in that state.

“The gravity of this is something that many physicians don’t understand,” he said.
 

You can be the subject of anonymous complaints and investigations

Anyone can file a complaint against a physician with a state board. The grievances can be about anything from a crowded waiting room to physician impairment.

Of course, the most trivial complaints (out-of-date magazines in the waiting room) are dismissed out of hand, but boards have the authority to investigate whatever it chooses. The most common investigations center around complaints of impairment, substance abuse, improper prescribing, faulty medical records, mental and physical health problems, and standard of care. Boards also will act if a physician is found guilty of a crime or misconduct unrelated to his or her medical practice.

“There are a lot of ways doctors get into trouble,” said Edward Dauer, MD, a radiologist who served on the Florida board for 11 years.

Investigations often expand beyond their original scope into all aspects of a practice. “Once you’re on their radar, they can find something,” Dr. Sullivan said.

All punitive actions taken by state boards are reported to the Department of Health & Human Services’ National Practitioner Data Bank, which is accessible to all state boards. Sanctioned physicians who set up practice in another state often find that their new home has adopted the sanctions leveled by the original state, something boards can do without conducting their own investigations.

“For doctors, discipline is forever. It never goes off your record,” Dr. Dauer said.

In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers can exclude disciplined physicians, which can cripple a practice’s finances. So what can doctors do to avoid problems with the boards?
 

Don’t do anything wrong

That sounds glib and obvious, but many physicians get into trouble by unwittingly violating state medical regulations regarding such things as CME, insurance requirements, failure to notify the board of address changes, and personal relationships with current or former patients.

“The best advice to avoid these issues is to do a Google search for the Medical Practice Act in the state in which they practice,” said Dr. Sullivan. He noted that doctors should regularly check for changes in regulations.

Keeping on good terms with colleagues and patients also helps, he said, noting that many complaints stem from personal disputes and grievances.

But what if a physician becomes the subject of an investigation? What should they do?
 

Take any complaint seriously

Too many physicians dismiss investigations initially. “Some people have the wrong idea that if they ignore it, it will go away. It won’t go away,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Whether the initial contact comes through a letter or a visit from a board investigator, it should be treated with urgency. Ohio attorney Beth Collis said one client angrily scrawled one-word answers with a Sharpie on the questionnaire he was mailed – answers he was stuck defending throughout the rest of the investigation. Other doctors have ordered investigators out of their offices – another mistake. Failure to cooperate can result in an immediate license suspension.

“They should be speaking to these investigators like they were talking to a highway patrolman on the side of the road. They hold all the cards,” said Ms. Collis, who specializes in representing professionals before licensing boards.

Some physicians mistakenly assume that because their state board is made up mostly of fellow doctors, they will be able to make a complaint go away with some collegial chat.

Not so. “Medical board members see themselves as protecting the public. They’re very punitive,” Ms. Collis said.

At one time, state boards might have been lax in their supervision of physicians, but that changed in the 1980s when the watchdog group Public Citizen began ranking state medical boards by how effective they were in policing doctors.

Public Citizen used FSMB data on serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 doctors in each state to calculate its rankings, a practice that FSMB called incomplete and a misuse of its statistics. Nonetheless, the annual rankings generated a lot of publicity critical of state boards and might have spurred a tougher approach by regulators.

Public Citizen stopped publishing its annual rankings in 2013 after FSMB ceased supplying the data, but the get-tough approach remains, lawyers said.

About 95% of complaints are dismissed with nothing more serious than a letter to the doctor, but boards don’t hesitate to act when the misconduct is serious, said Dr. Dauer. “I felt it was my obligation to protect the public.”
 

Don’t try to fix it yourself

Although many complaints are anonymous, doctors can often figure out what or who it involves. Their impulse might be to contact a patient who complained, correct a medical record, or otherwise try to resolve the matter personally.

It’s better to leave things alone, the experts said. Don’t contact a patient. Give the board access to whatever information it asks for, but don’t alter anything, particularly medical records. “That’s how you’re going to get your license revoked,” Dr. Dauer said. He noted that when doctors add notations to records, they must date them.
 

Hire a lawyer

Many physicians assume they can resolve the complaint easily by explaining themselves to the board or investigators, or they don’t realize their license or practice could be at stake.

They’re better off letting a lawyer speak for them. Attorneys knowledgeable in this realm specialize in representing licensed professionals before regulatory boards and have the greatest knowledge of administrative law and how to negotiate the hearings and procedures.

Typically, a hearing is held before a subcommittee of the board, which can recommend a settlement to the full panel. Cases in which a settlement is not reached can go before the entire board.

Although full hearings can be similar to a trial, there are crucial differences regarding evidentiary rules and other matters, Ms. Collis said. For example, in Ohio, defendant physicians do not get to see the board’s full case against them before the hearing, which can make preparing a defense difficult. And the standard for burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, as in civil suits, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial.

Cases that go to full hearings and beyond to appeals in state courts can take years to resolve, and a physician’s license can be suspended for the duration.
 

Get help before it’s too late

Physicians looking for support and advice can turn to organizations such as the Coalition for Physician Rights, an organization formed in 2018 by Kernan Manion, MD, a former psychiatrist who was forced to deactivate his license after an investigation by the North Carolina medical board.

The Coalition for Physician Rights has advised hundreds of physicians, most of whom he said come to him once they realize they’re in over their heads. “Almost everyone comes in too late,” Dr. Manion said. “They’re sitting ducks. They don’t know how to respond.”

In addition to offering advice and support, the Coalition for Physician Rights lobbies for reform in how boards operate. A number of states, including Oklahoma, have made reforms in recent years.

The appointed boards are too reliant on their administration and staff and usually rubber-stamp disciplinary recommendations, Dr. Manion said. He also criticized the boards’ lack of accountability: “A board operates without external or internal oversight. It is an autonomous entity operating on its own.”

As for Dr. Moran, at age 61, she’s interviewing for physician jobs around the country, refusing to give up medicine.

“What else can I do?” she said. “It’s what I’ve done my entire life. It’s what I went to school for. I don’t know how to do anything else.”

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

Cynthia H. Moran, MD, has a medical degree, a passion for treating the elderly, and a desire to work. What she doesn’t have is a job or hopes of getting one anytime soon.

The Houston physician has never been charged with a crime, but she did run afoul of the Texas Medical Board, an experience she said has left her destitute and virtually unemployable in the medical field.

“By the time the board gets through with you, you will be bankrupt and have nothing,” she said.

Dr. Moran has a long, tangled history with the board involving self-prescribing, opioid abuse, depression, and unprofessional conduct. After years of license suspension, drug testing, additional CME, substance abuse treatment, and work restrictions, her supervision by the board ended in 2019, but she has been largely unable to find work as a physician.

“I feel like a felon. I really understand what it’s like to be someone who does their time but then can’t get a job, can’t get an apartment. It’s in your record and there’s nothing you can do about it,” she said.

Although Dr. Moran largely created her own troubles, her experience shows the power state medical licensing boards have when it comes to disciplining physicians.
 

Reprimands to revocations

Many physicians think of their state medical boards as simply the bodies that issue their medical licenses, but the boards have other functions, including investigating complaints against licensed medical professionals and sometimes disciplining them.

According to 2017 statistics from the Federation of State Medical Boards (the most recent available), state boards took 8,813 actions that year. These included 796 suspensions, 764 probations, 570 surrendered licenses, and 264 revoked licenses.

Boards also can order doctors to enter state-run physician health plans to receive treatment for substance abuse, or they can allow physicians to practice only under the supervision of colleagues.

Although they vary by state, the boards are fundamentally similar. Members are appointed by the governor. A majority of them are physicians, and the remainder are nonmedical professionals. Their investigators, often retired law enforcement officials, have broad powers to collect evidence, including medical records. Their authority is backed by the state attorney general.

Although physicians tend to worry more about being sued for malpractice, a medical board investigation can be more worrisome, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an ED physician and attorney in Illinois who has represented doctors before that state’s board. Board disciplinary actions outnumber malpractice awards by four to one in that state.

“The gravity of this is something that many physicians don’t understand,” he said.
 

You can be the subject of anonymous complaints and investigations

Anyone can file a complaint against a physician with a state board. The grievances can be about anything from a crowded waiting room to physician impairment.

Of course, the most trivial complaints (out-of-date magazines in the waiting room) are dismissed out of hand, but boards have the authority to investigate whatever it chooses. The most common investigations center around complaints of impairment, substance abuse, improper prescribing, faulty medical records, mental and physical health problems, and standard of care. Boards also will act if a physician is found guilty of a crime or misconduct unrelated to his or her medical practice.

“There are a lot of ways doctors get into trouble,” said Edward Dauer, MD, a radiologist who served on the Florida board for 11 years.

Investigations often expand beyond their original scope into all aspects of a practice. “Once you’re on their radar, they can find something,” Dr. Sullivan said.

All punitive actions taken by state boards are reported to the Department of Health & Human Services’ National Practitioner Data Bank, which is accessible to all state boards. Sanctioned physicians who set up practice in another state often find that their new home has adopted the sanctions leveled by the original state, something boards can do without conducting their own investigations.

“For doctors, discipline is forever. It never goes off your record,” Dr. Dauer said.

In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers can exclude disciplined physicians, which can cripple a practice’s finances. So what can doctors do to avoid problems with the boards?
 

Don’t do anything wrong

That sounds glib and obvious, but many physicians get into trouble by unwittingly violating state medical regulations regarding such things as CME, insurance requirements, failure to notify the board of address changes, and personal relationships with current or former patients.

“The best advice to avoid these issues is to do a Google search for the Medical Practice Act in the state in which they practice,” said Dr. Sullivan. He noted that doctors should regularly check for changes in regulations.

Keeping on good terms with colleagues and patients also helps, he said, noting that many complaints stem from personal disputes and grievances.

But what if a physician becomes the subject of an investigation? What should they do?
 

Take any complaint seriously

Too many physicians dismiss investigations initially. “Some people have the wrong idea that if they ignore it, it will go away. It won’t go away,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Whether the initial contact comes through a letter or a visit from a board investigator, it should be treated with urgency. Ohio attorney Beth Collis said one client angrily scrawled one-word answers with a Sharpie on the questionnaire he was mailed – answers he was stuck defending throughout the rest of the investigation. Other doctors have ordered investigators out of their offices – another mistake. Failure to cooperate can result in an immediate license suspension.

“They should be speaking to these investigators like they were talking to a highway patrolman on the side of the road. They hold all the cards,” said Ms. Collis, who specializes in representing professionals before licensing boards.

Some physicians mistakenly assume that because their state board is made up mostly of fellow doctors, they will be able to make a complaint go away with some collegial chat.

Not so. “Medical board members see themselves as protecting the public. They’re very punitive,” Ms. Collis said.

At one time, state boards might have been lax in their supervision of physicians, but that changed in the 1980s when the watchdog group Public Citizen began ranking state medical boards by how effective they were in policing doctors.

Public Citizen used FSMB data on serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 doctors in each state to calculate its rankings, a practice that FSMB called incomplete and a misuse of its statistics. Nonetheless, the annual rankings generated a lot of publicity critical of state boards and might have spurred a tougher approach by regulators.

Public Citizen stopped publishing its annual rankings in 2013 after FSMB ceased supplying the data, but the get-tough approach remains, lawyers said.

About 95% of complaints are dismissed with nothing more serious than a letter to the doctor, but boards don’t hesitate to act when the misconduct is serious, said Dr. Dauer. “I felt it was my obligation to protect the public.”
 

Don’t try to fix it yourself

Although many complaints are anonymous, doctors can often figure out what or who it involves. Their impulse might be to contact a patient who complained, correct a medical record, or otherwise try to resolve the matter personally.

It’s better to leave things alone, the experts said. Don’t contact a patient. Give the board access to whatever information it asks for, but don’t alter anything, particularly medical records. “That’s how you’re going to get your license revoked,” Dr. Dauer said. He noted that when doctors add notations to records, they must date them.
 

Hire a lawyer

Many physicians assume they can resolve the complaint easily by explaining themselves to the board or investigators, or they don’t realize their license or practice could be at stake.

They’re better off letting a lawyer speak for them. Attorneys knowledgeable in this realm specialize in representing licensed professionals before regulatory boards and have the greatest knowledge of administrative law and how to negotiate the hearings and procedures.

Typically, a hearing is held before a subcommittee of the board, which can recommend a settlement to the full panel. Cases in which a settlement is not reached can go before the entire board.

Although full hearings can be similar to a trial, there are crucial differences regarding evidentiary rules and other matters, Ms. Collis said. For example, in Ohio, defendant physicians do not get to see the board’s full case against them before the hearing, which can make preparing a defense difficult. And the standard for burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, as in civil suits, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial.

Cases that go to full hearings and beyond to appeals in state courts can take years to resolve, and a physician’s license can be suspended for the duration.
 

Get help before it’s too late

Physicians looking for support and advice can turn to organizations such as the Coalition for Physician Rights, an organization formed in 2018 by Kernan Manion, MD, a former psychiatrist who was forced to deactivate his license after an investigation by the North Carolina medical board.

The Coalition for Physician Rights has advised hundreds of physicians, most of whom he said come to him once they realize they’re in over their heads. “Almost everyone comes in too late,” Dr. Manion said. “They’re sitting ducks. They don’t know how to respond.”

In addition to offering advice and support, the Coalition for Physician Rights lobbies for reform in how boards operate. A number of states, including Oklahoma, have made reforms in recent years.

The appointed boards are too reliant on their administration and staff and usually rubber-stamp disciplinary recommendations, Dr. Manion said. He also criticized the boards’ lack of accountability: “A board operates without external or internal oversight. It is an autonomous entity operating on its own.”

As for Dr. Moran, at age 61, she’s interviewing for physician jobs around the country, refusing to give up medicine.

“What else can I do?” she said. “It’s what I’ve done my entire life. It’s what I went to school for. I don’t know how to do anything else.”

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

Marijuana use was associated with a higher prevalence of recurrent MI and a greater risk of bleeding or stroke after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in separate studies.

Rhushik Bhuva, MD, presented the recurrent-MI results from a national U.S. study, and Sang Gune K. Yoo, MD, presented the PCI study, which used data from a Michigan cohort. The studies were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Both studies “add to our accumulating knowledge of the cardiovascular risks of marijuana,” Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, a cardiology fellow at Columbia University Irvine Medical Center, New York, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. DeFilippis and the two study authors say clinicians and patients need to be more aware of cardiovascular risks from smoking marijuana, and they call for more patient screening, counseling, and research.
 

Need for screening and counseling

Marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the United States, which makes it illegal to conduct rigorous controlled trials of marijuana products. Existing knowledge is therefore based on observational studies, Dr. DeFilippis noted.

She was lead author of a review of marijuana use by patients with cardiovascular disease. The review was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. An AHA scientific statement about marijuana and cardiovascular health was published in Circulation.

Both documents drew attention to risks from marijuana use in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Until more data are available, “I think it is absolutely critical” that cardiologists and general providers screen patients for marijuana use, “either at the time of their MI or ideally prior to that, when they are making a cardiovascular risk assessment,” said Dr. DeFilippis.

That is also the time to “counsel patients, especially those who have had an MI, about risks associated with continuing to use marijuana.”

Importantly, providers and patients need to be aware that “cannabinoids, through the cytochrome P450 system, can interact with well-known cardiovascular medications, which we know provide benefit in the post-MI period,” she added. “For example, marijuana can interfere with beta-blockers, statins, antiarrhythmics, and certain anticoagulants.”

Dr. Bhuva, a cardiology fellow with the Wright Center for Community Health, Scranton, Pa., said that it is “concerning” that “recurrent heart attacks and cardiac interventions [were] higher among cannabis users, even though they were younger and had fewer risk factors for heart disease.

“Spreading awareness regarding the potential risk of recurrent heart attacks in middle-aged, African American, and male cannabis users and screening them at an earlier age for potential risk factors of future heart attacks should be encouraged among clinicians,” he urged in a statement from the AHA.

Dr. Yoo, an internal medicine resident at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that, in their study of patients who underwent PCI after MI or because they had coronary artery disease, those who smoked or vaped marijuana were younger and were more likely to be male. They were less likely to have traditional cardiovascular risk factors except for smoking tobacco, which was highly prevalent.

After propensity matching, patients who used marijuana had a 1.5-fold increased risk of in-hospital bleeding and an 11-fold higher risk for in-hospital stroke following PCI.

However, the absolute number of strokes in PCI was small, and the confidence interval was wide (indicating a large uncertainty), Dr. Yoo said in an interview.

These risks “should not deter patients from undergoing these [lifesaving] procedures,” he said; however, clinicians should be aware of these risks with marijuana use and should screen and counsel patients about this.
 

Hospitalized patients with prior MI

Dr. Bhuva and colleagues identified patients from the National Inpatient Sample who were hospitalized in the United States from 2007 to 2014 and who had experienced a prior MI and had undergone revascularization with PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

There were about 8 million hospital stays per year. The database did not specify the type of marijuana that patients used.

During the 8-year study period, many states legalized or decriminalized medical and/or recreational marijuana, and marijuana use increased steadily, from 0.2% to 0.7%.

Compared with nonusers, those who used marijuana were younger (median age, 53 vs. 72 years), and there were more men (77% vs. 62%) or Black persons (34% vs. 10%) (all P < .001). Fewer marijuana users had hypertension (72% vs. 75%), diabetes (24% vs. 33%), or dyslipidemia (51% vs. 58%) (all P < .001). More marijuana users underwent a repeat MI (67% vs. 41%).

On the other hand, marijuana users, who were younger and healthier than the other patients, were less likely to die during hospitalization for a recurrent MI (0.8% vs. 2.5%), and their hospital costs were lower.

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include lack of information about marijuana type (smoked, edible, medicinal, or recreational) or dose, as well as the time from marijuana use to cardiac event.
 

In-Hospital outcomes after PCI

Dr. Yoo and colleagues analyzed data from patients who underwent PCI from Jan. 1, 2013, to Oct. 1, 2016, at Michigan’s 48 nonfederal hospitals, which are part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium PCI registry.

In this cohort, 3,970 patients (3.5%) had smoked or vaped marijuana in the month prior to PCI, and 109,507 patients had not done so. The marijuana users were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 66 years) and were more likely to be male (79% vs. 67%) and to smoke cigarettes (73% vs. 27%).

They were less likely to have hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, or prior CABG and were equally likely to have had a prior MI (36%).

Compared with nonusers, marijuana users were more likely to present with non–ST-elevation MI (30% vs. 23%) or ST-elevation MI (27% vs. 16%) and were less likely to present with angina.

Using propensity score matching, the researchers matched 3,803 marijuana users with the same number of nonusers.

In the matched cohort, patients who used marijuana had a greater risk of in-hospital bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.97; P < .001) or stroke (aOR, 11.01; 95% CI, 1.32-91.67; P = .026) following PCI.

Marijuana users had a lower risk for acute kidney injury (2.2% vs. 2.9%; P = .007). Transfusion and mortality rates were similar in both groups.

The researchers acknowledged study limitations, including the fact that it did not include marijuana edibles, that the results may not be generalizable, and that marijuana use is now likely more common in Michigan following legalization of recreational marijuana in 2018.

Dr. Bhuva, Dr. Yoo, and Dr. DeFilippis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Marijuana use was associated with a higher prevalence of recurrent MI and a greater risk of bleeding or stroke after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in separate studies.

Rhushik Bhuva, MD, presented the recurrent-MI results from a national U.S. study, and Sang Gune K. Yoo, MD, presented the PCI study, which used data from a Michigan cohort. The studies were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Both studies “add to our accumulating knowledge of the cardiovascular risks of marijuana,” Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, a cardiology fellow at Columbia University Irvine Medical Center, New York, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. DeFilippis and the two study authors say clinicians and patients need to be more aware of cardiovascular risks from smoking marijuana, and they call for more patient screening, counseling, and research.
 

Need for screening and counseling

Marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the United States, which makes it illegal to conduct rigorous controlled trials of marijuana products. Existing knowledge is therefore based on observational studies, Dr. DeFilippis noted.

She was lead author of a review of marijuana use by patients with cardiovascular disease. The review was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. An AHA scientific statement about marijuana and cardiovascular health was published in Circulation.

Both documents drew attention to risks from marijuana use in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Until more data are available, “I think it is absolutely critical” that cardiologists and general providers screen patients for marijuana use, “either at the time of their MI or ideally prior to that, when they are making a cardiovascular risk assessment,” said Dr. DeFilippis.

That is also the time to “counsel patients, especially those who have had an MI, about risks associated with continuing to use marijuana.”

Importantly, providers and patients need to be aware that “cannabinoids, through the cytochrome P450 system, can interact with well-known cardiovascular medications, which we know provide benefit in the post-MI period,” she added. “For example, marijuana can interfere with beta-blockers, statins, antiarrhythmics, and certain anticoagulants.”

Dr. Bhuva, a cardiology fellow with the Wright Center for Community Health, Scranton, Pa., said that it is “concerning” that “recurrent heart attacks and cardiac interventions [were] higher among cannabis users, even though they were younger and had fewer risk factors for heart disease.

“Spreading awareness regarding the potential risk of recurrent heart attacks in middle-aged, African American, and male cannabis users and screening them at an earlier age for potential risk factors of future heart attacks should be encouraged among clinicians,” he urged in a statement from the AHA.

Dr. Yoo, an internal medicine resident at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that, in their study of patients who underwent PCI after MI or because they had coronary artery disease, those who smoked or vaped marijuana were younger and were more likely to be male. They were less likely to have traditional cardiovascular risk factors except for smoking tobacco, which was highly prevalent.

After propensity matching, patients who used marijuana had a 1.5-fold increased risk of in-hospital bleeding and an 11-fold higher risk for in-hospital stroke following PCI.

However, the absolute number of strokes in PCI was small, and the confidence interval was wide (indicating a large uncertainty), Dr. Yoo said in an interview.

These risks “should not deter patients from undergoing these [lifesaving] procedures,” he said; however, clinicians should be aware of these risks with marijuana use and should screen and counsel patients about this.
 

Hospitalized patients with prior MI

Dr. Bhuva and colleagues identified patients from the National Inpatient Sample who were hospitalized in the United States from 2007 to 2014 and who had experienced a prior MI and had undergone revascularization with PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

There were about 8 million hospital stays per year. The database did not specify the type of marijuana that patients used.

During the 8-year study period, many states legalized or decriminalized medical and/or recreational marijuana, and marijuana use increased steadily, from 0.2% to 0.7%.

Compared with nonusers, those who used marijuana were younger (median age, 53 vs. 72 years), and there were more men (77% vs. 62%) or Black persons (34% vs. 10%) (all P < .001). Fewer marijuana users had hypertension (72% vs. 75%), diabetes (24% vs. 33%), or dyslipidemia (51% vs. 58%) (all P < .001). More marijuana users underwent a repeat MI (67% vs. 41%).

On the other hand, marijuana users, who were younger and healthier than the other patients, were less likely to die during hospitalization for a recurrent MI (0.8% vs. 2.5%), and their hospital costs were lower.

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include lack of information about marijuana type (smoked, edible, medicinal, or recreational) or dose, as well as the time from marijuana use to cardiac event.
 

In-Hospital outcomes after PCI

Dr. Yoo and colleagues analyzed data from patients who underwent PCI from Jan. 1, 2013, to Oct. 1, 2016, at Michigan’s 48 nonfederal hospitals, which are part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium PCI registry.

In this cohort, 3,970 patients (3.5%) had smoked or vaped marijuana in the month prior to PCI, and 109,507 patients had not done so. The marijuana users were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 66 years) and were more likely to be male (79% vs. 67%) and to smoke cigarettes (73% vs. 27%).

They were less likely to have hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, or prior CABG and were equally likely to have had a prior MI (36%).

Compared with nonusers, marijuana users were more likely to present with non–ST-elevation MI (30% vs. 23%) or ST-elevation MI (27% vs. 16%) and were less likely to present with angina.

Using propensity score matching, the researchers matched 3,803 marijuana users with the same number of nonusers.

In the matched cohort, patients who used marijuana had a greater risk of in-hospital bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.97; P < .001) or stroke (aOR, 11.01; 95% CI, 1.32-91.67; P = .026) following PCI.

Marijuana users had a lower risk for acute kidney injury (2.2% vs. 2.9%; P = .007). Transfusion and mortality rates were similar in both groups.

The researchers acknowledged study limitations, including the fact that it did not include marijuana edibles, that the results may not be generalizable, and that marijuana use is now likely more common in Michigan following legalization of recreational marijuana in 2018.

Dr. Bhuva, Dr. Yoo, and Dr. DeFilippis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Marijuana use was associated with a higher prevalence of recurrent MI and a greater risk of bleeding or stroke after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in separate studies.

Rhushik Bhuva, MD, presented the recurrent-MI results from a national U.S. study, and Sang Gune K. Yoo, MD, presented the PCI study, which used data from a Michigan cohort. The studies were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Both studies “add to our accumulating knowledge of the cardiovascular risks of marijuana,” Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, a cardiology fellow at Columbia University Irvine Medical Center, New York, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. DeFilippis and the two study authors say clinicians and patients need to be more aware of cardiovascular risks from smoking marijuana, and they call for more patient screening, counseling, and research.
 

Need for screening and counseling

Marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the United States, which makes it illegal to conduct rigorous controlled trials of marijuana products. Existing knowledge is therefore based on observational studies, Dr. DeFilippis noted.

She was lead author of a review of marijuana use by patients with cardiovascular disease. The review was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. An AHA scientific statement about marijuana and cardiovascular health was published in Circulation.

Both documents drew attention to risks from marijuana use in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Until more data are available, “I think it is absolutely critical” that cardiologists and general providers screen patients for marijuana use, “either at the time of their MI or ideally prior to that, when they are making a cardiovascular risk assessment,” said Dr. DeFilippis.

That is also the time to “counsel patients, especially those who have had an MI, about risks associated with continuing to use marijuana.”

Importantly, providers and patients need to be aware that “cannabinoids, through the cytochrome P450 system, can interact with well-known cardiovascular medications, which we know provide benefit in the post-MI period,” she added. “For example, marijuana can interfere with beta-blockers, statins, antiarrhythmics, and certain anticoagulants.”

Dr. Bhuva, a cardiology fellow with the Wright Center for Community Health, Scranton, Pa., said that it is “concerning” that “recurrent heart attacks and cardiac interventions [were] higher among cannabis users, even though they were younger and had fewer risk factors for heart disease.

“Spreading awareness regarding the potential risk of recurrent heart attacks in middle-aged, African American, and male cannabis users and screening them at an earlier age for potential risk factors of future heart attacks should be encouraged among clinicians,” he urged in a statement from the AHA.

Dr. Yoo, an internal medicine resident at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that, in their study of patients who underwent PCI after MI or because they had coronary artery disease, those who smoked or vaped marijuana were younger and were more likely to be male. They were less likely to have traditional cardiovascular risk factors except for smoking tobacco, which was highly prevalent.

After propensity matching, patients who used marijuana had a 1.5-fold increased risk of in-hospital bleeding and an 11-fold higher risk for in-hospital stroke following PCI.

However, the absolute number of strokes in PCI was small, and the confidence interval was wide (indicating a large uncertainty), Dr. Yoo said in an interview.

These risks “should not deter patients from undergoing these [lifesaving] procedures,” he said; however, clinicians should be aware of these risks with marijuana use and should screen and counsel patients about this.
 

Hospitalized patients with prior MI

Dr. Bhuva and colleagues identified patients from the National Inpatient Sample who were hospitalized in the United States from 2007 to 2014 and who had experienced a prior MI and had undergone revascularization with PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

There were about 8 million hospital stays per year. The database did not specify the type of marijuana that patients used.

During the 8-year study period, many states legalized or decriminalized medical and/or recreational marijuana, and marijuana use increased steadily, from 0.2% to 0.7%.

Compared with nonusers, those who used marijuana were younger (median age, 53 vs. 72 years), and there were more men (77% vs. 62%) or Black persons (34% vs. 10%) (all P < .001). Fewer marijuana users had hypertension (72% vs. 75%), diabetes (24% vs. 33%), or dyslipidemia (51% vs. 58%) (all P < .001). More marijuana users underwent a repeat MI (67% vs. 41%).

On the other hand, marijuana users, who were younger and healthier than the other patients, were less likely to die during hospitalization for a recurrent MI (0.8% vs. 2.5%), and their hospital costs were lower.

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include lack of information about marijuana type (smoked, edible, medicinal, or recreational) or dose, as well as the time from marijuana use to cardiac event.
 

In-Hospital outcomes after PCI

Dr. Yoo and colleagues analyzed data from patients who underwent PCI from Jan. 1, 2013, to Oct. 1, 2016, at Michigan’s 48 nonfederal hospitals, which are part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium PCI registry.

In this cohort, 3,970 patients (3.5%) had smoked or vaped marijuana in the month prior to PCI, and 109,507 patients had not done so. The marijuana users were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 66 years) and were more likely to be male (79% vs. 67%) and to smoke cigarettes (73% vs. 27%).

They were less likely to have hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, or prior CABG and were equally likely to have had a prior MI (36%).

Compared with nonusers, marijuana users were more likely to present with non–ST-elevation MI (30% vs. 23%) or ST-elevation MI (27% vs. 16%) and were less likely to present with angina.

Using propensity score matching, the researchers matched 3,803 marijuana users with the same number of nonusers.

In the matched cohort, patients who used marijuana had a greater risk of in-hospital bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.97; P < .001) or stroke (aOR, 11.01; 95% CI, 1.32-91.67; P = .026) following PCI.

Marijuana users had a lower risk for acute kidney injury (2.2% vs. 2.9%; P = .007). Transfusion and mortality rates were similar in both groups.

The researchers acknowledged study limitations, including the fact that it did not include marijuana edibles, that the results may not be generalizable, and that marijuana use is now likely more common in Michigan following legalization of recreational marijuana in 2018.

Dr. Bhuva, Dr. Yoo, and Dr. DeFilippis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In 1993 I graduated from medical school. That same year Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) came to market as the first treatment specifically approved for multiple sclerosis (MS). This was a groundbreaker at the time, as there’d been little besides steroids and other potent immunosuppressants to try. Now we had a real drug to offer patients.

The demand for Betaseron was huge, so much so that a lottery system was used to determine which patients would get it first, as there simply wasn’t enough to go around. In the next several years a few more agents jumped into the ring – Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), Novantrone (mitoxantrone), and Rebif (interferon beta-1a) – before things went quiet for a while.

In 2006 the first monoclonal antibody for MS – Tysabri (natalizumab) – came out, then almost just as quickly vanished again, not returning until 2009.

Since then we’ve had a gradual explosion of new treatments for MS – like watching kernels become popcorn – first one, then two, then a deluge filling up the basket.

So here we are, approaching the end of 2020, with a remarkable collection of monoclonal antibodies, S1P modulators, fumarates, immunosuppressants, and one symptomatic treatment, many of which weren’t even imagined in 1993. Not to mention the original ABCR (Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone, Rebif) agents, though they’re riding into the sunset.

A friend and I were talking about this remarkable success story. MS certainly hasn’t been cured, but its treatments have had a dramatic improvement in efficacy over the last quarter century.

He made a point though: that this selection of treatments may be relegating MS from the province of a general neurologist to that of the fellowship-trained MS subspecialist.

Not that that is such a bad thing, as MS is a very challenging disease. But the point is well taken. As treatments become increasingly complicated, and numerous, it becomes harder to know which one is best. Most of us likely choose orals first and monoclonal antibodies second, but the question of “which one?” arises for each category. They each have their own risks, side effects, initiation protocols, and peculiarities. In a disease of heterogeneous presentations and courses, there are no clear data on which agent to start first for what patient type. To a general neurologist, also juggling migraines, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and neuropathy (and many other disorders) in the course of a day, it becomes tricky to keep up on such.

At some point do general neurologists become a victim of this success? Maybe, but probably not. Just as there are more general practitioners than neurologists, there are more general neurologists than MS subspecialists. Their knowledge and training should be reserved for those patients not responding to our first- (and second-) line treatments, presentations that are atypical, and more complex issues outside the scope of those of us practicing whatever-comes-to-the-door neurology.

It would, however, be nice to have a good consensus on how to best use this array of treatments. Solid guidelines, breaking disease subtypes and treatments down by patient types, drugs, and mechanisms of action, would help those of us on the neurology frontlines to better care for those who need us.

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

In 1993 I graduated from medical school. That same year Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) came to market as the first treatment specifically approved for multiple sclerosis (MS). This was a groundbreaker at the time, as there’d been little besides steroids and other potent immunosuppressants to try. Now we had a real drug to offer patients.

The demand for Betaseron was huge, so much so that a lottery system was used to determine which patients would get it first, as there simply wasn’t enough to go around. In the next several years a few more agents jumped into the ring – Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), Novantrone (mitoxantrone), and Rebif (interferon beta-1a) – before things went quiet for a while.

In 2006 the first monoclonal antibody for MS – Tysabri (natalizumab) – came out, then almost just as quickly vanished again, not returning until 2009.

Since then we’ve had a gradual explosion of new treatments for MS – like watching kernels become popcorn – first one, then two, then a deluge filling up the basket.

So here we are, approaching the end of 2020, with a remarkable collection of monoclonal antibodies, S1P modulators, fumarates, immunosuppressants, and one symptomatic treatment, many of which weren’t even imagined in 1993. Not to mention the original ABCR (Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone, Rebif) agents, though they’re riding into the sunset.

A friend and I were talking about this remarkable success story. MS certainly hasn’t been cured, but its treatments have had a dramatic improvement in efficacy over the last quarter century.

He made a point though: that this selection of treatments may be relegating MS from the province of a general neurologist to that of the fellowship-trained MS subspecialist.

Not that that is such a bad thing, as MS is a very challenging disease. But the point is well taken. As treatments become increasingly complicated, and numerous, it becomes harder to know which one is best. Most of us likely choose orals first and monoclonal antibodies second, but the question of “which one?” arises for each category. They each have their own risks, side effects, initiation protocols, and peculiarities. In a disease of heterogeneous presentations and courses, there are no clear data on which agent to start first for what patient type. To a general neurologist, also juggling migraines, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and neuropathy (and many other disorders) in the course of a day, it becomes tricky to keep up on such.

At some point do general neurologists become a victim of this success? Maybe, but probably not. Just as there are more general practitioners than neurologists, there are more general neurologists than MS subspecialists. Their knowledge and training should be reserved for those patients not responding to our first- (and second-) line treatments, presentations that are atypical, and more complex issues outside the scope of those of us practicing whatever-comes-to-the-door neurology.

It would, however, be nice to have a good consensus on how to best use this array of treatments. Solid guidelines, breaking disease subtypes and treatments down by patient types, drugs, and mechanisms of action, would help those of us on the neurology frontlines to better care for those who need us.

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

In 1993 I graduated from medical school. That same year Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) came to market as the first treatment specifically approved for multiple sclerosis (MS). This was a groundbreaker at the time, as there’d been little besides steroids and other potent immunosuppressants to try. Now we had a real drug to offer patients.

The demand for Betaseron was huge, so much so that a lottery system was used to determine which patients would get it first, as there simply wasn’t enough to go around. In the next several years a few more agents jumped into the ring – Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), Novantrone (mitoxantrone), and Rebif (interferon beta-1a) – before things went quiet for a while.

In 2006 the first monoclonal antibody for MS – Tysabri (natalizumab) – came out, then almost just as quickly vanished again, not returning until 2009.

Since then we’ve had a gradual explosion of new treatments for MS – like watching kernels become popcorn – first one, then two, then a deluge filling up the basket.

So here we are, approaching the end of 2020, with a remarkable collection of monoclonal antibodies, S1P modulators, fumarates, immunosuppressants, and one symptomatic treatment, many of which weren’t even imagined in 1993. Not to mention the original ABCR (Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone, Rebif) agents, though they’re riding into the sunset.

A friend and I were talking about this remarkable success story. MS certainly hasn’t been cured, but its treatments have had a dramatic improvement in efficacy over the last quarter century.

He made a point though: that this selection of treatments may be relegating MS from the province of a general neurologist to that of the fellowship-trained MS subspecialist.

Not that that is such a bad thing, as MS is a very challenging disease. But the point is well taken. As treatments become increasingly complicated, and numerous, it becomes harder to know which one is best. Most of us likely choose orals first and monoclonal antibodies second, but the question of “which one?” arises for each category. They each have their own risks, side effects, initiation protocols, and peculiarities. In a disease of heterogeneous presentations and courses, there are no clear data on which agent to start first for what patient type. To a general neurologist, also juggling migraines, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and neuropathy (and many other disorders) in the course of a day, it becomes tricky to keep up on such.

At some point do general neurologists become a victim of this success? Maybe, but probably not. Just as there are more general practitioners than neurologists, there are more general neurologists than MS subspecialists. Their knowledge and training should be reserved for those patients not responding to our first- (and second-) line treatments, presentations that are atypical, and more complex issues outside the scope of those of us practicing whatever-comes-to-the-door neurology.

It would, however, be nice to have a good consensus on how to best use this array of treatments. Solid guidelines, breaking disease subtypes and treatments down by patient types, drugs, and mechanisms of action, would help those of us on the neurology frontlines to better care for those who need us.

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

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Researchers are testing whether a probiotic called Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can prevent COVID-19 in household contacts of COVID patients.

On the Nov. 12 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast, Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., joined host David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, to discuss the trial of LGG as well as other research. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Here we are in COVID. We’re recording this the first week in November. Sadly, cases are spiking in the country. And I understand you’ve got some information that you might share about how manipulating ... the microbiome that we all exist with inside our gut might somehow play into doing better or worse with COVID.

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So, as associate director of the Duke Microbiome Center, I was approached by one of my colleagues, Paul Wischmeyer, who is a professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Duke. Paul had previously done some very nice murine studies with the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, or LGG.

He showed, in a murine model of pseudomonas pneumonia, that giving LGG to mice would help modulate their microbiome and, in turn, their immune system, leading to decreased inflammation, decreased TNF-alpha, IL [interleukin]-2, and IL-6, [and] increased Treg cells [Clin Nutr. 2017;36[6]:1549-57]. This also helped prevent lung injury, and it actually significantly improved survival in mice receiving LGG [Shock. 2013;40[6]:496-503].

In addition, there has been a randomized clinical trial of LGG showing that its administration would help prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia, or VAP [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 15;182[8]:1058-64].

And a few years ago, there was another RCT [randomized, controlled trial], published in Nature, showing that another Lactobacillus product significantly decreased the combined endpoint of sepsis and mortality, primarily by reducing lower respiratory tract infection [Nature. 2017 Aug 24;548[7668]:407-12].
 

Dr. Henry: And how is that working? What is the bacillus doing to help us?

Dr. Sung: We think it’s through modulating the immune system. As mentioned in Paul’s studies, we saw significantly decreased amounts of TNF-alpha, IL-2, and IL-6, which are the same cytokines that have been implicated in COVID-19 and associated with increased lung injury in patients during this pandemic.

And we believe that by giving individuals this probiotic, LGG, we may help modulate the immune system, decrease lung injury and symptoms, and maybe even prevent COVID-19.

So with support from the Duke Microbiome Center, as well as private donations and philanthropy, we are conducting a randomized clinical trial of LGG to prevent COVID-19 in household contacts who’ve been exposed to the disease. In other words, if someone in the house gets COVID-19, we want to try to prophylax everybody else living in that house and prevent them from coming down with the same infection.
 

Dr. Henry: And this is an oral administration?

Dr. Sung: Correct. This is an oral pill, two pills once a day.

Dr. Henry: And it’s an ongoing study, of course, in COVID right now?

Dr. Sung: Correct. So we have an IND [investigational new drug application] from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], and we are actively recruiting subjects both at Duke University, but also due to the unique study design, we can enroll patients anywhere across the country. Because of the importance of social distancing, everything is done remotely.

So a household contact can hear about us, either through your podcast or one of our Facebook ads or through other media. They can reach out to our study website, which is https://sites.duke.edu/protectehc, or reach out to us at our study email, protect-ehc@duke.edu.

And we can go ahead and screen them for eligibility in our trial. And if they are eligible and they consent to participate, we will mail them a package basically overnight, FedEx, containing either LGG or placebo, as well as kits so that they can self-collect their stool and nasal swabs so we can test it for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR [polymerase chain reaction] and look at the microbiome.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. Funding for the trial is provided by the Duke Microbiome Center and philanthropic giving. The LGG and placebo used in the trial are provided by DSM.

Researchers are testing whether a probiotic called Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can prevent COVID-19 in household contacts of COVID patients.

On the Nov. 12 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast, Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., joined host David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, to discuss the trial of LGG as well as other research. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Here we are in COVID. We’re recording this the first week in November. Sadly, cases are spiking in the country. And I understand you’ve got some information that you might share about how manipulating ... the microbiome that we all exist with inside our gut might somehow play into doing better or worse with COVID.

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So, as associate director of the Duke Microbiome Center, I was approached by one of my colleagues, Paul Wischmeyer, who is a professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Duke. Paul had previously done some very nice murine studies with the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, or LGG.

He showed, in a murine model of pseudomonas pneumonia, that giving LGG to mice would help modulate their microbiome and, in turn, their immune system, leading to decreased inflammation, decreased TNF-alpha, IL [interleukin]-2, and IL-6, [and] increased Treg cells [Clin Nutr. 2017;36[6]:1549-57]. This also helped prevent lung injury, and it actually significantly improved survival in mice receiving LGG [Shock. 2013;40[6]:496-503].

In addition, there has been a randomized clinical trial of LGG showing that its administration would help prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia, or VAP [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 15;182[8]:1058-64].

And a few years ago, there was another RCT [randomized, controlled trial], published in Nature, showing that another Lactobacillus product significantly decreased the combined endpoint of sepsis and mortality, primarily by reducing lower respiratory tract infection [Nature. 2017 Aug 24;548[7668]:407-12].
 

Dr. Henry: And how is that working? What is the bacillus doing to help us?

Dr. Sung: We think it’s through modulating the immune system. As mentioned in Paul’s studies, we saw significantly decreased amounts of TNF-alpha, IL-2, and IL-6, which are the same cytokines that have been implicated in COVID-19 and associated with increased lung injury in patients during this pandemic.

And we believe that by giving individuals this probiotic, LGG, we may help modulate the immune system, decrease lung injury and symptoms, and maybe even prevent COVID-19.

So with support from the Duke Microbiome Center, as well as private donations and philanthropy, we are conducting a randomized clinical trial of LGG to prevent COVID-19 in household contacts who’ve been exposed to the disease. In other words, if someone in the house gets COVID-19, we want to try to prophylax everybody else living in that house and prevent them from coming down with the same infection.
 

Dr. Henry: And this is an oral administration?

Dr. Sung: Correct. This is an oral pill, two pills once a day.

Dr. Henry: And it’s an ongoing study, of course, in COVID right now?

Dr. Sung: Correct. So we have an IND [investigational new drug application] from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], and we are actively recruiting subjects both at Duke University, but also due to the unique study design, we can enroll patients anywhere across the country. Because of the importance of social distancing, everything is done remotely.

So a household contact can hear about us, either through your podcast or one of our Facebook ads or through other media. They can reach out to our study website, which is https://sites.duke.edu/protectehc, or reach out to us at our study email, protect-ehc@duke.edu.

And we can go ahead and screen them for eligibility in our trial. And if they are eligible and they consent to participate, we will mail them a package basically overnight, FedEx, containing either LGG or placebo, as well as kits so that they can self-collect their stool and nasal swabs so we can test it for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR [polymerase chain reaction] and look at the microbiome.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. Funding for the trial is provided by the Duke Microbiome Center and philanthropic giving. The LGG and placebo used in the trial are provided by DSM.

Researchers are testing whether a probiotic called Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can prevent COVID-19 in household contacts of COVID patients.

On the Nov. 12 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast, Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., joined host David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, to discuss the trial of LGG as well as other research. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Here we are in COVID. We’re recording this the first week in November. Sadly, cases are spiking in the country. And I understand you’ve got some information that you might share about how manipulating ... the microbiome that we all exist with inside our gut might somehow play into doing better or worse with COVID.

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So, as associate director of the Duke Microbiome Center, I was approached by one of my colleagues, Paul Wischmeyer, who is a professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Duke. Paul had previously done some very nice murine studies with the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, or LGG.

He showed, in a murine model of pseudomonas pneumonia, that giving LGG to mice would help modulate their microbiome and, in turn, their immune system, leading to decreased inflammation, decreased TNF-alpha, IL [interleukin]-2, and IL-6, [and] increased Treg cells [Clin Nutr. 2017;36[6]:1549-57]. This also helped prevent lung injury, and it actually significantly improved survival in mice receiving LGG [Shock. 2013;40[6]:496-503].

In addition, there has been a randomized clinical trial of LGG showing that its administration would help prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia, or VAP [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 15;182[8]:1058-64].

And a few years ago, there was another RCT [randomized, controlled trial], published in Nature, showing that another Lactobacillus product significantly decreased the combined endpoint of sepsis and mortality, primarily by reducing lower respiratory tract infection [Nature. 2017 Aug 24;548[7668]:407-12].
 

Dr. Henry: And how is that working? What is the bacillus doing to help us?

Dr. Sung: We think it’s through modulating the immune system. As mentioned in Paul’s studies, we saw significantly decreased amounts of TNF-alpha, IL-2, and IL-6, which are the same cytokines that have been implicated in COVID-19 and associated with increased lung injury in patients during this pandemic.

And we believe that by giving individuals this probiotic, LGG, we may help modulate the immune system, decrease lung injury and symptoms, and maybe even prevent COVID-19.

So with support from the Duke Microbiome Center, as well as private donations and philanthropy, we are conducting a randomized clinical trial of LGG to prevent COVID-19 in household contacts who’ve been exposed to the disease. In other words, if someone in the house gets COVID-19, we want to try to prophylax everybody else living in that house and prevent them from coming down with the same infection.
 

Dr. Henry: And this is an oral administration?

Dr. Sung: Correct. This is an oral pill, two pills once a day.

Dr. Henry: And it’s an ongoing study, of course, in COVID right now?

Dr. Sung: Correct. So we have an IND [investigational new drug application] from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], and we are actively recruiting subjects both at Duke University, but also due to the unique study design, we can enroll patients anywhere across the country. Because of the importance of social distancing, everything is done remotely.

So a household contact can hear about us, either through your podcast or one of our Facebook ads or through other media. They can reach out to our study website, which is https://sites.duke.edu/protectehc, or reach out to us at our study email, protect-ehc@duke.edu.

And we can go ahead and screen them for eligibility in our trial. And if they are eligible and they consent to participate, we will mail them a package basically overnight, FedEx, containing either LGG or placebo, as well as kits so that they can self-collect their stool and nasal swabs so we can test it for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR [polymerase chain reaction] and look at the microbiome.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. Funding for the trial is provided by the Duke Microbiome Center and philanthropic giving. The LGG and placebo used in the trial are provided by DSM.

After initial promising interim results on Nov. 9, Pfizer and BioNTech today announced that their mRNA vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, is 95% effective.

Final analysis of the randomized, phase 3 study of more than 43,000 people yielded 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 – with 162 positive cases in the placebo group versus 8 in the BNT162b2 vaccine group.

Researchers reported 10 severe cases of COVID-19 in the trial, 9 of which occurred in the placebo group.

The study was ethnically diverse, and results were consistent across gender and age groups, with a 94% efficacy reported among participants aged older than 65 years.

Pfizer plans to file for an emergency-use authorization with the Food and Drug Administration “within days,” having now met all the FDA data endpoints, according to a news release from the two companies.

The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious safety concerns, the company stated. Two grade 3 adverse events were reported – fatigue in 3.8% of participants and headache in 2%.

The 95% efficacy places the Pfizer vaccine in the same neighborhood as the interim results of the Moderna vaccine, reported at 94.5%. Both products are two-dose mRNA vaccines.

As of Nov. 13, of 43,661 total participants in the Pfizer vaccine phase 3 trial, 41,135 received a second dose. The final results are based on two outcomes measured 7 days after the second dose: vaccine efficacy in people without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as a secondary outcome in people both with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The 95% vaccine efficacy was statistically significant, compared with placebo (P < .0001).
 

‘Historic 8-month journey’

The BNT162b2 vaccine candidate is a joint effort between Pfizer and BioNTech. “The study results mark an important step in this historic 8-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic,” Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, Pfizer chairman and CEO, said in a statement. “With hundreds of thousands of people around the globe infected every day, we urgently need to get a safe and effective vaccine to the world.”

Ugur Sahin, MD, PhD, cofounder and CEO of BioNTech, added, “we are grateful that the first global trial to reach the final efficacy analysis mark indicates that a high rate of protection against COVID-19 can be achieved very fast after the first 30-mcg dose, underscoring the power of BNT162 in providing early protection.”

The two companies expect to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 for global distribution. Projections for 2021 include up to 1.3 billion doses.

The companies also designed temperature-controlled thermal shipping containers with dry ice to maintain the required, approximate –70° C (–94° F) conditions. Clinicians can use the containers as temporary storage units for up to 15 days by replacing the dry ice.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After initial promising interim results on Nov. 9, Pfizer and BioNTech today announced that their mRNA vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, is 95% effective.

Final analysis of the randomized, phase 3 study of more than 43,000 people yielded 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 – with 162 positive cases in the placebo group versus 8 in the BNT162b2 vaccine group.

Researchers reported 10 severe cases of COVID-19 in the trial, 9 of which occurred in the placebo group.

The study was ethnically diverse, and results were consistent across gender and age groups, with a 94% efficacy reported among participants aged older than 65 years.

Pfizer plans to file for an emergency-use authorization with the Food and Drug Administration “within days,” having now met all the FDA data endpoints, according to a news release from the two companies.

The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious safety concerns, the company stated. Two grade 3 adverse events were reported – fatigue in 3.8% of participants and headache in 2%.

The 95% efficacy places the Pfizer vaccine in the same neighborhood as the interim results of the Moderna vaccine, reported at 94.5%. Both products are two-dose mRNA vaccines.

As of Nov. 13, of 43,661 total participants in the Pfizer vaccine phase 3 trial, 41,135 received a second dose. The final results are based on two outcomes measured 7 days after the second dose: vaccine efficacy in people without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as a secondary outcome in people both with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The 95% vaccine efficacy was statistically significant, compared with placebo (P < .0001).
 

‘Historic 8-month journey’

The BNT162b2 vaccine candidate is a joint effort between Pfizer and BioNTech. “The study results mark an important step in this historic 8-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic,” Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, Pfizer chairman and CEO, said in a statement. “With hundreds of thousands of people around the globe infected every day, we urgently need to get a safe and effective vaccine to the world.”

Ugur Sahin, MD, PhD, cofounder and CEO of BioNTech, added, “we are grateful that the first global trial to reach the final efficacy analysis mark indicates that a high rate of protection against COVID-19 can be achieved very fast after the first 30-mcg dose, underscoring the power of BNT162 in providing early protection.”

The two companies expect to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 for global distribution. Projections for 2021 include up to 1.3 billion doses.

The companies also designed temperature-controlled thermal shipping containers with dry ice to maintain the required, approximate –70° C (–94° F) conditions. Clinicians can use the containers as temporary storage units for up to 15 days by replacing the dry ice.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After initial promising interim results on Nov. 9, Pfizer and BioNTech today announced that their mRNA vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, is 95% effective.

Final analysis of the randomized, phase 3 study of more than 43,000 people yielded 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 – with 162 positive cases in the placebo group versus 8 in the BNT162b2 vaccine group.

Researchers reported 10 severe cases of COVID-19 in the trial, 9 of which occurred in the placebo group.

The study was ethnically diverse, and results were consistent across gender and age groups, with a 94% efficacy reported among participants aged older than 65 years.

Pfizer plans to file for an emergency-use authorization with the Food and Drug Administration “within days,” having now met all the FDA data endpoints, according to a news release from the two companies.

The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious safety concerns, the company stated. Two grade 3 adverse events were reported – fatigue in 3.8% of participants and headache in 2%.

The 95% efficacy places the Pfizer vaccine in the same neighborhood as the interim results of the Moderna vaccine, reported at 94.5%. Both products are two-dose mRNA vaccines.

As of Nov. 13, of 43,661 total participants in the Pfizer vaccine phase 3 trial, 41,135 received a second dose. The final results are based on two outcomes measured 7 days after the second dose: vaccine efficacy in people without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as a secondary outcome in people both with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The 95% vaccine efficacy was statistically significant, compared with placebo (P < .0001).
 

‘Historic 8-month journey’

The BNT162b2 vaccine candidate is a joint effort between Pfizer and BioNTech. “The study results mark an important step in this historic 8-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic,” Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, Pfizer chairman and CEO, said in a statement. “With hundreds of thousands of people around the globe infected every day, we urgently need to get a safe and effective vaccine to the world.”

Ugur Sahin, MD, PhD, cofounder and CEO of BioNTech, added, “we are grateful that the first global trial to reach the final efficacy analysis mark indicates that a high rate of protection against COVID-19 can be achieved very fast after the first 30-mcg dose, underscoring the power of BNT162 in providing early protection.”

The two companies expect to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 for global distribution. Projections for 2021 include up to 1.3 billion doses.

The companies also designed temperature-controlled thermal shipping containers with dry ice to maintain the required, approximate –70° C (–94° F) conditions. Clinicians can use the containers as temporary storage units for up to 15 days by replacing the dry ice.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A “hospital at home” (HaH) program at Atrium Health, a large integrated delivery system in the Southeast, expanded its hospital capacity during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing hospital-level acute care to COVID-19 patients at home, according to a new study in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Virtual hospital programs have the potential to provide health systems with additional inpatient capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond,” wrote Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, from the Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C., and colleagues.

Whereas most previous HaH programs have relied on visiting nurses and physicians, the new study uses telemedicine to connect with patients. Advocate Health Care researchers published the only other study using the telemedicine-powered model in 2015.

The new Atrium Health study evaluated 1,477 patients who received care in the HaH program between March 23 and May 7 of this year after having been diagnosed with COVID-19. The program provided home monitoring and hospital-level care in a home-based virtual observation unit (VOU) and a virtual acute care unit (VACU).

Patients were tested for the virus in Atrium emergency departments, primary care clinics, urgent care centers, and external testing sites. Those who tested positive were invited to be cared for either in the VOU, if they had mild to moderate symptoms, or in the VACU, if they were sick enough to be admitted to the hospital.
 

Patients hop onboard

Nearly all COVID-positive patients tested in these sites agreed to be admitted to the hospital at home, coauthor Stephanie Murphy, DO, medical director of the Atrium Health HaH program, said in an interview.

Patients with moderate symptoms were glad to be monitored at home, she said. When they got to the point where the nurse supervising their care felt they needed escalation to acute care, they were asked whether they wanted to continue to be cared for at home. Most opted to stay home rather than be admitted to the hospital, where their loved ones couldn’t visit them.

Low-acuity patients in the VOU received daily telemonitoring by a nurse to identify disease progression and escalate care as needed. For those who required more care and were admitted to the VACU, a team of paramedics and registered nurses (RNs; mobile clinicians) visited the patient’s home within 24 hours, setting up a hospital bed, other necessary medical equipment, videoconferencing gear, and a remote-monitoring kit that included a blood pressure cuff, a pulse oximeter, and a thermometer.

Dedicated hospitalists and nurses managed patients with 24/7 coverage and monitoring, bringing in other specialties as needed for virtual consults. Mobile clinician and virtual provider visits continued daily until a patient’s condition improved to the point where they could be deescalated back to the VOU. After that, patients received mobile app-driven symptom monitoring and telephone follow-up with a nurse until they got better.
 

Few patients go to hospital

Overall, patients had a median length of stay of 11 days in the VOU or the VACU or both. The vast majority, 1,293 patients (88%), received care in the VOU only. In that cohort, just 40 patients (3%) required hospitalization in an Atrium facility. Sixteen of those patients spent time in an ICU, seven required ventilator support, and two died in the hospital.

A total of 184 patients (12%) were admitted to the VACU. Twenty-one (11%) required intravenous fluids, 16 (9%) received antibiotics, 40 (22%) required inhaler or nebulizer treatments, 41 (22%) used supplemental oxygen, and 24 (13%) were admitted to a conventional hospital. Of the latter patients, 10 were admitted to an ICU, one required a ventilator, and none died in the hospital.

Dr. Sitammagari, a hospitalist and comedical director for quality at Atrium Health, told this news organization that, overall, the outcomes for patients in the system’s HaH were comparable to those seen in the literature among other COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Augmenting hospital capacity

The authors note that treating the 160 VACU patients within the HaH saved hospital beds for other patients. The HaH maintained a consistent census of between 20 and 30 patients for the first 6 weeks as COVID-19 cases spread.

Since last spring, Dr. Murphy said, the Atrium HaH’s daily census has grown to between 30 and 45 patients. “We could absorb 50 patients if our hospitals required it.”

How much capacity does that add to Atrium Health? While there are 50 hospitals in the health system, the HaH was set up mainly to care for COVID-19 patients who would otherwise have been admitted to the 10 acute-care hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area. In the 4 weeks ending Nov. 16, these facilities carried an average daily census of around 160 COVID-19 patients, Dr. Murphy noted. “During that time, the Atrium Health HaH has carried, on average, about 20%-25% of that census.”

If the pandemic were to overwhelm area hospitals, she added, “the structure would support flexing up our staffing and supplies to expand to crisis capacity,” which could be up to 200 patients a day.

For the nurses who make most of the phone calls to patients, patients average about 12 to 15 per RN, Dr. Murphy said, and there’s one mobile clinician for every six to nine patients. That’s pretty consistent with the staffing on med-surg floors in hospitals, she said.

The physicians in the program include hospitalists dedicated to telemedicine and some doctors who can’t work in the regular hospital because they’re immunocompromised. The physicians round virtually, covering 12-17 HaH patients per day, according to Dr. Murphy.
 

Prior planning paid off

Unlike some other health care systems that have launched HaH programs with the aid of outside vendors, Atrium Health developed its own HaH and brought it online just 2 weeks after deciding to launch the program. Atrium was able to do this, Dr. Sitammagari explained, because before the pandemic its hospitalist program was already developing an HaH model to improve the care of high-risk patients after hospital discharge to prevent readmission.

While Atrium’s electronic health record system wasn’t designed for hospital at home, its health information technology department and clinicians collaborated in rewriting some of the workflows and order sets in the EHR. For example, they set up a nursing questionnaire to administer after VACU admission, and they created another form for automatic admission to the HaH after a patient tested positive for COVID-19. Atrium staff also modified a patient-doctor communications app to help clinicians monitor HaH patients, Dr. Murphy noted.

Other hospital systems have gotten up to speed on HaH pretty quickly by using platforms supplied by outside vendors. Adventist Health in Los Angeles, for example, started admitting patients to its hospital at home just a month after approaching a vendor called Medically Home.
 

COVID vs. non-COVID patients

Atrium’s decision to focus its HaH effort on COVID-19 patients is unusual among the small but growing number of health systems that have adopted the HaH model to increase their capacity. (Atrium is now transferring some hospitalized patients with other conditions to its HaH, but is still focusing mainly on COVID-19 in its HaH program.)

Bruce Leff, MD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, a leading expert on the HaH model, agrees that it can increase hospital capacity significantly.

Dr. Leff praised the Atrium Health study. “It proves that within an integrated delivery system you can quickly deploy and implement a virtual hospital in the specific-use case of COVID, and help patients and help the system at scale,” he said. “They took a bunch of people into the virtual observation unit and thereby kept people from overwhelming their [emergency department] and treated those people safely at home.”

Dr. Leff had no problem with Atrium’s focus on patients with COVID-19 rather than other conditions. “My guess is that they have the ability to take what they developed and apply it to other conditions. Once you have the ability to do acute care at home, you can do a lot at home.”

The biggest barrier to the spread of hospital at home remains the lack of insurer coverage. Dr. Murphy said that health plans are covering virtual physician consultations with patients in the HaH, as well as some other bits and pieces, but not the entire episode of acute care.

Dr. Leff believes that this will start changing soon. COVID-19 has altered the attitudes of physicians and hospitals toward telehealth, he noted, “and it has moved policy makers and payers to start thinking about the new models – home-based care in general and hospital at home in particular. For the first time in 25 years, payers are starting to get interested.”

Most of the authors are employees of Atrium Health. In addition, one coauthor reports being the cofounder of a digital health company, iEnroll, and receiving grants from The Heineman Foundation. Dr. Leff is an advisor to Medically Home, which provides support to hospital at home programs.

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

A “hospital at home” (HaH) program at Atrium Health, a large integrated delivery system in the Southeast, expanded its hospital capacity during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing hospital-level acute care to COVID-19 patients at home, according to a new study in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Virtual hospital programs have the potential to provide health systems with additional inpatient capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond,” wrote Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, from the Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C., and colleagues.

Whereas most previous HaH programs have relied on visiting nurses and physicians, the new study uses telemedicine to connect with patients. Advocate Health Care researchers published the only other study using the telemedicine-powered model in 2015.

The new Atrium Health study evaluated 1,477 patients who received care in the HaH program between March 23 and May 7 of this year after having been diagnosed with COVID-19. The program provided home monitoring and hospital-level care in a home-based virtual observation unit (VOU) and a virtual acute care unit (VACU).

Patients were tested for the virus in Atrium emergency departments, primary care clinics, urgent care centers, and external testing sites. Those who tested positive were invited to be cared for either in the VOU, if they had mild to moderate symptoms, or in the VACU, if they were sick enough to be admitted to the hospital.
 

Patients hop onboard

Nearly all COVID-positive patients tested in these sites agreed to be admitted to the hospital at home, coauthor Stephanie Murphy, DO, medical director of the Atrium Health HaH program, said in an interview.

Patients with moderate symptoms were glad to be monitored at home, she said. When they got to the point where the nurse supervising their care felt they needed escalation to acute care, they were asked whether they wanted to continue to be cared for at home. Most opted to stay home rather than be admitted to the hospital, where their loved ones couldn’t visit them.

Low-acuity patients in the VOU received daily telemonitoring by a nurse to identify disease progression and escalate care as needed. For those who required more care and were admitted to the VACU, a team of paramedics and registered nurses (RNs; mobile clinicians) visited the patient’s home within 24 hours, setting up a hospital bed, other necessary medical equipment, videoconferencing gear, and a remote-monitoring kit that included a blood pressure cuff, a pulse oximeter, and a thermometer.

Dedicated hospitalists and nurses managed patients with 24/7 coverage and monitoring, bringing in other specialties as needed for virtual consults. Mobile clinician and virtual provider visits continued daily until a patient’s condition improved to the point where they could be deescalated back to the VOU. After that, patients received mobile app-driven symptom monitoring and telephone follow-up with a nurse until they got better.
 

Few patients go to hospital

Overall, patients had a median length of stay of 11 days in the VOU or the VACU or both. The vast majority, 1,293 patients (88%), received care in the VOU only. In that cohort, just 40 patients (3%) required hospitalization in an Atrium facility. Sixteen of those patients spent time in an ICU, seven required ventilator support, and two died in the hospital.

A total of 184 patients (12%) were admitted to the VACU. Twenty-one (11%) required intravenous fluids, 16 (9%) received antibiotics, 40 (22%) required inhaler or nebulizer treatments, 41 (22%) used supplemental oxygen, and 24 (13%) were admitted to a conventional hospital. Of the latter patients, 10 were admitted to an ICU, one required a ventilator, and none died in the hospital.

Dr. Sitammagari, a hospitalist and comedical director for quality at Atrium Health, told this news organization that, overall, the outcomes for patients in the system’s HaH were comparable to those seen in the literature among other COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Augmenting hospital capacity

The authors note that treating the 160 VACU patients within the HaH saved hospital beds for other patients. The HaH maintained a consistent census of between 20 and 30 patients for the first 6 weeks as COVID-19 cases spread.

Since last spring, Dr. Murphy said, the Atrium HaH’s daily census has grown to between 30 and 45 patients. “We could absorb 50 patients if our hospitals required it.”

How much capacity does that add to Atrium Health? While there are 50 hospitals in the health system, the HaH was set up mainly to care for COVID-19 patients who would otherwise have been admitted to the 10 acute-care hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area. In the 4 weeks ending Nov. 16, these facilities carried an average daily census of around 160 COVID-19 patients, Dr. Murphy noted. “During that time, the Atrium Health HaH has carried, on average, about 20%-25% of that census.”

If the pandemic were to overwhelm area hospitals, she added, “the structure would support flexing up our staffing and supplies to expand to crisis capacity,” which could be up to 200 patients a day.

For the nurses who make most of the phone calls to patients, patients average about 12 to 15 per RN, Dr. Murphy said, and there’s one mobile clinician for every six to nine patients. That’s pretty consistent with the staffing on med-surg floors in hospitals, she said.

The physicians in the program include hospitalists dedicated to telemedicine and some doctors who can’t work in the regular hospital because they’re immunocompromised. The physicians round virtually, covering 12-17 HaH patients per day, according to Dr. Murphy.
 

Prior planning paid off

Unlike some other health care systems that have launched HaH programs with the aid of outside vendors, Atrium Health developed its own HaH and brought it online just 2 weeks after deciding to launch the program. Atrium was able to do this, Dr. Sitammagari explained, because before the pandemic its hospitalist program was already developing an HaH model to improve the care of high-risk patients after hospital discharge to prevent readmission.

While Atrium’s electronic health record system wasn’t designed for hospital at home, its health information technology department and clinicians collaborated in rewriting some of the workflows and order sets in the EHR. For example, they set up a nursing questionnaire to administer after VACU admission, and they created another form for automatic admission to the HaH after a patient tested positive for COVID-19. Atrium staff also modified a patient-doctor communications app to help clinicians monitor HaH patients, Dr. Murphy noted.

Other hospital systems have gotten up to speed on HaH pretty quickly by using platforms supplied by outside vendors. Adventist Health in Los Angeles, for example, started admitting patients to its hospital at home just a month after approaching a vendor called Medically Home.
 

COVID vs. non-COVID patients

Atrium’s decision to focus its HaH effort on COVID-19 patients is unusual among the small but growing number of health systems that have adopted the HaH model to increase their capacity. (Atrium is now transferring some hospitalized patients with other conditions to its HaH, but is still focusing mainly on COVID-19 in its HaH program.)

Bruce Leff, MD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, a leading expert on the HaH model, agrees that it can increase hospital capacity significantly.

Dr. Leff praised the Atrium Health study. “It proves that within an integrated delivery system you can quickly deploy and implement a virtual hospital in the specific-use case of COVID, and help patients and help the system at scale,” he said. “They took a bunch of people into the virtual observation unit and thereby kept people from overwhelming their [emergency department] and treated those people safely at home.”

Dr. Leff had no problem with Atrium’s focus on patients with COVID-19 rather than other conditions. “My guess is that they have the ability to take what they developed and apply it to other conditions. Once you have the ability to do acute care at home, you can do a lot at home.”

The biggest barrier to the spread of hospital at home remains the lack of insurer coverage. Dr. Murphy said that health plans are covering virtual physician consultations with patients in the HaH, as well as some other bits and pieces, but not the entire episode of acute care.

Dr. Leff believes that this will start changing soon. COVID-19 has altered the attitudes of physicians and hospitals toward telehealth, he noted, “and it has moved policy makers and payers to start thinking about the new models – home-based care in general and hospital at home in particular. For the first time in 25 years, payers are starting to get interested.”

Most of the authors are employees of Atrium Health. In addition, one coauthor reports being the cofounder of a digital health company, iEnroll, and receiving grants from The Heineman Foundation. Dr. Leff is an advisor to Medically Home, which provides support to hospital at home programs.

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

A “hospital at home” (HaH) program at Atrium Health, a large integrated delivery system in the Southeast, expanded its hospital capacity during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing hospital-level acute care to COVID-19 patients at home, according to a new study in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Virtual hospital programs have the potential to provide health systems with additional inpatient capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond,” wrote Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, from the Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C., and colleagues.

Whereas most previous HaH programs have relied on visiting nurses and physicians, the new study uses telemedicine to connect with patients. Advocate Health Care researchers published the only other study using the telemedicine-powered model in 2015.

The new Atrium Health study evaluated 1,477 patients who received care in the HaH program between March 23 and May 7 of this year after having been diagnosed with COVID-19. The program provided home monitoring and hospital-level care in a home-based virtual observation unit (VOU) and a virtual acute care unit (VACU).

Patients were tested for the virus in Atrium emergency departments, primary care clinics, urgent care centers, and external testing sites. Those who tested positive were invited to be cared for either in the VOU, if they had mild to moderate symptoms, or in the VACU, if they were sick enough to be admitted to the hospital.
 

Patients hop onboard

Nearly all COVID-positive patients tested in these sites agreed to be admitted to the hospital at home, coauthor Stephanie Murphy, DO, medical director of the Atrium Health HaH program, said in an interview.

Patients with moderate symptoms were glad to be monitored at home, she said. When they got to the point where the nurse supervising their care felt they needed escalation to acute care, they were asked whether they wanted to continue to be cared for at home. Most opted to stay home rather than be admitted to the hospital, where their loved ones couldn’t visit them.

Low-acuity patients in the VOU received daily telemonitoring by a nurse to identify disease progression and escalate care as needed. For those who required more care and were admitted to the VACU, a team of paramedics and registered nurses (RNs; mobile clinicians) visited the patient’s home within 24 hours, setting up a hospital bed, other necessary medical equipment, videoconferencing gear, and a remote-monitoring kit that included a blood pressure cuff, a pulse oximeter, and a thermometer.

Dedicated hospitalists and nurses managed patients with 24/7 coverage and monitoring, bringing in other specialties as needed for virtual consults. Mobile clinician and virtual provider visits continued daily until a patient’s condition improved to the point where they could be deescalated back to the VOU. After that, patients received mobile app-driven symptom monitoring and telephone follow-up with a nurse until they got better.
 

Few patients go to hospital

Overall, patients had a median length of stay of 11 days in the VOU or the VACU or both. The vast majority, 1,293 patients (88%), received care in the VOU only. In that cohort, just 40 patients (3%) required hospitalization in an Atrium facility. Sixteen of those patients spent time in an ICU, seven required ventilator support, and two died in the hospital.

A total of 184 patients (12%) were admitted to the VACU. Twenty-one (11%) required intravenous fluids, 16 (9%) received antibiotics, 40 (22%) required inhaler or nebulizer treatments, 41 (22%) used supplemental oxygen, and 24 (13%) were admitted to a conventional hospital. Of the latter patients, 10 were admitted to an ICU, one required a ventilator, and none died in the hospital.

Dr. Sitammagari, a hospitalist and comedical director for quality at Atrium Health, told this news organization that, overall, the outcomes for patients in the system’s HaH were comparable to those seen in the literature among other COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Augmenting hospital capacity

The authors note that treating the 160 VACU patients within the HaH saved hospital beds for other patients. The HaH maintained a consistent census of between 20 and 30 patients for the first 6 weeks as COVID-19 cases spread.

Since last spring, Dr. Murphy said, the Atrium HaH’s daily census has grown to between 30 and 45 patients. “We could absorb 50 patients if our hospitals required it.”

How much capacity does that add to Atrium Health? While there are 50 hospitals in the health system, the HaH was set up mainly to care for COVID-19 patients who would otherwise have been admitted to the 10 acute-care hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area. In the 4 weeks ending Nov. 16, these facilities carried an average daily census of around 160 COVID-19 patients, Dr. Murphy noted. “During that time, the Atrium Health HaH has carried, on average, about 20%-25% of that census.”

If the pandemic were to overwhelm area hospitals, she added, “the structure would support flexing up our staffing and supplies to expand to crisis capacity,” which could be up to 200 patients a day.

For the nurses who make most of the phone calls to patients, patients average about 12 to 15 per RN, Dr. Murphy said, and there’s one mobile clinician for every six to nine patients. That’s pretty consistent with the staffing on med-surg floors in hospitals, she said.

The physicians in the program include hospitalists dedicated to telemedicine and some doctors who can’t work in the regular hospital because they’re immunocompromised. The physicians round virtually, covering 12-17 HaH patients per day, according to Dr. Murphy.
 

Prior planning paid off

Unlike some other health care systems that have launched HaH programs with the aid of outside vendors, Atrium Health developed its own HaH and brought it online just 2 weeks after deciding to launch the program. Atrium was able to do this, Dr. Sitammagari explained, because before the pandemic its hospitalist program was already developing an HaH model to improve the care of high-risk patients after hospital discharge to prevent readmission.

While Atrium’s electronic health record system wasn’t designed for hospital at home, its health information technology department and clinicians collaborated in rewriting some of the workflows and order sets in the EHR. For example, they set up a nursing questionnaire to administer after VACU admission, and they created another form for automatic admission to the HaH after a patient tested positive for COVID-19. Atrium staff also modified a patient-doctor communications app to help clinicians monitor HaH patients, Dr. Murphy noted.

Other hospital systems have gotten up to speed on HaH pretty quickly by using platforms supplied by outside vendors. Adventist Health in Los Angeles, for example, started admitting patients to its hospital at home just a month after approaching a vendor called Medically Home.
 

COVID vs. non-COVID patients

Atrium’s decision to focus its HaH effort on COVID-19 patients is unusual among the small but growing number of health systems that have adopted the HaH model to increase their capacity. (Atrium is now transferring some hospitalized patients with other conditions to its HaH, but is still focusing mainly on COVID-19 in its HaH program.)

Bruce Leff, MD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, a leading expert on the HaH model, agrees that it can increase hospital capacity significantly.

Dr. Leff praised the Atrium Health study. “It proves that within an integrated delivery system you can quickly deploy and implement a virtual hospital in the specific-use case of COVID, and help patients and help the system at scale,” he said. “They took a bunch of people into the virtual observation unit and thereby kept people from overwhelming their [emergency department] and treated those people safely at home.”

Dr. Leff had no problem with Atrium’s focus on patients with COVID-19 rather than other conditions. “My guess is that they have the ability to take what they developed and apply it to other conditions. Once you have the ability to do acute care at home, you can do a lot at home.”

The biggest barrier to the spread of hospital at home remains the lack of insurer coverage. Dr. Murphy said that health plans are covering virtual physician consultations with patients in the HaH, as well as some other bits and pieces, but not the entire episode of acute care.

Dr. Leff believes that this will start changing soon. COVID-19 has altered the attitudes of physicians and hospitals toward telehealth, he noted, “and it has moved policy makers and payers to start thinking about the new models – home-based care in general and hospital at home in particular. For the first time in 25 years, payers are starting to get interested.”

Most of the authors are employees of Atrium Health. In addition, one coauthor reports being the cofounder of a digital health company, iEnroll, and receiving grants from The Heineman Foundation. Dr. Leff is an advisor to Medically Home, which provides support to hospital at home programs.

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

A commonly used newborn hearing test shows promise in the early detection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), new research shows.  

Results from one of the largest studies of its kind show the auditory brainstem response (ABR) test, which is carried out on most newborns, represents “a huge untapped potential” to detect autism, lead author Oren Miron, research associate, department of biomedical informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a PhD candidate at Ben Gurion University in Beersheba, Israel, said in an interview.

“The findings further reinforce our understanding that autism, in many cases, has a sensorial and auditory aspect to it,” said Mr. Miron, adding that an adverse response to sound is one of the earliest behavioral signs of autism.

The research was published online Oct. 31 in Autism Research.
 

Early intervention critical

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which involves problems in social communication and interaction, affects an estimated 1 in 59 children. Early identification and intervention are critical for improving outcomes and decreasing the economic burden associated with ASD.

The ABR test, which is used for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS), uses surface electrodes to measure auditory nerve and brainstem responses to sound.

Previous studies identified abnormal ABR amplitude in children with ASD. However, it’s unclear whether healthy newborns who later develop autism also show ABR differences vs those who don’t develop the disorder.

Researchers used UNHS data, which allowed them to examine a larger, younger, and healthier sample compared with previous studies. The study included 321 newborns later diagnosed with ASD and 138,844 controls without a subsequent ASD diagnosis.

The mean ABR testing age was 1.76 days for newborns later diagnosed with ASD and 1.86 for those in the non-ASD group.

The ASD group was 77% male and the non-ASD group was 51% male. The rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission was 8% in the ASD group and 10% in the non-ASD group.

The hearing test involves placing an earpiece in the baby’s ear and delivering a click sound at 35 dB above normal hearing level (nHL) at a rate of 77 clicks per second in the right ear and 79 clicks per second in the left ear.
 

Brainstem abnormalities?

The clicks create electrical activity, which is recorded by a surface electrode and used to extract the ABR waveform. When a sound reaches the brain stem, it creates five consecutive waveforms – waves I, II, III, IV, and V.

Previous studies focused on wave V, which is easiest to detect. The current study used low intensity sound that resulted in a weaker signal.

To overcome this low intensity issue, researchers focused on the negative drop (latency) after the wave V (Vn), which is easier to detect, and on the ABR phase, or entire waveform. They illustrated the differences between the ASD and non-ASD groups in a series of graphs.

Results showed that the ABR phase in the right ear was significantly prolonged in the ASD vs non-ASD group (P < .001). ABR phase in the left ear was also significantly prolonged in the ASD group (P = .021)

Vn latency in the right ear was significantly prolonged in the ASD group compared with the non-ASD group (P = .048); however, this was not the case in the left ear.

The prolongation could mean that the V-negative wave might appear after 8 ms in normally developing children compared with 8.5 or 9 ms in children with autism, said Mr. Miron.

The new study is the first to show V-negative and phase abnormalities are associated with ASD, the authors note. The brainstem prolongation could be due to anatomical abnormalities in the brainstem in individuals with ASD, the researchers added.
 

Present before birth?

The presence of ABR biomarkers of ASD in the first weeks after birth suggests the disorder is likely present before birth in a large group of these individuals, the researchers note.

It’s possible the ABR test could be modified to use lower intensities not only to detect hearing impairment but autism risk, said Mr. Miron. “The test has been optimized to detect hearing impairment, and it does so brilliantly and helps thousands of children. We want to do the same kind of optimization for autism.”

This could lead to earlier behavioral diagnoses, which, in turn, could lead to earlier treatment and better outcomes for children with ASD, said Mr. Miron.

At this time, the level of prolongation to detect ASD is unclear. “I would think a lot of people would want to make it one standard deviation, but it depends on a lot of factors, including for example, whether a baby is preterm,” said Mr. Miron.

More research and better accuracy and specificity are needed before the newborn hearing test is clinically useful.

He noted that the hearing test is only one marker of autism and that it could potentially be combined with other behavioral signs and genetic markers to facilitate earlier diagnosis and treatment and improve outcomes for patients with ASD.

Future research by his group will investigate whether the degree of auditory prolongation relates to autism severity. They also plan to research ASD subgroups including children with comorbid epilepsy.
 

Terrific, clever research

Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, professor, child and adolescent psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, said in an interview that the study is “terrific” and a “clever use” of an existing dataset.

“They showed a difference between a large group of kids with autism and a large group of kids without.”

However, he added, more research is needed before the test can be used as an autism screening tool.

“In order for this to be a screening test that could be broadly applied you would need to identify a cutoff where you’d think a child was at risk for autism, and if you look at the graphs in the article, there are no clear cutoffs,” said Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele.

To turn this into a useful test, “you would have to establish sensitivity and specificity, you would have to look not just at the comparison of kids with autism and kids without but apply it in a predictive way in a second population.”

The study authors and Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele have reported no relevant financial relationships. Veenstra-VanderWeele is an associate editor at Autism Research, which published the article, but he did not handle or view it before being interviewed.

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

A commonly used newborn hearing test shows promise in the early detection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), new research shows.  

Results from one of the largest studies of its kind show the auditory brainstem response (ABR) test, which is carried out on most newborns, represents “a huge untapped potential” to detect autism, lead author Oren Miron, research associate, department of biomedical informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a PhD candidate at Ben Gurion University in Beersheba, Israel, said in an interview.

“The findings further reinforce our understanding that autism, in many cases, has a sensorial and auditory aspect to it,” said Mr. Miron, adding that an adverse response to sound is one of the earliest behavioral signs of autism.

The research was published online Oct. 31 in Autism Research.
 

Early intervention critical

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which involves problems in social communication and interaction, affects an estimated 1 in 59 children. Early identification and intervention are critical for improving outcomes and decreasing the economic burden associated with ASD.

The ABR test, which is used for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS), uses surface electrodes to measure auditory nerve and brainstem responses to sound.

Previous studies identified abnormal ABR amplitude in children with ASD. However, it’s unclear whether healthy newborns who later develop autism also show ABR differences vs those who don’t develop the disorder.

Researchers used UNHS data, which allowed them to examine a larger, younger, and healthier sample compared with previous studies. The study included 321 newborns later diagnosed with ASD and 138,844 controls without a subsequent ASD diagnosis.

The mean ABR testing age was 1.76 days for newborns later diagnosed with ASD and 1.86 for those in the non-ASD group.

The ASD group was 77% male and the non-ASD group was 51% male. The rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission was 8% in the ASD group and 10% in the non-ASD group.

The hearing test involves placing an earpiece in the baby’s ear and delivering a click sound at 35 dB above normal hearing level (nHL) at a rate of 77 clicks per second in the right ear and 79 clicks per second in the left ear.
 

Brainstem abnormalities?

The clicks create electrical activity, which is recorded by a surface electrode and used to extract the ABR waveform. When a sound reaches the brain stem, it creates five consecutive waveforms – waves I, II, III, IV, and V.

Previous studies focused on wave V, which is easiest to detect. The current study used low intensity sound that resulted in a weaker signal.

To overcome this low intensity issue, researchers focused on the negative drop (latency) after the wave V (Vn), which is easier to detect, and on the ABR phase, or entire waveform. They illustrated the differences between the ASD and non-ASD groups in a series of graphs.

Results showed that the ABR phase in the right ear was significantly prolonged in the ASD vs non-ASD group (P < .001). ABR phase in the left ear was also significantly prolonged in the ASD group (P = .021)

Vn latency in the right ear was significantly prolonged in the ASD group compared with the non-ASD group (P = .048); however, this was not the case in the left ear.

The prolongation could mean that the V-negative wave might appear after 8 ms in normally developing children compared with 8.5 or 9 ms in children with autism, said Mr. Miron.

The new study is the first to show V-negative and phase abnormalities are associated with ASD, the authors note. The brainstem prolongation could be due to anatomical abnormalities in the brainstem in individuals with ASD, the researchers added.
 

Present before birth?

The presence of ABR biomarkers of ASD in the first weeks after birth suggests the disorder is likely present before birth in a large group of these individuals, the researchers note.

It’s possible the ABR test could be modified to use lower intensities not only to detect hearing impairment but autism risk, said Mr. Miron. “The test has been optimized to detect hearing impairment, and it does so brilliantly and helps thousands of children. We want to do the same kind of optimization for autism.”

This could lead to earlier behavioral diagnoses, which, in turn, could lead to earlier treatment and better outcomes for children with ASD, said Mr. Miron.

At this time, the level of prolongation to detect ASD is unclear. “I would think a lot of people would want to make it one standard deviation, but it depends on a lot of factors, including for example, whether a baby is preterm,” said Mr. Miron.

More research and better accuracy and specificity are needed before the newborn hearing test is clinically useful.

He noted that the hearing test is only one marker of autism and that it could potentially be combined with other behavioral signs and genetic markers to facilitate earlier diagnosis and treatment and improve outcomes for patients with ASD.

Future research by his group will investigate whether the degree of auditory prolongation relates to autism severity. They also plan to research ASD subgroups including children with comorbid epilepsy.
 

Terrific, clever research

Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, professor, child and adolescent psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, said in an interview that the study is “terrific” and a “clever use” of an existing dataset.

“They showed a difference between a large group of kids with autism and a large group of kids without.”

However, he added, more research is needed before the test can be used as an autism screening tool.

“In order for this to be a screening test that could be broadly applied you would need to identify a cutoff where you’d think a child was at risk for autism, and if you look at the graphs in the article, there are no clear cutoffs,” said Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele.

To turn this into a useful test, “you would have to establish sensitivity and specificity, you would have to look not just at the comparison of kids with autism and kids without but apply it in a predictive way in a second population.”

The study authors and Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele have reported no relevant financial relationships. Veenstra-VanderWeele is an associate editor at Autism Research, which published the article, but he did not handle or view it before being interviewed.

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

A commonly used newborn hearing test shows promise in the early detection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), new research shows.  

Results from one of the largest studies of its kind show the auditory brainstem response (ABR) test, which is carried out on most newborns, represents “a huge untapped potential” to detect autism, lead author Oren Miron, research associate, department of biomedical informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a PhD candidate at Ben Gurion University in Beersheba, Israel, said in an interview.

“The findings further reinforce our understanding that autism, in many cases, has a sensorial and auditory aspect to it,” said Mr. Miron, adding that an adverse response to sound is one of the earliest behavioral signs of autism.

The research was published online Oct. 31 in Autism Research.
 

Early intervention critical

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which involves problems in social communication and interaction, affects an estimated 1 in 59 children. Early identification and intervention are critical for improving outcomes and decreasing the economic burden associated with ASD.

The ABR test, which is used for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS), uses surface electrodes to measure auditory nerve and brainstem responses to sound.

Previous studies identified abnormal ABR amplitude in children with ASD. However, it’s unclear whether healthy newborns who later develop autism also show ABR differences vs those who don’t develop the disorder.

Researchers used UNHS data, which allowed them to examine a larger, younger, and healthier sample compared with previous studies. The study included 321 newborns later diagnosed with ASD and 138,844 controls without a subsequent ASD diagnosis.

The mean ABR testing age was 1.76 days for newborns later diagnosed with ASD and 1.86 for those in the non-ASD group.

The ASD group was 77% male and the non-ASD group was 51% male. The rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission was 8% in the ASD group and 10% in the non-ASD group.

The hearing test involves placing an earpiece in the baby’s ear and delivering a click sound at 35 dB above normal hearing level (nHL) at a rate of 77 clicks per second in the right ear and 79 clicks per second in the left ear.
 

Brainstem abnormalities?

The clicks create electrical activity, which is recorded by a surface electrode and used to extract the ABR waveform. When a sound reaches the brain stem, it creates five consecutive waveforms – waves I, II, III, IV, and V.

Previous studies focused on wave V, which is easiest to detect. The current study used low intensity sound that resulted in a weaker signal.

To overcome this low intensity issue, researchers focused on the negative drop (latency) after the wave V (Vn), which is easier to detect, and on the ABR phase, or entire waveform. They illustrated the differences between the ASD and non-ASD groups in a series of graphs.

Results showed that the ABR phase in the right ear was significantly prolonged in the ASD vs non-ASD group (P < .001). ABR phase in the left ear was also significantly prolonged in the ASD group (P = .021)

Vn latency in the right ear was significantly prolonged in the ASD group compared with the non-ASD group (P = .048); however, this was not the case in the left ear.

The prolongation could mean that the V-negative wave might appear after 8 ms in normally developing children compared with 8.5 or 9 ms in children with autism, said Mr. Miron.

The new study is the first to show V-negative and phase abnormalities are associated with ASD, the authors note. The brainstem prolongation could be due to anatomical abnormalities in the brainstem in individuals with ASD, the researchers added.
 

Present before birth?

The presence of ABR biomarkers of ASD in the first weeks after birth suggests the disorder is likely present before birth in a large group of these individuals, the researchers note.

It’s possible the ABR test could be modified to use lower intensities not only to detect hearing impairment but autism risk, said Mr. Miron. “The test has been optimized to detect hearing impairment, and it does so brilliantly and helps thousands of children. We want to do the same kind of optimization for autism.”

This could lead to earlier behavioral diagnoses, which, in turn, could lead to earlier treatment and better outcomes for children with ASD, said Mr. Miron.

At this time, the level of prolongation to detect ASD is unclear. “I would think a lot of people would want to make it one standard deviation, but it depends on a lot of factors, including for example, whether a baby is preterm,” said Mr. Miron.

More research and better accuracy and specificity are needed before the newborn hearing test is clinically useful.

He noted that the hearing test is only one marker of autism and that it could potentially be combined with other behavioral signs and genetic markers to facilitate earlier diagnosis and treatment and improve outcomes for patients with ASD.

Future research by his group will investigate whether the degree of auditory prolongation relates to autism severity. They also plan to research ASD subgroups including children with comorbid epilepsy.
 

Terrific, clever research

Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, professor, child and adolescent psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, said in an interview that the study is “terrific” and a “clever use” of an existing dataset.

“They showed a difference between a large group of kids with autism and a large group of kids without.”

However, he added, more research is needed before the test can be used as an autism screening tool.

“In order for this to be a screening test that could be broadly applied you would need to identify a cutoff where you’d think a child was at risk for autism, and if you look at the graphs in the article, there are no clear cutoffs,” said Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele.

To turn this into a useful test, “you would have to establish sensitivity and specificity, you would have to look not just at the comparison of kids with autism and kids without but apply it in a predictive way in a second population.”

The study authors and Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele have reported no relevant financial relationships. Veenstra-VanderWeele is an associate editor at Autism Research, which published the article, but he did not handle or view it before being interviewed.

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