MDedge Rheumatology

Although the adverse effects of systemic glucocorticoids (GCs) are well known, their association with hypertension in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been unclear. Now, a large population-based study shows that the drugs are linked to a 17% overall increased risk for incident hypertension among patients with RA.

Further, when the researchers stratified participants by dose category, they found that doses higher than 7.5 mg were significantly associated with hypertension. Cumulative dosage was not tied to any clear pattern of risk.

The authors, led by Ruth E. Costello, a researcher at the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis in the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Manchester (England) concluded that patients who are taking these drugs for the treatment of RA should be monitored for high blood pressure, which is an important but modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, and treated appropriately.

The results of Ms. Costello and colleagues’ study were published June 27 in Rheumatology.

“While fractures associated with these steroid drugs are well studied, hypertension is a side effect that seems to have been less well studied, and yet it is an important cardiovascular risk factor that can be managed,” Ms. Costello said in an interview.

To better understand the possible association, Ms. Costello and colleagues identified 17,760 patients who were newly diagnosed with RA between 1992 and 2019 and were included in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which represents about 7% of the U.K. population. None of the patients had hypertension at initial RA diagnosis. Slightly more than two-thirds were women (68.1%), and the mean age was 56.3 years.

Of those patients, 7,421 (41.8%) were prescribed GCs during postdiagnosis follow-up. Most patients (73%) were followed for at least 2 years.

Patients who used GCs were slightly older than never-users (mean age, 57.7 vs. 55.3 years), were predominantly women, had a history of smoking, and had more comorbidities.

The overall incidence rate (IR) of hypertension was 64.1 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 62.5-65.7). There were 6,243 cases of incident hypertension over 97,547 person-years of follow-up.

Among those exposed to GCs, 1,321 patients developed hypertension, for an IR of 87.6 per 1,000 person-years. Among unexposed participants, the IR for hypertension was 59.7 per 1,000 person-years. In Cox proportional hazards modeling, GC use was associated with a 17% increased risk for hypertension (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24).

The researchers noted that 40% of GC users with hypertension were not prescribed an antihypertensive agent at any point during the study. “Whilst some may have been offered lifestyle advice, left untreated this has important implications in terms of addressing modifiable risk factors in an RA population already at increased risk of CV disease,” they wrote.

They noted that cardiovascular disease is a major driver of the elevated mortality risk seen among adults with RA compared with the general population and that recent treatment recommendations address management of cardiovascular risks in these patients.

“There are several routes by which GCs may promote cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, metabolic changes, diabetes, and weight gain. We don’t currently know the extent to which each of these individual mechanisms may be increasing cardiovascular disease,” said Ms. Costello.

“Glucocorticoids increase fluid retention and promote obesity and hypertension,” said Rajat S. Bhatt, MD, a rheumatologist at Prime Rheumatology and Memorial Hermann Katy Hospital in Richmond, Texas, who sees hypertension in GC users in his clinical practice. “So patients need to be monitored for these risk factors,” he said in an interview.

Although hypertension may be a significant factor in the increase in cardiovascular disease in the RA population, Dr. Bhatt said the major driver is likely the intrinsic inflammatory state caused by the disease itself. As to why the GC-hypertension connection has flown under the radar in RA, he added, “That specific link has been difficult to tease out since RA patients are often on multiple medications.”

In regard to the role of dosage, Dr. Bhatt said that hypertension risk increases with higher GC doses, as the U.K. study indicates, and usually subsides when patients stop using GCs.

“Whether the observed dose association is causal or influenced by the underlying disease severity, our results suggest we should be vigilant in patients on all doses of GC, especially higher doses,” Ms. Costello added.

In regard to using drugs that are less cardiotoxic than GCs, Dr. Bhatt said that there are clinical scenarios in which GC therapy is the best choice, so just switching to nonsteroidal drugs is no panacea. “All RA drugs have adverse side effects, and anyway, the goal of rheumatology treatment is always to get patients off corticosteroids as soon as possible,” he said.

Ms. Costello and colleagues noted that their results are consonant with earlier research, including a single-center, cross-sectional study in which less than 6 months’ use of prednisolone at a median dose of 7.5 mg was associated with hypertension. In a German registry study, among patients who received doses of less than 7.5 mg for less than 6 months, there were higher rates of self-reported elevations in blood pressure.

The findings are at odds, however, with a recent matched-cohort study, which also used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. That study found no association between GC use and hypertension.

GCs have come under increasing scrutiny in regard to several diseases. A study published July 7 found that even short-term courses of a few days’ duration entail risks for serious adverse events.

Ms. Costello’s group says that an estimate of GC-related incident hypertension in RA should allow more informed treatment decisions and that their findings highlight the ongoing need to monitor for and address this risk.

The study was supported by the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis and by the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Coauthor William G. Dixon, PhD, has received consultancy fees from Google and Bayer unrelated to this study. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: Costello RE et al. Rheumatology. 2020 June 27. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa209.

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

Although the adverse effects of systemic glucocorticoids (GCs) are well known, their association with hypertension in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been unclear. Now, a large population-based study shows that the drugs are linked to a 17% overall increased risk for incident hypertension among patients with RA.

Further, when the researchers stratified participants by dose category, they found that doses higher than 7.5 mg were significantly associated with hypertension. Cumulative dosage was not tied to any clear pattern of risk.

The authors, led by Ruth E. Costello, a researcher at the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis in the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Manchester (England) concluded that patients who are taking these drugs for the treatment of RA should be monitored for high blood pressure, which is an important but modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, and treated appropriately.

The results of Ms. Costello and colleagues’ study were published June 27 in Rheumatology.

“While fractures associated with these steroid drugs are well studied, hypertension is a side effect that seems to have been less well studied, and yet it is an important cardiovascular risk factor that can be managed,” Ms. Costello said in an interview.

To better understand the possible association, Ms. Costello and colleagues identified 17,760 patients who were newly diagnosed with RA between 1992 and 2019 and were included in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which represents about 7% of the U.K. population. None of the patients had hypertension at initial RA diagnosis. Slightly more than two-thirds were women (68.1%), and the mean age was 56.3 years.

Of those patients, 7,421 (41.8%) were prescribed GCs during postdiagnosis follow-up. Most patients (73%) were followed for at least 2 years.

Patients who used GCs were slightly older than never-users (mean age, 57.7 vs. 55.3 years), were predominantly women, had a history of smoking, and had more comorbidities.

The overall incidence rate (IR) of hypertension was 64.1 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 62.5-65.7). There were 6,243 cases of incident hypertension over 97,547 person-years of follow-up.

Among those exposed to GCs, 1,321 patients developed hypertension, for an IR of 87.6 per 1,000 person-years. Among unexposed participants, the IR for hypertension was 59.7 per 1,000 person-years. In Cox proportional hazards modeling, GC use was associated with a 17% increased risk for hypertension (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24).

The researchers noted that 40% of GC users with hypertension were not prescribed an antihypertensive agent at any point during the study. “Whilst some may have been offered lifestyle advice, left untreated this has important implications in terms of addressing modifiable risk factors in an RA population already at increased risk of CV disease,” they wrote.

They noted that cardiovascular disease is a major driver of the elevated mortality risk seen among adults with RA compared with the general population and that recent treatment recommendations address management of cardiovascular risks in these patients.

“There are several routes by which GCs may promote cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, metabolic changes, diabetes, and weight gain. We don’t currently know the extent to which each of these individual mechanisms may be increasing cardiovascular disease,” said Ms. Costello.

“Glucocorticoids increase fluid retention and promote obesity and hypertension,” said Rajat S. Bhatt, MD, a rheumatologist at Prime Rheumatology and Memorial Hermann Katy Hospital in Richmond, Texas, who sees hypertension in GC users in his clinical practice. “So patients need to be monitored for these risk factors,” he said in an interview.

Although hypertension may be a significant factor in the increase in cardiovascular disease in the RA population, Dr. Bhatt said the major driver is likely the intrinsic inflammatory state caused by the disease itself. As to why the GC-hypertension connection has flown under the radar in RA, he added, “That specific link has been difficult to tease out since RA patients are often on multiple medications.”

In regard to the role of dosage, Dr. Bhatt said that hypertension risk increases with higher GC doses, as the U.K. study indicates, and usually subsides when patients stop using GCs.

“Whether the observed dose association is causal or influenced by the underlying disease severity, our results suggest we should be vigilant in patients on all doses of GC, especially higher doses,” Ms. Costello added.

In regard to using drugs that are less cardiotoxic than GCs, Dr. Bhatt said that there are clinical scenarios in which GC therapy is the best choice, so just switching to nonsteroidal drugs is no panacea. “All RA drugs have adverse side effects, and anyway, the goal of rheumatology treatment is always to get patients off corticosteroids as soon as possible,” he said.

Ms. Costello and colleagues noted that their results are consonant with earlier research, including a single-center, cross-sectional study in which less than 6 months’ use of prednisolone at a median dose of 7.5 mg was associated with hypertension. In a German registry study, among patients who received doses of less than 7.5 mg for less than 6 months, there were higher rates of self-reported elevations in blood pressure.

The findings are at odds, however, with a recent matched-cohort study, which also used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. That study found no association between GC use and hypertension.

GCs have come under increasing scrutiny in regard to several diseases. A study published July 7 found that even short-term courses of a few days’ duration entail risks for serious adverse events.

Ms. Costello’s group says that an estimate of GC-related incident hypertension in RA should allow more informed treatment decisions and that their findings highlight the ongoing need to monitor for and address this risk.

The study was supported by the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis and by the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Coauthor William G. Dixon, PhD, has received consultancy fees from Google and Bayer unrelated to this study. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: Costello RE et al. Rheumatology. 2020 June 27. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa209.

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

Although the adverse effects of systemic glucocorticoids (GCs) are well known, their association with hypertension in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been unclear. Now, a large population-based study shows that the drugs are linked to a 17% overall increased risk for incident hypertension among patients with RA.

Further, when the researchers stratified participants by dose category, they found that doses higher than 7.5 mg were significantly associated with hypertension. Cumulative dosage was not tied to any clear pattern of risk.

The authors, led by Ruth E. Costello, a researcher at the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis in the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Manchester (England) concluded that patients who are taking these drugs for the treatment of RA should be monitored for high blood pressure, which is an important but modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, and treated appropriately.

The results of Ms. Costello and colleagues’ study were published June 27 in Rheumatology.

“While fractures associated with these steroid drugs are well studied, hypertension is a side effect that seems to have been less well studied, and yet it is an important cardiovascular risk factor that can be managed,” Ms. Costello said in an interview.

To better understand the possible association, Ms. Costello and colleagues identified 17,760 patients who were newly diagnosed with RA between 1992 and 2019 and were included in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which represents about 7% of the U.K. population. None of the patients had hypertension at initial RA diagnosis. Slightly more than two-thirds were women (68.1%), and the mean age was 56.3 years.

Of those patients, 7,421 (41.8%) were prescribed GCs during postdiagnosis follow-up. Most patients (73%) were followed for at least 2 years.

Patients who used GCs were slightly older than never-users (mean age, 57.7 vs. 55.3 years), were predominantly women, had a history of smoking, and had more comorbidities.

The overall incidence rate (IR) of hypertension was 64.1 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 62.5-65.7). There were 6,243 cases of incident hypertension over 97,547 person-years of follow-up.

Among those exposed to GCs, 1,321 patients developed hypertension, for an IR of 87.6 per 1,000 person-years. Among unexposed participants, the IR for hypertension was 59.7 per 1,000 person-years. In Cox proportional hazards modeling, GC use was associated with a 17% increased risk for hypertension (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24).

The researchers noted that 40% of GC users with hypertension were not prescribed an antihypertensive agent at any point during the study. “Whilst some may have been offered lifestyle advice, left untreated this has important implications in terms of addressing modifiable risk factors in an RA population already at increased risk of CV disease,” they wrote.

They noted that cardiovascular disease is a major driver of the elevated mortality risk seen among adults with RA compared with the general population and that recent treatment recommendations address management of cardiovascular risks in these patients.

“There are several routes by which GCs may promote cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, metabolic changes, diabetes, and weight gain. We don’t currently know the extent to which each of these individual mechanisms may be increasing cardiovascular disease,” said Ms. Costello.

“Glucocorticoids increase fluid retention and promote obesity and hypertension,” said Rajat S. Bhatt, MD, a rheumatologist at Prime Rheumatology and Memorial Hermann Katy Hospital in Richmond, Texas, who sees hypertension in GC users in his clinical practice. “So patients need to be monitored for these risk factors,” he said in an interview.

Although hypertension may be a significant factor in the increase in cardiovascular disease in the RA population, Dr. Bhatt said the major driver is likely the intrinsic inflammatory state caused by the disease itself. As to why the GC-hypertension connection has flown under the radar in RA, he added, “That specific link has been difficult to tease out since RA patients are often on multiple medications.”

In regard to the role of dosage, Dr. Bhatt said that hypertension risk increases with higher GC doses, as the U.K. study indicates, and usually subsides when patients stop using GCs.

“Whether the observed dose association is causal or influenced by the underlying disease severity, our results suggest we should be vigilant in patients on all doses of GC, especially higher doses,” Ms. Costello added.

In regard to using drugs that are less cardiotoxic than GCs, Dr. Bhatt said that there are clinical scenarios in which GC therapy is the best choice, so just switching to nonsteroidal drugs is no panacea. “All RA drugs have adverse side effects, and anyway, the goal of rheumatology treatment is always to get patients off corticosteroids as soon as possible,” he said.

Ms. Costello and colleagues noted that their results are consonant with earlier research, including a single-center, cross-sectional study in which less than 6 months’ use of prednisolone at a median dose of 7.5 mg was associated with hypertension. In a German registry study, among patients who received doses of less than 7.5 mg for less than 6 months, there were higher rates of self-reported elevations in blood pressure.

The findings are at odds, however, with a recent matched-cohort study, which also used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. That study found no association between GC use and hypertension.

GCs have come under increasing scrutiny in regard to several diseases. A study published July 7 found that even short-term courses of a few days’ duration entail risks for serious adverse events.

Ms. Costello’s group says that an estimate of GC-related incident hypertension in RA should allow more informed treatment decisions and that their findings highlight the ongoing need to monitor for and address this risk.

The study was supported by the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis and by the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Coauthor William G. Dixon, PhD, has received consultancy fees from Google and Bayer unrelated to this study. Dr. Bhatt has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: Costello RE et al. Rheumatology. 2020 June 27. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa209.

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

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emerging evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defining myocarditis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cardiac damage in the young

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

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

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

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

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

No proven therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emerging evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defining myocarditis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cardiac damage in the young

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

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

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

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

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

No proven therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emerging evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defining myocarditis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cardiac damage in the young

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

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

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

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

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

No proven therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Hands-off education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing the gaps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The road ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hands-off education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing the gaps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The road ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hands-off education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing the gaps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The road ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

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

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

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

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

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

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

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

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

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

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

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

Opioid and nonopioid prescription pain medications have taken different journeys since 2009, but they ended up in the same place in 2018, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

At least by one measure, anyway. Survey data from 2009 to 2010 show that 6.2% of adults aged 20 years and older had taken at least one prescription opioid in the last 30 days and 4.3% had used a prescription nonopioid without an opioid. By 2017-2018, past 30-day use of both drug groups was 5.7%, Craig M. Hales, MD, and associates said in an NCHS data brief.

“Opioids may be prescribed together with nonopioid pain medications, [but] nonpharmacologic and nonopioid-containing pharmacologic therapies are preferred for management of chronic pain,” the NCHS researchers noted.

The increase in prescription nonopioid use over the entire 10-year period managed to reach statistical significance, as did the short-term increase in nonopioids from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, but the 10-year trend for opioids was not significant, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Much of the analysis focused on 2015-2018, when 30-day use of any prescription pain medication was reported by 10.7% of adults aged 20 years and older, with use of opioids at 5.7% and nonopioids at 5.0%. For women, use of any pain drug was 12.6% (6.4% opioid, 6.2% nonopioid) from 2015 to 2018, compared with 8.7% for men (4.9%, 3.8%), Dr. Hales and associates reported.

Past 30-day use of both opioids and nonopioids over those 4 years was highest for non-Hispanic whites and lowest, by a significant margin for both drug groups, among non-Hispanic Asian adults, a pattern that held for both men and women, they said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Opioid and nonopioid prescription pain medications have taken different journeys since 2009, but they ended up in the same place in 2018, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

At least by one measure, anyway. Survey data from 2009 to 2010 show that 6.2% of adults aged 20 years and older had taken at least one prescription opioid in the last 30 days and 4.3% had used a prescription nonopioid without an opioid. By 2017-2018, past 30-day use of both drug groups was 5.7%, Craig M. Hales, MD, and associates said in an NCHS data brief.

“Opioids may be prescribed together with nonopioid pain medications, [but] nonpharmacologic and nonopioid-containing pharmacologic therapies are preferred for management of chronic pain,” the NCHS researchers noted.

The increase in prescription nonopioid use over the entire 10-year period managed to reach statistical significance, as did the short-term increase in nonopioids from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, but the 10-year trend for opioids was not significant, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Much of the analysis focused on 2015-2018, when 30-day use of any prescription pain medication was reported by 10.7% of adults aged 20 years and older, with use of opioids at 5.7% and nonopioids at 5.0%. For women, use of any pain drug was 12.6% (6.4% opioid, 6.2% nonopioid) from 2015 to 2018, compared with 8.7% for men (4.9%, 3.8%), Dr. Hales and associates reported.

Past 30-day use of both opioids and nonopioids over those 4 years was highest for non-Hispanic whites and lowest, by a significant margin for both drug groups, among non-Hispanic Asian adults, a pattern that held for both men and women, they said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Opioid and nonopioid prescription pain medications have taken different journeys since 2009, but they ended up in the same place in 2018, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

At least by one measure, anyway. Survey data from 2009 to 2010 show that 6.2% of adults aged 20 years and older had taken at least one prescription opioid in the last 30 days and 4.3% had used a prescription nonopioid without an opioid. By 2017-2018, past 30-day use of both drug groups was 5.7%, Craig M. Hales, MD, and associates said in an NCHS data brief.

“Opioids may be prescribed together with nonopioid pain medications, [but] nonpharmacologic and nonopioid-containing pharmacologic therapies are preferred for management of chronic pain,” the NCHS researchers noted.

The increase in prescription nonopioid use over the entire 10-year period managed to reach statistical significance, as did the short-term increase in nonopioids from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, but the 10-year trend for opioids was not significant, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Much of the analysis focused on 2015-2018, when 30-day use of any prescription pain medication was reported by 10.7% of adults aged 20 years and older, with use of opioids at 5.7% and nonopioids at 5.0%. For women, use of any pain drug was 12.6% (6.4% opioid, 6.2% nonopioid) from 2015 to 2018, compared with 8.7% for men (4.9%, 3.8%), Dr. Hales and associates reported.

Past 30-day use of both opioids and nonopioids over those 4 years was highest for non-Hispanic whites and lowest, by a significant margin for both drug groups, among non-Hispanic Asian adults, a pattern that held for both men and women, they said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Patients with interstitial lung disease–associated pulmonary hypertension who were treated with inhaled treprostinil (Tyvaso) had significantly greater improvement in exercise capacity over 16 weeks, compared with patients who used a placebo inhaler, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

Among 326 patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with interstitial lung disease (ILD), those who were randomly assigned to treatment with treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in 6-minute walk distance of 21 m (P = .004), reported Steven D. Nathan, MD, from Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va., on behalf of coinvestigators in the INCREASE study (NCT02630316).

“These results support an additional treatment avenue, and might herald a shift in the clinical management of patients with interstitial lung disease,” he said in the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

“This was an outstanding presentation and outstanding results. I personally am very excited, because this is a field where I work,” commented Martin Kolb, MD, PhD, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., the facilitator for the online presentation.

The INCREASE trial compared inhaled treprostinil dose four times daily with placebo in patients with a CT scan–confirmed diagnosis of World Health Organization group 3 PH within 6 months before randomization who had evidence of diffuse parenchymal lung disease. Eligible patients could have any form of ILD or combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema.

Key inclusion criteria included right-heart catheterization within the previous year with documented pulmonary vascular resistance greater than 3 Wood units, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 15 mm Hg or less, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure 25 mm Hg or higher.

Patients also had to have a 6-minute walk distance of at least 100 m and have stable disease while on an optimized dose of medications for underlying lung disease. Patients with group 3 connective tissue disease had to have baseline forced vital capacity of less than 70%.

The final study cohorts included patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, connective tissue disease, combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema, and occupational lung disease.

The patients were randomized to receive either inhaled treprostinil at a starting dose of 6 mcg/breath four times daily or to placebo (163 patients in each arm). All patients started the study drug at a dose of three breaths four times daily during waking hours. Dose escalations – adding 1 additional breath four times daily – were allowed every 3 days, up to a target dose of 9 breaths (54 mcg) four times daily, and a maximum of 12 breaths (72 mcg) four times daily as clinically tolerated.

A total of 130 patients assigned to treprostinil and 128 assigned to placebo completed 16 weeks of therapy and assessment.

As noted before, patients assigned to treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance, as measured by Hodges-Lehmann estimation, of 21 m (P = .004). An analysis of the same parameter using mixed model repeated measurement showed a placebo-corrected difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance of 31.12 m (P < .001).

Secondary endpoints that were significantly better with treprostinil, compared with placebo, included improvements in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a longer time to clinical worsening, and improvements in peak 6-minute walk distance week 12, and trough 6-minute walk distance at week 15.

Treprostinil was associated with a 39% reduction in risk of clinical worsening (P = .04). In all, 37 patients on treprostinil (22.7%) and 54 on placebo (33.1%) experienced clinical worsening.

For the exploratory endpoints of change in patient reported quality of life as measured by the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, or in peak distance saturation product, however, there were no significant differences between the groups.

In addition, treprostinil was associated with a 34% reduction the risk of exacerbation of underlying lung disease, compared with placebo (P = .03).

The safety profile of treprostinil was similar to that seen in other studies of the drug, and most treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 10% of patients on treprostinil and 8% on placebo.

Serious adverse events were seen in 23.3% and 25.8%, respectively. The most frequently occurring adverse events of any grade included cough, headache, dyspnea, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, throat irritation, and oropharyngeal pain.

There was no evidence of worsened oxygenation or lung function “allaying V/Q mismatch concerns,” Dr. Nathan said, and there was evidence for an improvement in forced vital capacity with treprostinil.

In the question-and-answer portion of the presentation, Dr. Kolb commented that many clinicians, particularly those who treated patients with ILD, question whether a 21-m difference in walk distance makes much of a difference in patient lives. He relayed a question from a viewer asking how Dr. Nathan and associates reconciled their primary endpoint with the finding that there was no difference in patient-reported quality of life.

“I think that the difference in the 6-minute walk test was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Nathan replied.

He noted that the primary endpoint used a stringent measure, and that less conservative methods of analysis showed a larger difference in benefit favoring treprostinil. He also pointed out that the original study of inhaled treprostinil added to oral therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a 20-m improvement in walk distance, and that these results were sufficient to get the inhaled formulation approved in the United States (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.027).

Regarding the failure to detect a difference in quality of life, he said that the study was only 16 weeks in length, and that the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was developed for evaluation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, “perhaps not the best instrument to use in an ILD PH study.”

The study was funded by United Therapeutics. Dr. Nathan disclosed advisory committee activity/consulting, research support, and speaker fees from the company. Dr. Kolb has previously disclosed financial relationships with various companies, not including United Therapeutics.

Patients with interstitial lung disease–associated pulmonary hypertension who were treated with inhaled treprostinil (Tyvaso) had significantly greater improvement in exercise capacity over 16 weeks, compared with patients who used a placebo inhaler, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

Among 326 patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with interstitial lung disease (ILD), those who were randomly assigned to treatment with treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in 6-minute walk distance of 21 m (P = .004), reported Steven D. Nathan, MD, from Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va., on behalf of coinvestigators in the INCREASE study (NCT02630316).

“These results support an additional treatment avenue, and might herald a shift in the clinical management of patients with interstitial lung disease,” he said in the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

“This was an outstanding presentation and outstanding results. I personally am very excited, because this is a field where I work,” commented Martin Kolb, MD, PhD, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., the facilitator for the online presentation.

The INCREASE trial compared inhaled treprostinil dose four times daily with placebo in patients with a CT scan–confirmed diagnosis of World Health Organization group 3 PH within 6 months before randomization who had evidence of diffuse parenchymal lung disease. Eligible patients could have any form of ILD or combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema.

Key inclusion criteria included right-heart catheterization within the previous year with documented pulmonary vascular resistance greater than 3 Wood units, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 15 mm Hg or less, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure 25 mm Hg or higher.

Patients also had to have a 6-minute walk distance of at least 100 m and have stable disease while on an optimized dose of medications for underlying lung disease. Patients with group 3 connective tissue disease had to have baseline forced vital capacity of less than 70%.

The final study cohorts included patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, connective tissue disease, combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema, and occupational lung disease.

The patients were randomized to receive either inhaled treprostinil at a starting dose of 6 mcg/breath four times daily or to placebo (163 patients in each arm). All patients started the study drug at a dose of three breaths four times daily during waking hours. Dose escalations – adding 1 additional breath four times daily – were allowed every 3 days, up to a target dose of 9 breaths (54 mcg) four times daily, and a maximum of 12 breaths (72 mcg) four times daily as clinically tolerated.

A total of 130 patients assigned to treprostinil and 128 assigned to placebo completed 16 weeks of therapy and assessment.

As noted before, patients assigned to treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance, as measured by Hodges-Lehmann estimation, of 21 m (P = .004). An analysis of the same parameter using mixed model repeated measurement showed a placebo-corrected difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance of 31.12 m (P < .001).

Secondary endpoints that were significantly better with treprostinil, compared with placebo, included improvements in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a longer time to clinical worsening, and improvements in peak 6-minute walk distance week 12, and trough 6-minute walk distance at week 15.

Treprostinil was associated with a 39% reduction in risk of clinical worsening (P = .04). In all, 37 patients on treprostinil (22.7%) and 54 on placebo (33.1%) experienced clinical worsening.

For the exploratory endpoints of change in patient reported quality of life as measured by the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, or in peak distance saturation product, however, there were no significant differences between the groups.

In addition, treprostinil was associated with a 34% reduction the risk of exacerbation of underlying lung disease, compared with placebo (P = .03).

The safety profile of treprostinil was similar to that seen in other studies of the drug, and most treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 10% of patients on treprostinil and 8% on placebo.

Serious adverse events were seen in 23.3% and 25.8%, respectively. The most frequently occurring adverse events of any grade included cough, headache, dyspnea, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, throat irritation, and oropharyngeal pain.

There was no evidence of worsened oxygenation or lung function “allaying V/Q mismatch concerns,” Dr. Nathan said, and there was evidence for an improvement in forced vital capacity with treprostinil.

In the question-and-answer portion of the presentation, Dr. Kolb commented that many clinicians, particularly those who treated patients with ILD, question whether a 21-m difference in walk distance makes much of a difference in patient lives. He relayed a question from a viewer asking how Dr. Nathan and associates reconciled their primary endpoint with the finding that there was no difference in patient-reported quality of life.

“I think that the difference in the 6-minute walk test was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Nathan replied.

He noted that the primary endpoint used a stringent measure, and that less conservative methods of analysis showed a larger difference in benefit favoring treprostinil. He also pointed out that the original study of inhaled treprostinil added to oral therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a 20-m improvement in walk distance, and that these results were sufficient to get the inhaled formulation approved in the United States (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.027).

Regarding the failure to detect a difference in quality of life, he said that the study was only 16 weeks in length, and that the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was developed for evaluation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, “perhaps not the best instrument to use in an ILD PH study.”

The study was funded by United Therapeutics. Dr. Nathan disclosed advisory committee activity/consulting, research support, and speaker fees from the company. Dr. Kolb has previously disclosed financial relationships with various companies, not including United Therapeutics.

Patients with interstitial lung disease–associated pulmonary hypertension who were treated with inhaled treprostinil (Tyvaso) had significantly greater improvement in exercise capacity over 16 weeks, compared with patients who used a placebo inhaler, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

Among 326 patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with interstitial lung disease (ILD), those who were randomly assigned to treatment with treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in 6-minute walk distance of 21 m (P = .004), reported Steven D. Nathan, MD, from Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va., on behalf of coinvestigators in the INCREASE study (NCT02630316).

“These results support an additional treatment avenue, and might herald a shift in the clinical management of patients with interstitial lung disease,” he said in the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

“This was an outstanding presentation and outstanding results. I personally am very excited, because this is a field where I work,” commented Martin Kolb, MD, PhD, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., the facilitator for the online presentation.

The INCREASE trial compared inhaled treprostinil dose four times daily with placebo in patients with a CT scan–confirmed diagnosis of World Health Organization group 3 PH within 6 months before randomization who had evidence of diffuse parenchymal lung disease. Eligible patients could have any form of ILD or combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema.

Key inclusion criteria included right-heart catheterization within the previous year with documented pulmonary vascular resistance greater than 3 Wood units, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 15 mm Hg or less, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure 25 mm Hg or higher.

Patients also had to have a 6-minute walk distance of at least 100 m and have stable disease while on an optimized dose of medications for underlying lung disease. Patients with group 3 connective tissue disease had to have baseline forced vital capacity of less than 70%.

The final study cohorts included patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, connective tissue disease, combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema, and occupational lung disease.

The patients were randomized to receive either inhaled treprostinil at a starting dose of 6 mcg/breath four times daily or to placebo (163 patients in each arm). All patients started the study drug at a dose of three breaths four times daily during waking hours. Dose escalations – adding 1 additional breath four times daily – were allowed every 3 days, up to a target dose of 9 breaths (54 mcg) four times daily, and a maximum of 12 breaths (72 mcg) four times daily as clinically tolerated.

A total of 130 patients assigned to treprostinil and 128 assigned to placebo completed 16 weeks of therapy and assessment.

As noted before, patients assigned to treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance, as measured by Hodges-Lehmann estimation, of 21 m (P = .004). An analysis of the same parameter using mixed model repeated measurement showed a placebo-corrected difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance of 31.12 m (P < .001).

Secondary endpoints that were significantly better with treprostinil, compared with placebo, included improvements in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a longer time to clinical worsening, and improvements in peak 6-minute walk distance week 12, and trough 6-minute walk distance at week 15.

Treprostinil was associated with a 39% reduction in risk of clinical worsening (P = .04). In all, 37 patients on treprostinil (22.7%) and 54 on placebo (33.1%) experienced clinical worsening.

For the exploratory endpoints of change in patient reported quality of life as measured by the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, or in peak distance saturation product, however, there were no significant differences between the groups.

In addition, treprostinil was associated with a 34% reduction the risk of exacerbation of underlying lung disease, compared with placebo (P = .03).

The safety profile of treprostinil was similar to that seen in other studies of the drug, and most treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 10% of patients on treprostinil and 8% on placebo.

Serious adverse events were seen in 23.3% and 25.8%, respectively. The most frequently occurring adverse events of any grade included cough, headache, dyspnea, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, throat irritation, and oropharyngeal pain.

There was no evidence of worsened oxygenation or lung function “allaying V/Q mismatch concerns,” Dr. Nathan said, and there was evidence for an improvement in forced vital capacity with treprostinil.

In the question-and-answer portion of the presentation, Dr. Kolb commented that many clinicians, particularly those who treated patients with ILD, question whether a 21-m difference in walk distance makes much of a difference in patient lives. He relayed a question from a viewer asking how Dr. Nathan and associates reconciled their primary endpoint with the finding that there was no difference in patient-reported quality of life.

“I think that the difference in the 6-minute walk test was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Nathan replied.

He noted that the primary endpoint used a stringent measure, and that less conservative methods of analysis showed a larger difference in benefit favoring treprostinil. He also pointed out that the original study of inhaled treprostinil added to oral therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a 20-m improvement in walk distance, and that these results were sufficient to get the inhaled formulation approved in the United States (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.027).

Regarding the failure to detect a difference in quality of life, he said that the study was only 16 weeks in length, and that the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was developed for evaluation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, “perhaps not the best instrument to use in an ILD PH study.”

The study was funded by United Therapeutics. Dr. Nathan disclosed advisory committee activity/consulting, research support, and speaker fees from the company. Dr. Kolb has previously disclosed financial relationships with various companies, not including United Therapeutics.