Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2020, originally scheduled for May 2-5, 2020, in Chicago, has been canceled because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Organizers are exploring options for virtual presentation of some of the content material.

“While we are disappointed to miss the science, education, and networking that are hallmarks of DDW, we must focus on the health and safety of our community,” said DDW organizers in an email notification on March 18, 2020. “Thank you for your patience as we evaluated the status of DDW in light of the rapidly changing coronavirus pandemic.”

Citing the meeting’s long tradition of improving patient care and the understanding of digestive diseases, the organizers promised more information to come about opportunities for remote presentation of research and educational material.

All events associated with DDW are also canceled, said the email. A page of frequently asked questions is being maintained (https://digestivediseaseweek.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/43000366101), and questions may be asked by submitting a ticket to the DDW help desk (https://digestivediseaseweek.freshdesk.com/support/tickets/new).

koakes@mdedge.com

Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2020, originally scheduled for May 2-5, 2020, in Chicago, has been canceled because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Organizers are exploring options for virtual presentation of some of the content material.

“While we are disappointed to miss the science, education, and networking that are hallmarks of DDW, we must focus on the health and safety of our community,” said DDW organizers in an email notification on March 18, 2020. “Thank you for your patience as we evaluated the status of DDW in light of the rapidly changing coronavirus pandemic.”

Citing the meeting’s long tradition of improving patient care and the understanding of digestive diseases, the organizers promised more information to come about opportunities for remote presentation of research and educational material.

All events associated with DDW are also canceled, said the email. A page of frequently asked questions is being maintained (https://digestivediseaseweek.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/43000366101), and questions may be asked by submitting a ticket to the DDW help desk (https://digestivediseaseweek.freshdesk.com/support/tickets/new).

koakes@mdedge.com

Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2020, originally scheduled for May 2-5, 2020, in Chicago, has been canceled because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Organizers are exploring options for virtual presentation of some of the content material.

“While we are disappointed to miss the science, education, and networking that are hallmarks of DDW, we must focus on the health and safety of our community,” said DDW organizers in an email notification on March 18, 2020. “Thank you for your patience as we evaluated the status of DDW in light of the rapidly changing coronavirus pandemic.”

Citing the meeting’s long tradition of improving patient care and the understanding of digestive diseases, the organizers promised more information to come about opportunities for remote presentation of research and educational material.

All events associated with DDW are also canceled, said the email. A page of frequently asked questions is being maintained (https://digestivediseaseweek.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/43000366101), and questions may be asked by submitting a ticket to the DDW help desk (https://digestivediseaseweek.freshdesk.com/support/tickets/new).

koakes@mdedge.com

ANSWER

The correct answer is acrodermatitis of Hallopeau (choice “c”).

DISCUSSION

Acrodermatitis of Hallopeau (ADH), a rare form of pustular psoriasis, affects the distal digits with changes typified by this patient’s case. It is notoriously difficult to treat, although the advent of the “biologic age” appears to offer a quantum leap in terms of effective treatment alternatives.

Prompt referral to dermatology is needed for ADH to be readily diagnosed and treated. Because ADH is both rare and obscure, it’s not surprising that so many patients suffer for years due to an incorrect diagnosis. And even when correctly diagnosed, treatment is far from satisfactory. For example, methotrexate is commonly used for psoriasis vulgaris but rarely improves ADH—nor do topical steroids or vitamin D–derived topicals.

The 3 other items in the differential would not explain the patient’s condition: (1) Except in cases of immunosuppression, we would not expect Candida (choice “a”) or any other yeast infection to manifest in this manner. (2) Atypical mycobacteria (choice “b”)—such as Mycobacterium marinum—can cause skin infections, but not in a chronically relapsing manner. Moreover, this patient was given minocycline, which would have quickly cleared or at least improved his condition. (3) Pityriasis rubra pilaris (choice “d”) is an unusual papulosquamous disease that can affect nails, but its manifestation would not be as limited as this patient’s was.

TREATMENT

Because the patient’s symptoms are sometimes severe enough to interfere with almost all daily activities, he is clearly in need of prompt treatment. In more severe cases, a short course of cyclosporine followed by a biologic can be an option. For this patient, adalimumab was used. Although it is too early to tell, we expect him to be much improved within a few months.

ANSWER

The correct answer is acrodermatitis of Hallopeau (choice “c”).

DISCUSSION

Acrodermatitis of Hallopeau (ADH), a rare form of pustular psoriasis, affects the distal digits with changes typified by this patient’s case. It is notoriously difficult to treat, although the advent of the “biologic age” appears to offer a quantum leap in terms of effective treatment alternatives.

Prompt referral to dermatology is needed for ADH to be readily diagnosed and treated. Because ADH is both rare and obscure, it’s not surprising that so many patients suffer for years due to an incorrect diagnosis. And even when correctly diagnosed, treatment is far from satisfactory. For example, methotrexate is commonly used for psoriasis vulgaris but rarely improves ADH—nor do topical steroids or vitamin D–derived topicals.

The 3 other items in the differential would not explain the patient’s condition: (1) Except in cases of immunosuppression, we would not expect Candida (choice “a”) or any other yeast infection to manifest in this manner. (2) Atypical mycobacteria (choice “b”)—such as Mycobacterium marinum—can cause skin infections, but not in a chronically relapsing manner. Moreover, this patient was given minocycline, which would have quickly cleared or at least improved his condition. (3) Pityriasis rubra pilaris (choice “d”) is an unusual papulosquamous disease that can affect nails, but its manifestation would not be as limited as this patient’s was.

TREATMENT

Because the patient’s symptoms are sometimes severe enough to interfere with almost all daily activities, he is clearly in need of prompt treatment. In more severe cases, a short course of cyclosporine followed by a biologic can be an option. For this patient, adalimumab was used. Although it is too early to tell, we expect him to be much improved within a few months.

ANSWER

The correct answer is acrodermatitis of Hallopeau (choice “c”).

DISCUSSION

Acrodermatitis of Hallopeau (ADH), a rare form of pustular psoriasis, affects the distal digits with changes typified by this patient’s case. It is notoriously difficult to treat, although the advent of the “biologic age” appears to offer a quantum leap in terms of effective treatment alternatives.

Prompt referral to dermatology is needed for ADH to be readily diagnosed and treated. Because ADH is both rare and obscure, it’s not surprising that so many patients suffer for years due to an incorrect diagnosis. And even when correctly diagnosed, treatment is far from satisfactory. For example, methotrexate is commonly used for psoriasis vulgaris but rarely improves ADH—nor do topical steroids or vitamin D–derived topicals.

The 3 other items in the differential would not explain the patient’s condition: (1) Except in cases of immunosuppression, we would not expect Candida (choice “a”) or any other yeast infection to manifest in this manner. (2) Atypical mycobacteria (choice “b”)—such as Mycobacterium marinum—can cause skin infections, but not in a chronically relapsing manner. Moreover, this patient was given minocycline, which would have quickly cleared or at least improved his condition. (3) Pityriasis rubra pilaris (choice “d”) is an unusual papulosquamous disease that can affect nails, but its manifestation would not be as limited as this patient’s was.

TREATMENT

Because the patient’s symptoms are sometimes severe enough to interfere with almost all daily activities, he is clearly in need of prompt treatment. In more severe cases, a short course of cyclosporine followed by a biologic can be an option. For this patient, adalimumab was used. Although it is too early to tell, we expect him to be much improved within a few months.

Upon palpation, the physician noted a strong pulse consistent with a traumatic arteriovenous fistula (in this case involving the superficial temporal artery). This finding, combined with the cyst’s appearance and the patient’s history, led the physician conclude that this was an epidermoid (sebaceous) cyst. (Prior to palpation, the visual differential diagnosis included dermoid cyst, lipoma, trichilemmal or epidermoid cyst, and foreign body granuloma.)

Cystic nodules on the forehead and midline deserve close scrutiny. This author has seen 3 similar cases in 10 years of daily dermatology consultative practice that have involved the superficial temporal artery and a history of head trauma. Each case had been stable for many months before presentation and had been incorrectly identified as a more common benign cyst.

In this particular case, the planned procedure in the outpatient setting was cancelled and the patient was referred to Vascular Surgery, where surgeons were planning to perform a ligation of the superficial temporal artery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Upon palpation, the physician noted a strong pulse consistent with a traumatic arteriovenous fistula (in this case involving the superficial temporal artery). This finding, combined with the cyst’s appearance and the patient’s history, led the physician conclude that this was an epidermoid (sebaceous) cyst. (Prior to palpation, the visual differential diagnosis included dermoid cyst, lipoma, trichilemmal or epidermoid cyst, and foreign body granuloma.)

Cystic nodules on the forehead and midline deserve close scrutiny. This author has seen 3 similar cases in 10 years of daily dermatology consultative practice that have involved the superficial temporal artery and a history of head trauma. Each case had been stable for many months before presentation and had been incorrectly identified as a more common benign cyst.

In this particular case, the planned procedure in the outpatient setting was cancelled and the patient was referred to Vascular Surgery, where surgeons were planning to perform a ligation of the superficial temporal artery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Upon palpation, the physician noted a strong pulse consistent with a traumatic arteriovenous fistula (in this case involving the superficial temporal artery). This finding, combined with the cyst’s appearance and the patient’s history, led the physician conclude that this was an epidermoid (sebaceous) cyst. (Prior to palpation, the visual differential diagnosis included dermoid cyst, lipoma, trichilemmal or epidermoid cyst, and foreign body granuloma.)

Cystic nodules on the forehead and midline deserve close scrutiny. This author has seen 3 similar cases in 10 years of daily dermatology consultative practice that have involved the superficial temporal artery and a history of head trauma. Each case had been stable for many months before presentation and had been incorrectly identified as a more common benign cyst.

In this particular case, the planned procedure in the outpatient setting was cancelled and the patient was referred to Vascular Surgery, where surgeons were planning to perform a ligation of the superficial temporal artery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Use of the inactivated influenza vaccine by adults with autoimmune rheumatic diseases significantly reduced their risk of influenza-like illness, hospitalization for pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and death from pneumonia, according to findings from an observational study of more than 30,000 patients in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

CAP53/iStockphoto.com

Although the inactivated vaccine has been recommended for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), including rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, the vaccine’s impact on patient outcomes including pneumonia, hospitalization, and death has not been well studied, wrote Georgina Nakafero, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 30,788 adults with AIRDs from the longitudinal Clinical Practice Research Datalink database in the United Kingdom. Of these, 66% were women, 76% had rheumatoid arthritis, and 61% had been prescribed methotrexate. The study included a total of 125,034 flu cycles between 2006 and 2009 and between 2010 and 2015.

Overall, vaccination with the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) reduced the risk of primary care consultation for influenza-like illness (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70), hospitalization for pneumonia (aOR, 0.61), exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 0.67), and death caused by pneumonia (aOR, 0.48) in the study population. In a propensity score–adjusted analysis, only protection from influenza-like illness lost statistical significance.

In addition, vaccination was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality among AIRDs patients, but restricting the outcomes to the active influenza periods may have confounded this result, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including observational design, the use of a single vaccine efficacy estimate for each outcome, potential missed vaccination cycles, and potential confounding by indication and healthy user bias that could inflate the vaccine effectiveness, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, including a range of AIRDs, and the use of both diagnostic and prescription codes, they said.

“The findings of this study, together with the results of our previous study demonstrating the safety of IIV in people with AIRDs, provides evidence to promote seasonal flu vaccination in this population,” they concluded. They still emphasized that randomized, controlled trials are needed for an assessment of vaccine efficacy.

The study was supported by Versus Arthritis and the National Institute of Health Research. Lead author Dr. Nakafero had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies, including AstraZeneca, Roche, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Nakafero G et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa078.

Use of the inactivated influenza vaccine by adults with autoimmune rheumatic diseases significantly reduced their risk of influenza-like illness, hospitalization for pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and death from pneumonia, according to findings from an observational study of more than 30,000 patients in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

CAP53/iStockphoto.com

Although the inactivated vaccine has been recommended for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), including rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, the vaccine’s impact on patient outcomes including pneumonia, hospitalization, and death has not been well studied, wrote Georgina Nakafero, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 30,788 adults with AIRDs from the longitudinal Clinical Practice Research Datalink database in the United Kingdom. Of these, 66% were women, 76% had rheumatoid arthritis, and 61% had been prescribed methotrexate. The study included a total of 125,034 flu cycles between 2006 and 2009 and between 2010 and 2015.

Overall, vaccination with the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) reduced the risk of primary care consultation for influenza-like illness (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70), hospitalization for pneumonia (aOR, 0.61), exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 0.67), and death caused by pneumonia (aOR, 0.48) in the study population. In a propensity score–adjusted analysis, only protection from influenza-like illness lost statistical significance.

In addition, vaccination was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality among AIRDs patients, but restricting the outcomes to the active influenza periods may have confounded this result, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including observational design, the use of a single vaccine efficacy estimate for each outcome, potential missed vaccination cycles, and potential confounding by indication and healthy user bias that could inflate the vaccine effectiveness, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, including a range of AIRDs, and the use of both diagnostic and prescription codes, they said.

“The findings of this study, together with the results of our previous study demonstrating the safety of IIV in people with AIRDs, provides evidence to promote seasonal flu vaccination in this population,” they concluded. They still emphasized that randomized, controlled trials are needed for an assessment of vaccine efficacy.

The study was supported by Versus Arthritis and the National Institute of Health Research. Lead author Dr. Nakafero had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies, including AstraZeneca, Roche, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Nakafero G et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa078.

Use of the inactivated influenza vaccine by adults with autoimmune rheumatic diseases significantly reduced their risk of influenza-like illness, hospitalization for pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and death from pneumonia, according to findings from an observational study of more than 30,000 patients in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

CAP53/iStockphoto.com

Although the inactivated vaccine has been recommended for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), including rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, the vaccine’s impact on patient outcomes including pneumonia, hospitalization, and death has not been well studied, wrote Georgina Nakafero, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 30,788 adults with AIRDs from the longitudinal Clinical Practice Research Datalink database in the United Kingdom. Of these, 66% were women, 76% had rheumatoid arthritis, and 61% had been prescribed methotrexate. The study included a total of 125,034 flu cycles between 2006 and 2009 and between 2010 and 2015.

Overall, vaccination with the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) reduced the risk of primary care consultation for influenza-like illness (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70), hospitalization for pneumonia (aOR, 0.61), exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 0.67), and death caused by pneumonia (aOR, 0.48) in the study population. In a propensity score–adjusted analysis, only protection from influenza-like illness lost statistical significance.

In addition, vaccination was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality among AIRDs patients, but restricting the outcomes to the active influenza periods may have confounded this result, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including observational design, the use of a single vaccine efficacy estimate for each outcome, potential missed vaccination cycles, and potential confounding by indication and healthy user bias that could inflate the vaccine effectiveness, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, including a range of AIRDs, and the use of both diagnostic and prescription codes, they said.

“The findings of this study, together with the results of our previous study demonstrating the safety of IIV in people with AIRDs, provides evidence to promote seasonal flu vaccination in this population,” they concluded. They still emphasized that randomized, controlled trials are needed for an assessment of vaccine efficacy.

The study was supported by Versus Arthritis and the National Institute of Health Research. Lead author Dr. Nakafero had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies, including AstraZeneca, Roche, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Nakafero G et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa078.

Clinicians across the United States are petitioning the federal government to follow the lead of South Korea, China, and other nations by imposing an immediate nationwide quarantine to slow the inevitable spread of COVID-19. Without federal action, the creators say, their lives and the lives of their colleagues, patients, and families are being put at increased risk.

In addition to the quarantine, the petition, posted on the website Change.org, calls on U.S. leaders to institute emergency production and distribution of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers and to rapidly increase access to testing.

The petition – which garnered more than 40,000 signatures in just 12 hours and as of this writing was approaching 94,000 – was started by an apolitical Facebook group to focus attention on what members see as the most critical issues for clinicians: slowing the spread of the virus through a coast-to-coast quarantine, protection of medical personnel with adequate supplies of essential equipment, and widespread testing.

“We started this group last Friday out of the realization that clinicians needed information about the outbreak and weren’t getting it,” said coadministrator Jessica McIntyre, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Elliot Hospital in Manchester, N.H.

“We wanted to get ahead of it and connect with people before we were in the trenches experiencing it and to see what other programs were doing. From a local perspective, it has been really hard to see what people are doing in other states, especially when the protocols in our own states are changing every single day as we collect more information,” she said in an interview.
 

The Horse Has Bolted

A family medicine physician in Illinois helped launch the Facebook group. She asked that her name not be used but said in an interview that earlier actions may have prevented or at least delayed the need for the more draconian measures that her group is recommending.

“Clearly South Korea is one of the superstars as far as response has gone, but the concern we have in the United States is that we’re well beyond that point – we needed to be testing people over a month ago, in the hope of preventing a quarantine,” she said in an interview.

According to National Public Radio, as of March 13, South Korea had conducted 3,600 tests per million population, compared with five per million in the United States.

“I think the most concerning part is to see where Italy is now and where we are in comparison. Our ICUs have not yet overflowed, but I think we’re definitely looking at that in the next few weeks – hopefully longer, but I suspect that it will happen shortly,” she continued.

She cited work by Harvard University biostatistician Xihong Lin, PhD, that shows that when health authorities in Wuhan, China – widely cited as the epicenter of the global pandemic – cordoned off the city, the infection rate dropped from one person infecting 3.8 others to one infecting 1.25, thereby significantly slowing the rate of transmission.

“This is absolutely what we need to be doing,” she said.
 

Real News

Within 3 days of its creation, the online group had accrued more than 80,000 members with advanced medical training, including MDs, DOs, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified registered nurse anesthetists.

“A lot of us were already very busy with our day-to-day work outside of COVID-19, and I think a lot of us felt unsure about where to get the best information,” said coadministrator David Janssen, MD, a family medicine physician in group practice in Sioux Center, Iowa,

“If you turn on the TV, there’s a lot of politicizing of the issue, and there’s a lot of good information, but also a lot of bad information. When health care providers talk to other health care providers, that’s often how we get our information and how we learn,” he said in an interview.

The COVID-19 U.S. Physicians/APP Facebook group includes 20 volunteer moderators who handle hundreds of posts per hour from persons seeking information on the novel coronavirus, what to tell patients, and how to protect themselves.

“It’s been wonderful to see how providers have been helping other providers sort through issues. Teaching hospitals have their hands on the latest research, but a lot of people like myself are at small community hospitals, critical-access hospitals, where we may have a lot of questions but don’t necessarily have the answers readily available to us,” Dr. Janssen said.

Dr. Janssen said that his community of about 8,000 residents initially had only four COVID-19 testing kits, or one for every 2,000 people. The situation has since improved, and more tests are now available, he added.

Dr. McIntyre, Dr. Janssen, and the Illinois family physician have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians across the United States are petitioning the federal government to follow the lead of South Korea, China, and other nations by imposing an immediate nationwide quarantine to slow the inevitable spread of COVID-19. Without federal action, the creators say, their lives and the lives of their colleagues, patients, and families are being put at increased risk.

In addition to the quarantine, the petition, posted on the website Change.org, calls on U.S. leaders to institute emergency production and distribution of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers and to rapidly increase access to testing.

The petition – which garnered more than 40,000 signatures in just 12 hours and as of this writing was approaching 94,000 – was started by an apolitical Facebook group to focus attention on what members see as the most critical issues for clinicians: slowing the spread of the virus through a coast-to-coast quarantine, protection of medical personnel with adequate supplies of essential equipment, and widespread testing.

“We started this group last Friday out of the realization that clinicians needed information about the outbreak and weren’t getting it,” said coadministrator Jessica McIntyre, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Elliot Hospital in Manchester, N.H.

“We wanted to get ahead of it and connect with people before we were in the trenches experiencing it and to see what other programs were doing. From a local perspective, it has been really hard to see what people are doing in other states, especially when the protocols in our own states are changing every single day as we collect more information,” she said in an interview.
 

The Horse Has Bolted

A family medicine physician in Illinois helped launch the Facebook group. She asked that her name not be used but said in an interview that earlier actions may have prevented or at least delayed the need for the more draconian measures that her group is recommending.

“Clearly South Korea is one of the superstars as far as response has gone, but the concern we have in the United States is that we’re well beyond that point – we needed to be testing people over a month ago, in the hope of preventing a quarantine,” she said in an interview.

According to National Public Radio, as of March 13, South Korea had conducted 3,600 tests per million population, compared with five per million in the United States.

“I think the most concerning part is to see where Italy is now and where we are in comparison. Our ICUs have not yet overflowed, but I think we’re definitely looking at that in the next few weeks – hopefully longer, but I suspect that it will happen shortly,” she continued.

She cited work by Harvard University biostatistician Xihong Lin, PhD, that shows that when health authorities in Wuhan, China – widely cited as the epicenter of the global pandemic – cordoned off the city, the infection rate dropped from one person infecting 3.8 others to one infecting 1.25, thereby significantly slowing the rate of transmission.

“This is absolutely what we need to be doing,” she said.
 

Real News

Within 3 days of its creation, the online group had accrued more than 80,000 members with advanced medical training, including MDs, DOs, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified registered nurse anesthetists.

“A lot of us were already very busy with our day-to-day work outside of COVID-19, and I think a lot of us felt unsure about where to get the best information,” said coadministrator David Janssen, MD, a family medicine physician in group practice in Sioux Center, Iowa,

“If you turn on the TV, there’s a lot of politicizing of the issue, and there’s a lot of good information, but also a lot of bad information. When health care providers talk to other health care providers, that’s often how we get our information and how we learn,” he said in an interview.

The COVID-19 U.S. Physicians/APP Facebook group includes 20 volunteer moderators who handle hundreds of posts per hour from persons seeking information on the novel coronavirus, what to tell patients, and how to protect themselves.

“It’s been wonderful to see how providers have been helping other providers sort through issues. Teaching hospitals have their hands on the latest research, but a lot of people like myself are at small community hospitals, critical-access hospitals, where we may have a lot of questions but don’t necessarily have the answers readily available to us,” Dr. Janssen said.

Dr. Janssen said that his community of about 8,000 residents initially had only four COVID-19 testing kits, or one for every 2,000 people. The situation has since improved, and more tests are now available, he added.

Dr. McIntyre, Dr. Janssen, and the Illinois family physician have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians across the United States are petitioning the federal government to follow the lead of South Korea, China, and other nations by imposing an immediate nationwide quarantine to slow the inevitable spread of COVID-19. Without federal action, the creators say, their lives and the lives of their colleagues, patients, and families are being put at increased risk.

In addition to the quarantine, the petition, posted on the website Change.org, calls on U.S. leaders to institute emergency production and distribution of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers and to rapidly increase access to testing.

The petition – which garnered more than 40,000 signatures in just 12 hours and as of this writing was approaching 94,000 – was started by an apolitical Facebook group to focus attention on what members see as the most critical issues for clinicians: slowing the spread of the virus through a coast-to-coast quarantine, protection of medical personnel with adequate supplies of essential equipment, and widespread testing.

“We started this group last Friday out of the realization that clinicians needed information about the outbreak and weren’t getting it,” said coadministrator Jessica McIntyre, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Elliot Hospital in Manchester, N.H.

“We wanted to get ahead of it and connect with people before we were in the trenches experiencing it and to see what other programs were doing. From a local perspective, it has been really hard to see what people are doing in other states, especially when the protocols in our own states are changing every single day as we collect more information,” she said in an interview.
 

The Horse Has Bolted

A family medicine physician in Illinois helped launch the Facebook group. She asked that her name not be used but said in an interview that earlier actions may have prevented or at least delayed the need for the more draconian measures that her group is recommending.

“Clearly South Korea is one of the superstars as far as response has gone, but the concern we have in the United States is that we’re well beyond that point – we needed to be testing people over a month ago, in the hope of preventing a quarantine,” she said in an interview.

According to National Public Radio, as of March 13, South Korea had conducted 3,600 tests per million population, compared with five per million in the United States.

“I think the most concerning part is to see where Italy is now and where we are in comparison. Our ICUs have not yet overflowed, but I think we’re definitely looking at that in the next few weeks – hopefully longer, but I suspect that it will happen shortly,” she continued.

She cited work by Harvard University biostatistician Xihong Lin, PhD, that shows that when health authorities in Wuhan, China – widely cited as the epicenter of the global pandemic – cordoned off the city, the infection rate dropped from one person infecting 3.8 others to one infecting 1.25, thereby significantly slowing the rate of transmission.

“This is absolutely what we need to be doing,” she said.
 

Real News

Within 3 days of its creation, the online group had accrued more than 80,000 members with advanced medical training, including MDs, DOs, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified registered nurse anesthetists.

“A lot of us were already very busy with our day-to-day work outside of COVID-19, and I think a lot of us felt unsure about where to get the best information,” said coadministrator David Janssen, MD, a family medicine physician in group practice in Sioux Center, Iowa,

“If you turn on the TV, there’s a lot of politicizing of the issue, and there’s a lot of good information, but also a lot of bad information. When health care providers talk to other health care providers, that’s often how we get our information and how we learn,” he said in an interview.

The COVID-19 U.S. Physicians/APP Facebook group includes 20 volunteer moderators who handle hundreds of posts per hour from persons seeking information on the novel coronavirus, what to tell patients, and how to protect themselves.

“It’s been wonderful to see how providers have been helping other providers sort through issues. Teaching hospitals have their hands on the latest research, but a lot of people like myself are at small community hospitals, critical-access hospitals, where we may have a lot of questions but don’t necessarily have the answers readily available to us,” Dr. Janssen said.

Dr. Janssen said that his community of about 8,000 residents initially had only four COVID-19 testing kits, or one for every 2,000 people. The situation has since improved, and more tests are now available, he added.

Dr. McIntyre, Dr. Janssen, and the Illinois family physician have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Microdiscectomy could significantly reduce pain intensity at 6 months in people with chronic sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation, a randomized controlled trial has found.

Catherine Yeulet/Thinkstock

Researchers reported the outcomes of a single-center trial in the New England Journal of Medicine in which 128 patients with chronic sciatica resulting from lumbar disc herniation were randomized either to microdiscectomy or 6 months of standardized nonoperative care, followed by surgery if required.

Chris S. Bailey, MD, of the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry at Western University in Toronto, Ontario, and coauthors wrote that, while the majority of patients with sciatica from acute herniation of the lumbar disc improve with conservative care, there is little study comparing surgery with conservative care in patients whose symptoms have lasted longer than 3 months.

In this study, all patients had experienced unilateral radiculopathy for 4-12 months. Those randomized to surgery were operated on a median of 3.1 weeks after enrollment, while those randomized to nonsurgical treatment received education on exercise, functioning, and the use of oral analgesics, as well as active physiotherapy and epidural glucocorticoid injections if needed.

At 6 months, the surgical group showed significantly lower visual analog scale scores for leg-pain intensity, compared with the nonsurgical group (2.8 vs. 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4; P < .001) and the difference persisted at 1 year (2.6 vs. 4.7).

In an editorial accompanying the study, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, MD, and James D. Kang, MD, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, described the results in this group of patients with persistent sciatica as “encouraging,” and suggested the improvement may be because the surgery achieves more rapid decompression of the compressed nerve.

“Patients in the current trial who were assigned to undergo surgery received the intervention relatively quickly, at a median of 3 weeks, and it is reasonable to conclude that expeditious removal of the nerve compression minimized the potential for long-term persistence of pain,” they wrote.

Among the 64 patients who were randomized to nonsurgical treatment, 22 (34%) crossed over to undergo surgery at a median of 11 months after enrollment in the study. These patients tended to be younger at baseline, and less likely to have an asymmetrical decrease in reflexes.

The intention-to-treat analysis found a similar rate of surgical adverse events in the group initially randomized to surgery and the group who crossed over to have surgery (6% vs. 8%). Two patients in the surgical group and one in the crossover group experienced superficial wound infections, while two patients in the crossover group and one in the surgical group experienced new-onset postoperative neuropathic pain. Two patients in the surgical group also had a recurrence of their herniation; one underwent further surgery for it 250 days after the initial procedure, and the other did not.

The secondary outcomes of the study were disability score, physical health, mental health, back pain intensity, satisfaction with treatment, and employment status. All these showed differences that favored the surgical intervention, but “the absence of a prespecified plan for adjustment for multiple comparisons does not allow for clinical inferences from secondary outcomes.”

The authors noted that some previous randomized trials have shown that surgery was better than conservative care among patients with lumbar disc herniation for the first 6 months, but those trials largely focused on patients who had had symptoms for less than 4 months at the time of the intervention. The results of these trials had also been mixed; some trials in patients with shorter duration of symptoms found little or no benefit of surgery over conservative care.

“The decision about whether to recommend discectomy or nonsurgical treatment in this population is controversial because a longer duration of symptoms has been correlated with a poorer outcome associated with lumbar discectomy in some studies,” they wrote. “However, patients may prefer to avoid surgery if they think that nonsurgical treatment could be successful or if they anticipate a risk from surgery.”

There was the risk for selection bias in the study, the authors said, because both surgeons and patients might have been less inclined to go with nonsurgical care in cases of more severe sciatic pain. However they said patients did not have the option of choosing to have surgery at the center outside the trial, which should have minimized that risk.

The authors of the editorial noted that while the study limited itself to patients who had had symptoms for 4-12 months, it didn’t account for other clinical factors that might impact the outcome of discectomy, such as the size of disc herniation or extent of nerve compression.

They also pointed out that questions still remained about which patients were more likely to benefit from immediate surgical intervention and how long nonsurgical care should be trialed before recommending surgery.

The study was supported by a grant from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation. None of the study authors reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Kang reported grants from Pfizer, personal fees from DePuy (Johnson & Johnson), nonfinancial support from Stryker, owning stock in ALung and Cardiorobotics, and serving on a scientific advisory board for OnPoint Surgical, outside the submitted work. Dr. Schoenfeld reported grants from the National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Defense, outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Bailey C et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1093-102.

Microdiscectomy could significantly reduce pain intensity at 6 months in people with chronic sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation, a randomized controlled trial has found.

Catherine Yeulet/Thinkstock

Researchers reported the outcomes of a single-center trial in the New England Journal of Medicine in which 128 patients with chronic sciatica resulting from lumbar disc herniation were randomized either to microdiscectomy or 6 months of standardized nonoperative care, followed by surgery if required.

Chris S. Bailey, MD, of the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry at Western University in Toronto, Ontario, and coauthors wrote that, while the majority of patients with sciatica from acute herniation of the lumbar disc improve with conservative care, there is little study comparing surgery with conservative care in patients whose symptoms have lasted longer than 3 months.

In this study, all patients had experienced unilateral radiculopathy for 4-12 months. Those randomized to surgery were operated on a median of 3.1 weeks after enrollment, while those randomized to nonsurgical treatment received education on exercise, functioning, and the use of oral analgesics, as well as active physiotherapy and epidural glucocorticoid injections if needed.

At 6 months, the surgical group showed significantly lower visual analog scale scores for leg-pain intensity, compared with the nonsurgical group (2.8 vs. 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4; P < .001) and the difference persisted at 1 year (2.6 vs. 4.7).

In an editorial accompanying the study, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, MD, and James D. Kang, MD, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, described the results in this group of patients with persistent sciatica as “encouraging,” and suggested the improvement may be because the surgery achieves more rapid decompression of the compressed nerve.

“Patients in the current trial who were assigned to undergo surgery received the intervention relatively quickly, at a median of 3 weeks, and it is reasonable to conclude that expeditious removal of the nerve compression minimized the potential for long-term persistence of pain,” they wrote.

Among the 64 patients who were randomized to nonsurgical treatment, 22 (34%) crossed over to undergo surgery at a median of 11 months after enrollment in the study. These patients tended to be younger at baseline, and less likely to have an asymmetrical decrease in reflexes.

The intention-to-treat analysis found a similar rate of surgical adverse events in the group initially randomized to surgery and the group who crossed over to have surgery (6% vs. 8%). Two patients in the surgical group and one in the crossover group experienced superficial wound infections, while two patients in the crossover group and one in the surgical group experienced new-onset postoperative neuropathic pain. Two patients in the surgical group also had a recurrence of their herniation; one underwent further surgery for it 250 days after the initial procedure, and the other did not.

The secondary outcomes of the study were disability score, physical health, mental health, back pain intensity, satisfaction with treatment, and employment status. All these showed differences that favored the surgical intervention, but “the absence of a prespecified plan for adjustment for multiple comparisons does not allow for clinical inferences from secondary outcomes.”

The authors noted that some previous randomized trials have shown that surgery was better than conservative care among patients with lumbar disc herniation for the first 6 months, but those trials largely focused on patients who had had symptoms for less than 4 months at the time of the intervention. The results of these trials had also been mixed; some trials in patients with shorter duration of symptoms found little or no benefit of surgery over conservative care.

“The decision about whether to recommend discectomy or nonsurgical treatment in this population is controversial because a longer duration of symptoms has been correlated with a poorer outcome associated with lumbar discectomy in some studies,” they wrote. “However, patients may prefer to avoid surgery if they think that nonsurgical treatment could be successful or if they anticipate a risk from surgery.”

There was the risk for selection bias in the study, the authors said, because both surgeons and patients might have been less inclined to go with nonsurgical care in cases of more severe sciatic pain. However they said patients did not have the option of choosing to have surgery at the center outside the trial, which should have minimized that risk.

The authors of the editorial noted that while the study limited itself to patients who had had symptoms for 4-12 months, it didn’t account for other clinical factors that might impact the outcome of discectomy, such as the size of disc herniation or extent of nerve compression.

They also pointed out that questions still remained about which patients were more likely to benefit from immediate surgical intervention and how long nonsurgical care should be trialed before recommending surgery.

The study was supported by a grant from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation. None of the study authors reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Kang reported grants from Pfizer, personal fees from DePuy (Johnson & Johnson), nonfinancial support from Stryker, owning stock in ALung and Cardiorobotics, and serving on a scientific advisory board for OnPoint Surgical, outside the submitted work. Dr. Schoenfeld reported grants from the National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Defense, outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Bailey C et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1093-102.

Microdiscectomy could significantly reduce pain intensity at 6 months in people with chronic sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation, a randomized controlled trial has found.

Catherine Yeulet/Thinkstock

Researchers reported the outcomes of a single-center trial in the New England Journal of Medicine in which 128 patients with chronic sciatica resulting from lumbar disc herniation were randomized either to microdiscectomy or 6 months of standardized nonoperative care, followed by surgery if required.

Chris S. Bailey, MD, of the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry at Western University in Toronto, Ontario, and coauthors wrote that, while the majority of patients with sciatica from acute herniation of the lumbar disc improve with conservative care, there is little study comparing surgery with conservative care in patients whose symptoms have lasted longer than 3 months.

In this study, all patients had experienced unilateral radiculopathy for 4-12 months. Those randomized to surgery were operated on a median of 3.1 weeks after enrollment, while those randomized to nonsurgical treatment received education on exercise, functioning, and the use of oral analgesics, as well as active physiotherapy and epidural glucocorticoid injections if needed.

At 6 months, the surgical group showed significantly lower visual analog scale scores for leg-pain intensity, compared with the nonsurgical group (2.8 vs. 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4; P < .001) and the difference persisted at 1 year (2.6 vs. 4.7).

In an editorial accompanying the study, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, MD, and James D. Kang, MD, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, described the results in this group of patients with persistent sciatica as “encouraging,” and suggested the improvement may be because the surgery achieves more rapid decompression of the compressed nerve.

“Patients in the current trial who were assigned to undergo surgery received the intervention relatively quickly, at a median of 3 weeks, and it is reasonable to conclude that expeditious removal of the nerve compression minimized the potential for long-term persistence of pain,” they wrote.

Among the 64 patients who were randomized to nonsurgical treatment, 22 (34%) crossed over to undergo surgery at a median of 11 months after enrollment in the study. These patients tended to be younger at baseline, and less likely to have an asymmetrical decrease in reflexes.

The intention-to-treat analysis found a similar rate of surgical adverse events in the group initially randomized to surgery and the group who crossed over to have surgery (6% vs. 8%). Two patients in the surgical group and one in the crossover group experienced superficial wound infections, while two patients in the crossover group and one in the surgical group experienced new-onset postoperative neuropathic pain. Two patients in the surgical group also had a recurrence of their herniation; one underwent further surgery for it 250 days after the initial procedure, and the other did not.

The secondary outcomes of the study were disability score, physical health, mental health, back pain intensity, satisfaction with treatment, and employment status. All these showed differences that favored the surgical intervention, but “the absence of a prespecified plan for adjustment for multiple comparisons does not allow for clinical inferences from secondary outcomes.”

The authors noted that some previous randomized trials have shown that surgery was better than conservative care among patients with lumbar disc herniation for the first 6 months, but those trials largely focused on patients who had had symptoms for less than 4 months at the time of the intervention. The results of these trials had also been mixed; some trials in patients with shorter duration of symptoms found little or no benefit of surgery over conservative care.

“The decision about whether to recommend discectomy or nonsurgical treatment in this population is controversial because a longer duration of symptoms has been correlated with a poorer outcome associated with lumbar discectomy in some studies,” they wrote. “However, patients may prefer to avoid surgery if they think that nonsurgical treatment could be successful or if they anticipate a risk from surgery.”

There was the risk for selection bias in the study, the authors said, because both surgeons and patients might have been less inclined to go with nonsurgical care in cases of more severe sciatic pain. However they said patients did not have the option of choosing to have surgery at the center outside the trial, which should have minimized that risk.

The authors of the editorial noted that while the study limited itself to patients who had had symptoms for 4-12 months, it didn’t account for other clinical factors that might impact the outcome of discectomy, such as the size of disc herniation or extent of nerve compression.

They also pointed out that questions still remained about which patients were more likely to benefit from immediate surgical intervention and how long nonsurgical care should be trialed before recommending surgery.

The study was supported by a grant from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation. None of the study authors reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Kang reported grants from Pfizer, personal fees from DePuy (Johnson & Johnson), nonfinancial support from Stryker, owning stock in ALung and Cardiorobotics, and serving on a scientific advisory board for OnPoint Surgical, outside the submitted work. Dr. Schoenfeld reported grants from the National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Defense, outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Bailey C et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1093-102.

Clinical question: How does infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in pregnant mothers affect their newborns?

Background: A novel coronavirus, now named SARS-CoV-2 by the World Health Organization (previously referred to as 2019-nCoV), is currently causing a worldwide pandemic. It is believed to have originated in Hubei province, China, but is now rapidly spreading in other countries. Although its effects are most severe in the elderly, SARS-CoV-2 has been infecting younger patients, including pregnant women. The effect of COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, in pregnant women on their newborn children, is unknown, as is the nature of perinatal transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Study design: Retrospective analysis.

Setting: Five hospitals in Hubei province, China.

Synopsis: Researchers retrospectively analyzed the clinical features and outcomes of 10 neonates (including two twins) born to nine mothers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in five hospitals in Hubei province, China, during Jan. 20–Feb. 5, 2020. The mothers were, on average, 30 years of age, but their prior state of health was not described. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in eight mothers by SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing (NAT). The twins’ mother was diagnosed with COVID-19 based on chest CT scan showing viral interstitial pneumonia with other causes of fever and lung infection being “excluded,” despite a negative SARS-CoV-2 NAT test.

• Before delivery in four mothers, three of whom were treated with oseltamivir (Tamiflu) after delivery.
• On the day of delivery in two mothers, one of whom was treated with oseltamivir and nebulized inhaled interferon after delivery.
• After delivery in three mothers.

Seven mothers delivered by cesarean section and two by vaginal delivery. Prenatal complications included intrauterine distress in six mothers, premature rupture of membranes in three (5-7 hours before onset of true labor), abnormal amniotic fluid in two, “abnormal” umbilical cord in two, and placenta previa in one.

The neonates born to these mothers included two females and eight males; four were full-term and six were premature (degree of prematurity not described). Symptoms first observed in these newborns included shortness of breath (six), fevers (two), tachycardia (one), and vomiting, feeding intolerance, “bloating,” refusing milk, and “gastric bleeding.” Chest radiographs were abnormal in seven newborns, including evidence of “infection” (four), neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (two), and pneumothorax (one). Two cases were described in detail:

• A neonate delivered at 34+5/7 weeks gestational age, was admitted due to shortness of breath and “moaning.” Eight days later, the neonate developed refractory shock, multiple organ failure, disseminated intravascular coagulation requiring transfusions of platelets, red blood cells, and plasma. He died on the ninth day.
• A neonate delivered at 34+6 weeks gestational age and was admitted 25 minutes after delivery due to shortness of breath and “moaning.” He required 2 days of noninvasive support/oxygen therapy and was observed to later develop “oxygen fluctuations” and thrombocytopenia at 3 days of life. The neonate was treated with “respiratory support,” intravenous immunoglobulin, transfusions of platelets and plasma, hydrocortisone (5 mg/kg per day for 6 days), low-dose heparin (2 units/kg per hr for 6 days), and low molecular weight heparin (2 units/kg per hr for 6 days). He was described to be “cured” 15 days later.

All nine neonates underwent pharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 NAT, and all were negative.

Bottom line: Although data are currently very limited, neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 appear to be at risk for adverse outcomes, including fetal distress, respiratory distress, thrombocytopenia associated with abnormal liver function, and death. There was no evidence of vertical transmission in this study.

Citation: Zhu H et al. Clinical analysis of 10 neonates born to mothers with 2019-nCoV pneumonia. Transl Pediatr. 2020 Feb;9(1):51-60.

Dr. Chang is chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital in Springfield, Mass., and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts, also in Springfield.

Clinical question: How does infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in pregnant mothers affect their newborns?

Background: A novel coronavirus, now named SARS-CoV-2 by the World Health Organization (previously referred to as 2019-nCoV), is currently causing a worldwide pandemic. It is believed to have originated in Hubei province, China, but is now rapidly spreading in other countries. Although its effects are most severe in the elderly, SARS-CoV-2 has been infecting younger patients, including pregnant women. The effect of COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, in pregnant women on their newborn children, is unknown, as is the nature of perinatal transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Study design: Retrospective analysis.

Setting: Five hospitals in Hubei province, China.

Synopsis: Researchers retrospectively analyzed the clinical features and outcomes of 10 neonates (including two twins) born to nine mothers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in five hospitals in Hubei province, China, during Jan. 20–Feb. 5, 2020. The mothers were, on average, 30 years of age, but their prior state of health was not described. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in eight mothers by SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing (NAT). The twins’ mother was diagnosed with COVID-19 based on chest CT scan showing viral interstitial pneumonia with other causes of fever and lung infection being “excluded,” despite a negative SARS-CoV-2 NAT test.

• Before delivery in four mothers, three of whom were treated with oseltamivir (Tamiflu) after delivery.
• On the day of delivery in two mothers, one of whom was treated with oseltamivir and nebulized inhaled interferon after delivery.
• After delivery in three mothers.

Seven mothers delivered by cesarean section and two by vaginal delivery. Prenatal complications included intrauterine distress in six mothers, premature rupture of membranes in three (5-7 hours before onset of true labor), abnormal amniotic fluid in two, “abnormal” umbilical cord in two, and placenta previa in one.

The neonates born to these mothers included two females and eight males; four were full-term and six were premature (degree of prematurity not described). Symptoms first observed in these newborns included shortness of breath (six), fevers (two), tachycardia (one), and vomiting, feeding intolerance, “bloating,” refusing milk, and “gastric bleeding.” Chest radiographs were abnormal in seven newborns, including evidence of “infection” (four), neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (two), and pneumothorax (one). Two cases were described in detail:

• A neonate delivered at 34+5/7 weeks gestational age, was admitted due to shortness of breath and “moaning.” Eight days later, the neonate developed refractory shock, multiple organ failure, disseminated intravascular coagulation requiring transfusions of platelets, red blood cells, and plasma. He died on the ninth day.
• A neonate delivered at 34+6 weeks gestational age and was admitted 25 minutes after delivery due to shortness of breath and “moaning.” He required 2 days of noninvasive support/oxygen therapy and was observed to later develop “oxygen fluctuations” and thrombocytopenia at 3 days of life. The neonate was treated with “respiratory support,” intravenous immunoglobulin, transfusions of platelets and plasma, hydrocortisone (5 mg/kg per day for 6 days), low-dose heparin (2 units/kg per hr for 6 days), and low molecular weight heparin (2 units/kg per hr for 6 days). He was described to be “cured” 15 days later.

All nine neonates underwent pharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 NAT, and all were negative.

Bottom line: Although data are currently very limited, neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 appear to be at risk for adverse outcomes, including fetal distress, respiratory distress, thrombocytopenia associated with abnormal liver function, and death. There was no evidence of vertical transmission in this study.

Citation: Zhu H et al. Clinical analysis of 10 neonates born to mothers with 2019-nCoV pneumonia. Transl Pediatr. 2020 Feb;9(1):51-60.

Dr. Chang is chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital in Springfield, Mass., and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts, also in Springfield.

Clinical question: How does infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in pregnant mothers affect their newborns?

Background: A novel coronavirus, now named SARS-CoV-2 by the World Health Organization (previously referred to as 2019-nCoV), is currently causing a worldwide pandemic. It is believed to have originated in Hubei province, China, but is now rapidly spreading in other countries. Although its effects are most severe in the elderly, SARS-CoV-2 has been infecting younger patients, including pregnant women. The effect of COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, in pregnant women on their newborn children, is unknown, as is the nature of perinatal transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Study design: Retrospective analysis.

Setting: Five hospitals in Hubei province, China.

Synopsis: Researchers retrospectively analyzed the clinical features and outcomes of 10 neonates (including two twins) born to nine mothers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in five hospitals in Hubei province, China, during Jan. 20–Feb. 5, 2020. The mothers were, on average, 30 years of age, but their prior state of health was not described. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in eight mothers by SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing (NAT). The twins’ mother was diagnosed with COVID-19 based on chest CT scan showing viral interstitial pneumonia with other causes of fever and lung infection being “excluded,” despite a negative SARS-CoV-2 NAT test.

• Before delivery in four mothers, three of whom were treated with oseltamivir (Tamiflu) after delivery.
• On the day of delivery in two mothers, one of whom was treated with oseltamivir and nebulized inhaled interferon after delivery.
• After delivery in three mothers.

Seven mothers delivered by cesarean section and two by vaginal delivery. Prenatal complications included intrauterine distress in six mothers, premature rupture of membranes in three (5-7 hours before onset of true labor), abnormal amniotic fluid in two, “abnormal” umbilical cord in two, and placenta previa in one.

The neonates born to these mothers included two females and eight males; four were full-term and six were premature (degree of prematurity not described). Symptoms first observed in these newborns included shortness of breath (six), fevers (two), tachycardia (one), and vomiting, feeding intolerance, “bloating,” refusing milk, and “gastric bleeding.” Chest radiographs were abnormal in seven newborns, including evidence of “infection” (four), neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (two), and pneumothorax (one). Two cases were described in detail:

• A neonate delivered at 34+5/7 weeks gestational age, was admitted due to shortness of breath and “moaning.” Eight days later, the neonate developed refractory shock, multiple organ failure, disseminated intravascular coagulation requiring transfusions of platelets, red blood cells, and plasma. He died on the ninth day.
• A neonate delivered at 34+6 weeks gestational age and was admitted 25 minutes after delivery due to shortness of breath and “moaning.” He required 2 days of noninvasive support/oxygen therapy and was observed to later develop “oxygen fluctuations” and thrombocytopenia at 3 days of life. The neonate was treated with “respiratory support,” intravenous immunoglobulin, transfusions of platelets and plasma, hydrocortisone (5 mg/kg per day for 6 days), low-dose heparin (2 units/kg per hr for 6 days), and low molecular weight heparin (2 units/kg per hr for 6 days). He was described to be “cured” 15 days later.

All nine neonates underwent pharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 NAT, and all were negative.

Bottom line: Although data are currently very limited, neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 appear to be at risk for adverse outcomes, including fetal distress, respiratory distress, thrombocytopenia associated with abnormal liver function, and death. There was no evidence of vertical transmission in this study.

Citation: Zhu H et al. Clinical analysis of 10 neonates born to mothers with 2019-nCoV pneumonia. Transl Pediatr. 2020 Feb;9(1):51-60.

Dr. Chang is chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital in Springfield, Mass., and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts, also in Springfield.

Swati Mehta, MD, recently was honored as the lone hospitalist on the National Executive Physician Council for Beryl Institute (Nashville, Tenn.). Only 24 total physicians were selected to the council. Dr. Mehta also was named the 2019 Distinguished Physician Award winner at Vituity (Emeryville, Calif.), where she is the executive director of quality and performance.

A nocturnist at Sequoia Hospital (Redwood City, Calif.), Dr. Mehta is a member of the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Patient Experience interest group.
 

Shannon Phillips, MD, SFHM, has been named to the National Quality Forum’s Board of Directors for 2020. The chief patient experience officer at Intermountain Healthcare (Salt Lake City, Utah), she also is a recent member of the Performance Measurement and Reporting Committee.

Dr. Phillips, whose focus at Intermountain is on catalyzing safety, quality, and experience of care, was named a 2018 Becker’s Hospital Review Hospital and Health System CXO to Know. Previously, she worked at the Cleveland Clinic, where she was its first patient safety officer and an associate chief quality officer.
 

Vineet Arora, MD, MHM, has been elected as a new member of the National Academy of Medicine, which honors pioneering scientific and professional achievements within the field.

An academic hospitalist at the University of Chicago, Dr. Arora specializes in improving the learning environment for her medical trainees, as well as maintaining a high level of quality, safety, and care for patients. She also is considered an expert in using social media and other new technology to enhance medical education.

The National Academy of Medicine stated that Dr. Arora’s honor was “for pioneering work to optimize resident fatigue and patient safety during long shifts.”
 

Edmondo Robinson, MD, SFHM, has been named senior vice president and chief digital innovation officer at Moffitt Cancer Center (Tampa, Fla.). The chief digital innovation officer position is a newly created position that the veteran physician has assumed. Dr. Robinson has 16 years’ experience in clinical and technological work.

In this new position, Dr. Robinson, a practicing academic hospitalist, will head Moffitt’s digital innovation while looking to create and test new services, programs, partnerships, and technologies.

Dr. Robinson comes to Moffitt after serving as chief transformation officer and senior vice president at ChristianaCare (Wilmington, Del.). A teacher at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, Dr. Robinson was the founding medical director of ChristianaCare Hospitalist Partners.
 

Relias Healthcare (Tupelo, Miss.) has begun providing hospitalist and emergency medicine services for North Mississippi Health Services’ Gilmore-Amory Trauma Center. Relias, a multistate company that has partnered with more than 150 providers, now has a role at four different North Mississippi Health Services facilities.

Mednax (Sunrise, Fla.) has added Arcenio Chacon and Associated Pediatricians of Homestead, a pediatric critical care and hospital practice, as an affiliate.

Chacon and Associated Pediatricians are based out of Miami and have served Baptist Health South Florida for more than 25 years. The four-physician practice provides critical care and pediatric hospitalist services at Baptist Children’s Hospital (Miami) and hospitalist services at Miami Cancer Institute and Homestead (Fla.) Hospital.

Mednax is a health solutions company that provides subspecialty service in all 50 states. Established in 1979, Mednax partners with hospitals, health systems, and health care facilities to offer clinical services, as well as revenue cycle management, patient engagement, and perioperative improvement consulting services.

Swati Mehta, MD, recently was honored as the lone hospitalist on the National Executive Physician Council for Beryl Institute (Nashville, Tenn.). Only 24 total physicians were selected to the council. Dr. Mehta also was named the 2019 Distinguished Physician Award winner at Vituity (Emeryville, Calif.), where she is the executive director of quality and performance.

A nocturnist at Sequoia Hospital (Redwood City, Calif.), Dr. Mehta is a member of the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Patient Experience interest group.
 

Shannon Phillips, MD, SFHM, has been named to the National Quality Forum’s Board of Directors for 2020. The chief patient experience officer at Intermountain Healthcare (Salt Lake City, Utah), she also is a recent member of the Performance Measurement and Reporting Committee.

Dr. Phillips, whose focus at Intermountain is on catalyzing safety, quality, and experience of care, was named a 2018 Becker’s Hospital Review Hospital and Health System CXO to Know. Previously, she worked at the Cleveland Clinic, where she was its first patient safety officer and an associate chief quality officer.
 

Vineet Arora, MD, MHM, has been elected as a new member of the National Academy of Medicine, which honors pioneering scientific and professional achievements within the field.

An academic hospitalist at the University of Chicago, Dr. Arora specializes in improving the learning environment for her medical trainees, as well as maintaining a high level of quality, safety, and care for patients. She also is considered an expert in using social media and other new technology to enhance medical education.

The National Academy of Medicine stated that Dr. Arora’s honor was “for pioneering work to optimize resident fatigue and patient safety during long shifts.”
 

Edmondo Robinson, MD, SFHM, has been named senior vice president and chief digital innovation officer at Moffitt Cancer Center (Tampa, Fla.). The chief digital innovation officer position is a newly created position that the veteran physician has assumed. Dr. Robinson has 16 years’ experience in clinical and technological work.

In this new position, Dr. Robinson, a practicing academic hospitalist, will head Moffitt’s digital innovation while looking to create and test new services, programs, partnerships, and technologies.

Dr. Robinson comes to Moffitt after serving as chief transformation officer and senior vice president at ChristianaCare (Wilmington, Del.). A teacher at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, Dr. Robinson was the founding medical director of ChristianaCare Hospitalist Partners.
 

Relias Healthcare (Tupelo, Miss.) has begun providing hospitalist and emergency medicine services for North Mississippi Health Services’ Gilmore-Amory Trauma Center. Relias, a multistate company that has partnered with more than 150 providers, now has a role at four different North Mississippi Health Services facilities.

Mednax (Sunrise, Fla.) has added Arcenio Chacon and Associated Pediatricians of Homestead, a pediatric critical care and hospital practice, as an affiliate.

Chacon and Associated Pediatricians are based out of Miami and have served Baptist Health South Florida for more than 25 years. The four-physician practice provides critical care and pediatric hospitalist services at Baptist Children’s Hospital (Miami) and hospitalist services at Miami Cancer Institute and Homestead (Fla.) Hospital.

Mednax is a health solutions company that provides subspecialty service in all 50 states. Established in 1979, Mednax partners with hospitals, health systems, and health care facilities to offer clinical services, as well as revenue cycle management, patient engagement, and perioperative improvement consulting services.

Swati Mehta, MD, recently was honored as the lone hospitalist on the National Executive Physician Council for Beryl Institute (Nashville, Tenn.). Only 24 total physicians were selected to the council. Dr. Mehta also was named the 2019 Distinguished Physician Award winner at Vituity (Emeryville, Calif.), where she is the executive director of quality and performance.

A nocturnist at Sequoia Hospital (Redwood City, Calif.), Dr. Mehta is a member of the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Patient Experience interest group.
 

Shannon Phillips, MD, SFHM, has been named to the National Quality Forum’s Board of Directors for 2020. The chief patient experience officer at Intermountain Healthcare (Salt Lake City, Utah), she also is a recent member of the Performance Measurement and Reporting Committee.

Dr. Phillips, whose focus at Intermountain is on catalyzing safety, quality, and experience of care, was named a 2018 Becker’s Hospital Review Hospital and Health System CXO to Know. Previously, she worked at the Cleveland Clinic, where she was its first patient safety officer and an associate chief quality officer.
 

Vineet Arora, MD, MHM, has been elected as a new member of the National Academy of Medicine, which honors pioneering scientific and professional achievements within the field.

An academic hospitalist at the University of Chicago, Dr. Arora specializes in improving the learning environment for her medical trainees, as well as maintaining a high level of quality, safety, and care for patients. She also is considered an expert in using social media and other new technology to enhance medical education.

The National Academy of Medicine stated that Dr. Arora’s honor was “for pioneering work to optimize resident fatigue and patient safety during long shifts.”
 

Edmondo Robinson, MD, SFHM, has been named senior vice president and chief digital innovation officer at Moffitt Cancer Center (Tampa, Fla.). The chief digital innovation officer position is a newly created position that the veteran physician has assumed. Dr. Robinson has 16 years’ experience in clinical and technological work.

In this new position, Dr. Robinson, a practicing academic hospitalist, will head Moffitt’s digital innovation while looking to create and test new services, programs, partnerships, and technologies.

Dr. Robinson comes to Moffitt after serving as chief transformation officer and senior vice president at ChristianaCare (Wilmington, Del.). A teacher at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, Dr. Robinson was the founding medical director of ChristianaCare Hospitalist Partners.
 

Relias Healthcare (Tupelo, Miss.) has begun providing hospitalist and emergency medicine services for North Mississippi Health Services’ Gilmore-Amory Trauma Center. Relias, a multistate company that has partnered with more than 150 providers, now has a role at four different North Mississippi Health Services facilities.

Mednax (Sunrise, Fla.) has added Arcenio Chacon and Associated Pediatricians of Homestead, a pediatric critical care and hospital practice, as an affiliate.

Chacon and Associated Pediatricians are based out of Miami and have served Baptist Health South Florida for more than 25 years. The four-physician practice provides critical care and pediatric hospitalist services at Baptist Children’s Hospital (Miami) and hospitalist services at Miami Cancer Institute and Homestead (Fla.) Hospital.

Mednax is a health solutions company that provides subspecialty service in all 50 states. Established in 1979, Mednax partners with hospitals, health systems, and health care facilities to offer clinical services, as well as revenue cycle management, patient engagement, and perioperative improvement consulting services.

Controversy continued over the potential effect of drugs that interfere with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system via the angiotensin-converting enzymes (ACE) may have on exacerbating infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

A joint statement from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America on March 17 gave full, unqualified support to maintaining patients on drugs that work this way, specifically the ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), which together form a long-standing cornerstone of treatment for hypertension, heart failure, and ischemic heart disease.

The three societies “recommend continuation” of ACE inhibitors or ARBs “for all patients already prescribed.” The statement went on to say that patients already diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection “should be fully evaluated before adding or removing any treatments, and any changes to their treatment should be based on the latest scientific evidence and shared decision making with their physician and health care team.”

“We understand the concern – as it has become clear that people with cardiovascular disease are at much higher risk of serious complications including death from COVID-19. However, we have reviewed the latest research – the evidence does not confirm the need to discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and we strongly recommend all physicians to consider the individual needs of each patient before making any changes to ACE-inhibitor or ARB treatment regimens,” said Robert A. Harrington, MD, president of the American Heart Association and professor and chair of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, in the statement.

“There are no experimental or clinical data demonstrating beneficial or adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients using ACE-inhibitor or ARB medications,” added Richard J. Kovacs, MD, president of the American College of Cardiology and professor of cardiology at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

The “latest research” referred to in the statement likely focuses on a report that had appeared less than a week earlier in a British journal that hypothesized a possible increase in the susceptibility of human epithelial cells of the lungs, intestine, kidneys, and blood vessels exposed to these or certain other drugs, like the thiazolidinedione oral diabetes drugs or ibuprofen, because they cause up-regulation of the ACE2 protein in cell membranes, and ACE2 is the primary cell-surface receptor that allows the SARS-CoV-2 virus to enter.

“We therefore hypothesize that diabetes and hypertension treatment with ACE2-stimulating drugs increases the risk of developing severe and fatal COVID-19,” wrote Michael Roth, MD, and his associates in their recent article (Lancet Resp Med. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600[20]30116-8). While the potential clinical impact of an increase in the number of ACE2 molecules in a cell’s surface membrane remains uninvestigated, the risk this phenomenon poses should mean that patients taking these drugs should receive heightened monitoring for COVID-19 disease, suggested Dr. Roth, a professor of biomedicine who specializes in studying inflammatory lung diseases including asthma, and associates.

However, others who have considered the impact that ACE inhibitors and ARBs might have on ACE2 and COVID-19 infections have noted that the picture is not simple. “Higher ACE2 expression following chronically medicating SARS‐CoV‐2 infected patients with AT1R [angiotensin receptor 1] blockers, while seemingly paradoxical, may protect them against acute lung injury rather than putting them at higher risk to develop SARS. This may be accounted for by two complementary mechanisms: blocking the excessive angiotensin‐mediated AT1R activation caused by the viral infection, as well as up-regulating ACE2, thereby reducing angiotensin production by ACE and increasing the production” of a vasodilating form of angiotensin, wrote David Gurwitz, PhD, in a recently published editorial (Drug Dev Res. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/ddr.21656). A data-mining approach may allow researchers to determine whether patients who received drugs that interfere with angiotensin 1 function prior to being diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection had a better disease outcome, suggested Dr. Gurwitz, a molecular geneticist at Tel Aviv University in Jerusalem.

The statement from the three U.S. cardiology societies came a few days following a similar statement of support for ongoing use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs from the European Society of Cardiology’s Council on Hypertension.

Dr. Harrington, Dr. Kovacs, Dr. Roth, and Dr. Gurwitz had no relevant disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Controversy continued over the potential effect of drugs that interfere with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system via the angiotensin-converting enzymes (ACE) may have on exacerbating infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

A joint statement from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America on March 17 gave full, unqualified support to maintaining patients on drugs that work this way, specifically the ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), which together form a long-standing cornerstone of treatment for hypertension, heart failure, and ischemic heart disease.

The three societies “recommend continuation” of ACE inhibitors or ARBs “for all patients already prescribed.” The statement went on to say that patients already diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection “should be fully evaluated before adding or removing any treatments, and any changes to their treatment should be based on the latest scientific evidence and shared decision making with their physician and health care team.”

“We understand the concern – as it has become clear that people with cardiovascular disease are at much higher risk of serious complications including death from COVID-19. However, we have reviewed the latest research – the evidence does not confirm the need to discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and we strongly recommend all physicians to consider the individual needs of each patient before making any changes to ACE-inhibitor or ARB treatment regimens,” said Robert A. Harrington, MD, president of the American Heart Association and professor and chair of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, in the statement.

“There are no experimental or clinical data demonstrating beneficial or adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients using ACE-inhibitor or ARB medications,” added Richard J. Kovacs, MD, president of the American College of Cardiology and professor of cardiology at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

The “latest research” referred to in the statement likely focuses on a report that had appeared less than a week earlier in a British journal that hypothesized a possible increase in the susceptibility of human epithelial cells of the lungs, intestine, kidneys, and blood vessels exposed to these or certain other drugs, like the thiazolidinedione oral diabetes drugs or ibuprofen, because they cause up-regulation of the ACE2 protein in cell membranes, and ACE2 is the primary cell-surface receptor that allows the SARS-CoV-2 virus to enter.

“We therefore hypothesize that diabetes and hypertension treatment with ACE2-stimulating drugs increases the risk of developing severe and fatal COVID-19,” wrote Michael Roth, MD, and his associates in their recent article (Lancet Resp Med. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600[20]30116-8). While the potential clinical impact of an increase in the number of ACE2 molecules in a cell’s surface membrane remains uninvestigated, the risk this phenomenon poses should mean that patients taking these drugs should receive heightened monitoring for COVID-19 disease, suggested Dr. Roth, a professor of biomedicine who specializes in studying inflammatory lung diseases including asthma, and associates.

However, others who have considered the impact that ACE inhibitors and ARBs might have on ACE2 and COVID-19 infections have noted that the picture is not simple. “Higher ACE2 expression following chronically medicating SARS‐CoV‐2 infected patients with AT1R [angiotensin receptor 1] blockers, while seemingly paradoxical, may protect them against acute lung injury rather than putting them at higher risk to develop SARS. This may be accounted for by two complementary mechanisms: blocking the excessive angiotensin‐mediated AT1R activation caused by the viral infection, as well as up-regulating ACE2, thereby reducing angiotensin production by ACE and increasing the production” of a vasodilating form of angiotensin, wrote David Gurwitz, PhD, in a recently published editorial (Drug Dev Res. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/ddr.21656). A data-mining approach may allow researchers to determine whether patients who received drugs that interfere with angiotensin 1 function prior to being diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection had a better disease outcome, suggested Dr. Gurwitz, a molecular geneticist at Tel Aviv University in Jerusalem.

The statement from the three U.S. cardiology societies came a few days following a similar statement of support for ongoing use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs from the European Society of Cardiology’s Council on Hypertension.

Dr. Harrington, Dr. Kovacs, Dr. Roth, and Dr. Gurwitz had no relevant disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Controversy continued over the potential effect of drugs that interfere with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system via the angiotensin-converting enzymes (ACE) may have on exacerbating infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

A joint statement from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America on March 17 gave full, unqualified support to maintaining patients on drugs that work this way, specifically the ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), which together form a long-standing cornerstone of treatment for hypertension, heart failure, and ischemic heart disease.

The three societies “recommend continuation” of ACE inhibitors or ARBs “for all patients already prescribed.” The statement went on to say that patients already diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection “should be fully evaluated before adding or removing any treatments, and any changes to their treatment should be based on the latest scientific evidence and shared decision making with their physician and health care team.”

“We understand the concern – as it has become clear that people with cardiovascular disease are at much higher risk of serious complications including death from COVID-19. However, we have reviewed the latest research – the evidence does not confirm the need to discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and we strongly recommend all physicians to consider the individual needs of each patient before making any changes to ACE-inhibitor or ARB treatment regimens,” said Robert A. Harrington, MD, president of the American Heart Association and professor and chair of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, in the statement.

“There are no experimental or clinical data demonstrating beneficial or adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients using ACE-inhibitor or ARB medications,” added Richard J. Kovacs, MD, president of the American College of Cardiology and professor of cardiology at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

The “latest research” referred to in the statement likely focuses on a report that had appeared less than a week earlier in a British journal that hypothesized a possible increase in the susceptibility of human epithelial cells of the lungs, intestine, kidneys, and blood vessels exposed to these or certain other drugs, like the thiazolidinedione oral diabetes drugs or ibuprofen, because they cause up-regulation of the ACE2 protein in cell membranes, and ACE2 is the primary cell-surface receptor that allows the SARS-CoV-2 virus to enter.

“We therefore hypothesize that diabetes and hypertension treatment with ACE2-stimulating drugs increases the risk of developing severe and fatal COVID-19,” wrote Michael Roth, MD, and his associates in their recent article (Lancet Resp Med. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600[20]30116-8). While the potential clinical impact of an increase in the number of ACE2 molecules in a cell’s surface membrane remains uninvestigated, the risk this phenomenon poses should mean that patients taking these drugs should receive heightened monitoring for COVID-19 disease, suggested Dr. Roth, a professor of biomedicine who specializes in studying inflammatory lung diseases including asthma, and associates.

However, others who have considered the impact that ACE inhibitors and ARBs might have on ACE2 and COVID-19 infections have noted that the picture is not simple. “Higher ACE2 expression following chronically medicating SARS‐CoV‐2 infected patients with AT1R [angiotensin receptor 1] blockers, while seemingly paradoxical, may protect them against acute lung injury rather than putting them at higher risk to develop SARS. This may be accounted for by two complementary mechanisms: blocking the excessive angiotensin‐mediated AT1R activation caused by the viral infection, as well as up-regulating ACE2, thereby reducing angiotensin production by ACE and increasing the production” of a vasodilating form of angiotensin, wrote David Gurwitz, PhD, in a recently published editorial (Drug Dev Res. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/ddr.21656). A data-mining approach may allow researchers to determine whether patients who received drugs that interfere with angiotensin 1 function prior to being diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection had a better disease outcome, suggested Dr. Gurwitz, a molecular geneticist at Tel Aviv University in Jerusalem.

The statement from the three U.S. cardiology societies came a few days following a similar statement of support for ongoing use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs from the European Society of Cardiology’s Council on Hypertension.

Dr. Harrington, Dr. Kovacs, Dr. Roth, and Dr. Gurwitz had no relevant disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Two histologically distinct “endotypes” of type 1 diabetes, T1DE1 and T1DE2, have been identified in children based on their age at diagnosis

The findings were published online March 15 in Diabetologia by Pia Leete, PhD, of the Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, UK, and colleagues.

The results suggest that the immune attack is far more aggressive and the islets more inflamed in the younger-onset group (T1DE1) and less intense in the older-onset group (T1DE2), the authors explain.

“We’re extremely excited to find evidence that type 1 diabetes is two separate conditions: T1DE1 and T1DE2. The significance of this could be enormous in helping us to understand what causes the illness and in unlocking avenues to prevent future generations of children from getting type 1 diabetes,” said senior author Noel G. Morgan, PhD, also of the University of Exeter, in a statement.

Morgan added that the discovery “might also lead to new treatments if we can find ways to reactivate dormant insulin-producing cells in the older age group. This would be a significant step towards the holy grail to find a cure for some people.”

Endotypes can inform immune interventions

The study involved an immunohistological analysis of proinsulin and insulin distribution in the islets of pancreas samples recovered from 19 youth who died soon after (<2 years) onset of type 1 diabetes and from 13 with onset more than 5 years prior to harvesting. Those results were compared with C-peptide and proinsulin measurements in 171 living individuals with type 1 diabetes of longer than 5 years duration.

The Exeter team has previously reported that the immune cell profiles in the inflamed islets of children younger than 7 years of age soon after the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes seem to be distinctly different for those in children aged 13 and older at diagnosis. The younger group at diagnosis (termed “T1DE1”) retained a lower proportion of insulin-containing islets than did the older-onset group (“T1DE2”).

Those aged 7-12 at diagnosis could belong to either group, but there was no continuum. Rather, they appeared to align distinctly with one or the other “endotype,” Leete and colleagues say.

In the new analysis, proinsulin processing was aberrant to a much greater degree among children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes prior to age 7 years than among those diagnosed after age 12 years, with the profiles of proinsulin processing correlating with the previously defined immune cell profiles.

For those aged 7-12, the proinsulin distribution in islets directly correlated with their immune phenotypes, either T1DE1 or T1DE2.

And among the living patients, circulating proinsulin:C-peptide ratios were elevated in the <7-year onset group compared with the ≥13-year group, even 5 years after diagnosis.

“Together, these data imply that, when considered alongside age at diagnosis, measurement of the ratio of proinsulin to C-peptide may represent a convenient biomarker to distinguish the endotypes defined here,” Leete and colleagues say.

The two-endotype proposal isn’t meant to suggest that “a simple dichotomy will ultimately be sufficient to account for the entire heterogeneity seen in people developing type 1 diabetes,” the authors stress. Rather, additional endotypes will likely be defined as more variables are considered.

They write, “Recognition of such differences should inform the design of future immunotherapeutic interventions designed to arrest disease progression.”

The research was sponsored by Diabetes UK and JDRF.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two histologically distinct “endotypes” of type 1 diabetes, T1DE1 and T1DE2, have been identified in children based on their age at diagnosis

The findings were published online March 15 in Diabetologia by Pia Leete, PhD, of the Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, UK, and colleagues.

The results suggest that the immune attack is far more aggressive and the islets more inflamed in the younger-onset group (T1DE1) and less intense in the older-onset group (T1DE2), the authors explain.

“We’re extremely excited to find evidence that type 1 diabetes is two separate conditions: T1DE1 and T1DE2. The significance of this could be enormous in helping us to understand what causes the illness and in unlocking avenues to prevent future generations of children from getting type 1 diabetes,” said senior author Noel G. Morgan, PhD, also of the University of Exeter, in a statement.

Morgan added that the discovery “might also lead to new treatments if we can find ways to reactivate dormant insulin-producing cells in the older age group. This would be a significant step towards the holy grail to find a cure for some people.”

Endotypes can inform immune interventions

The study involved an immunohistological analysis of proinsulin and insulin distribution in the islets of pancreas samples recovered from 19 youth who died soon after (<2 years) onset of type 1 diabetes and from 13 with onset more than 5 years prior to harvesting. Those results were compared with C-peptide and proinsulin measurements in 171 living individuals with type 1 diabetes of longer than 5 years duration.

The Exeter team has previously reported that the immune cell profiles in the inflamed islets of children younger than 7 years of age soon after the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes seem to be distinctly different for those in children aged 13 and older at diagnosis. The younger group at diagnosis (termed “T1DE1”) retained a lower proportion of insulin-containing islets than did the older-onset group (“T1DE2”).

Those aged 7-12 at diagnosis could belong to either group, but there was no continuum. Rather, they appeared to align distinctly with one or the other “endotype,” Leete and colleagues say.

In the new analysis, proinsulin processing was aberrant to a much greater degree among children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes prior to age 7 years than among those diagnosed after age 12 years, with the profiles of proinsulin processing correlating with the previously defined immune cell profiles.

For those aged 7-12, the proinsulin distribution in islets directly correlated with their immune phenotypes, either T1DE1 or T1DE2.

And among the living patients, circulating proinsulin:C-peptide ratios were elevated in the <7-year onset group compared with the ≥13-year group, even 5 years after diagnosis.

“Together, these data imply that, when considered alongside age at diagnosis, measurement of the ratio of proinsulin to C-peptide may represent a convenient biomarker to distinguish the endotypes defined here,” Leete and colleagues say.

The two-endotype proposal isn’t meant to suggest that “a simple dichotomy will ultimately be sufficient to account for the entire heterogeneity seen in people developing type 1 diabetes,” the authors stress. Rather, additional endotypes will likely be defined as more variables are considered.

They write, “Recognition of such differences should inform the design of future immunotherapeutic interventions designed to arrest disease progression.”

The research was sponsored by Diabetes UK and JDRF.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two histologically distinct “endotypes” of type 1 diabetes, T1DE1 and T1DE2, have been identified in children based on their age at diagnosis

The findings were published online March 15 in Diabetologia by Pia Leete, PhD, of the Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, UK, and colleagues.

The results suggest that the immune attack is far more aggressive and the islets more inflamed in the younger-onset group (T1DE1) and less intense in the older-onset group (T1DE2), the authors explain.

“We’re extremely excited to find evidence that type 1 diabetes is two separate conditions: T1DE1 and T1DE2. The significance of this could be enormous in helping us to understand what causes the illness and in unlocking avenues to prevent future generations of children from getting type 1 diabetes,” said senior author Noel G. Morgan, PhD, also of the University of Exeter, in a statement.

Morgan added that the discovery “might also lead to new treatments if we can find ways to reactivate dormant insulin-producing cells in the older age group. This would be a significant step towards the holy grail to find a cure for some people.”

Endotypes can inform immune interventions

The study involved an immunohistological analysis of proinsulin and insulin distribution in the islets of pancreas samples recovered from 19 youth who died soon after (<2 years) onset of type 1 diabetes and from 13 with onset more than 5 years prior to harvesting. Those results were compared with C-peptide and proinsulin measurements in 171 living individuals with type 1 diabetes of longer than 5 years duration.

The Exeter team has previously reported that the immune cell profiles in the inflamed islets of children younger than 7 years of age soon after the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes seem to be distinctly different for those in children aged 13 and older at diagnosis. The younger group at diagnosis (termed “T1DE1”) retained a lower proportion of insulin-containing islets than did the older-onset group (“T1DE2”).

Those aged 7-12 at diagnosis could belong to either group, but there was no continuum. Rather, they appeared to align distinctly with one or the other “endotype,” Leete and colleagues say.

In the new analysis, proinsulin processing was aberrant to a much greater degree among children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes prior to age 7 years than among those diagnosed after age 12 years, with the profiles of proinsulin processing correlating with the previously defined immune cell profiles.

For those aged 7-12, the proinsulin distribution in islets directly correlated with their immune phenotypes, either T1DE1 or T1DE2.

And among the living patients, circulating proinsulin:C-peptide ratios were elevated in the <7-year onset group compared with the ≥13-year group, even 5 years after diagnosis.

“Together, these data imply that, when considered alongside age at diagnosis, measurement of the ratio of proinsulin to C-peptide may represent a convenient biomarker to distinguish the endotypes defined here,” Leete and colleagues say.

The two-endotype proposal isn’t meant to suggest that “a simple dichotomy will ultimately be sufficient to account for the entire heterogeneity seen in people developing type 1 diabetes,” the authors stress. Rather, additional endotypes will likely be defined as more variables are considered.

They write, “Recognition of such differences should inform the design of future immunotherapeutic interventions designed to arrest disease progression.”

The research was sponsored by Diabetes UK and JDRF.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.