News

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch realized that until we have a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, we would be at the mercy of this virus. He realized that the fastest and most effective way to reduce COVID-19 fatalities would be to leverage existing drugs to treat patients at the onset of infection — before they become sick. A lack of funded research in this area prompted him to establish the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) with the purpose of funding outpatient clinical trials of promising repurposed drugs.

Medscape spoke with CETF’s chief medical advisor, Lisa Danzig, MD, about the organization’s aim to fund promising research on repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19.

What is CETF trying to do?

Two things: save lives, and get control of this pandemic.

We are facing perhaps the greatest crisis of our lifetime. Doctors who have taken care of patients with COVID are really frustrated about not having anything to offer; they just watch patients die. We want to change that. CETF was founded to find treatments that, when given early, could improve outcomes and avoid catastrophic complications in patients suffering from COVID-19. That means reducing hospitalizations, which can reduce mortality, but it also can mean reducing viral load, and that can have a profound impact on transmission within communities. We are a funding organization — a Band-Aid. We shouldn’t exist, but we do, aiming to close gaps until a coordinated response can get set up.

Tell us about drug repurposing and why you think existing drugs might have a role in mitigating COVID-19 or slowing its transmission.

This disease has two components — the viral infection, and the immunopathology. So the two promising categories of drugs are classical antivirals (or repurposed drugs with antiviral activity), and the immunomodulators. We are mechanism-agnostic. It doesn’t matter what kind of drug it is if it keeps people out of the hospital and prevents chronic morbidity and mortality.

Repurposed drugs are sort of the low-hanging fruit of clinical drugs. The QBI Coronavirus Research Group identified 69 compounds that have theoretical activity against SARS-CoV-2, 29 of which are already FDA-approved drugs. We thought, why don’t we start testing them?

Some people might call this a long shot. Does drug repurposing really work?

Drugmakers don’t test their drugs on every disease they might be effective for. Drug repurposing can work, but if we don’t look, we definitely won’t find anything. The classic repurposed drug is Viagra, a failed hypertension drug. When the studies ended because it didn’t work, the drug company asked patients to send back the unused drugs. The women all returned the drugs, but the men didn’t. And the rest is history.

There’s a long list of potential drugs that can be repurposed, but few are being tested. The famous poster child of a repurposed drug — hydroxychloroquine — has been the subject of more than 250 clinical trials, but the others weren’t getting much attention.

The beauty of a repurposed drug is that if you can get funding and start enrolling patients, you could potentially find out fairly quickly, as early as a few months, if that drug has an antiviral effect or not. These data would help prioritize drugs to be tested in larger confirmatory studies.

Your focus is on early treatment. What’s the rationale for that?

We are focusing on early treatment because it has been overlooked. The attention has been on vaccines and therapeutics for hospitalized patients. But if you are spending $20 billion on potential vaccines and billions more on diagnostics, we need to give proportional resources toward drugs that might actually work, when given early, in preventing severe disease and death.

Early treatment, if successful, would allow us to avoid the severe complications that we are seeing now. If we can find an early treatment with an existing drug, it would be the fastest, most clinically- and cost-effective way to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and get us on the road to recovery.

How do you get from a potential repurposed drug for COVID-19 to having a therapeutic agent that will save lives?

Most of the studies we are funding are smaller outpatient studies with virologic endpoints. We are looking for a signal that the drug has antiviral activity. We want to know whether a drug works before we spend the money on questions that take a much larger sample size to answer, for example, a big postexposure prophylaxis study. We’d like to see a meaningful signal in proof-of-concept studies, so we can look at a small group of patients with positive tests and see whether their viral load dropped by more than half if they got the drug compared with those who took the placebo. If the drug had an impact on the viral load and shortened the period of infectivity and was safe, these findings would provide justification to spend a lot of money on a large clinical trial. That would probably encourage the NIH and ACTIV [Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines] collaboration to prioritize the drug for one of their big platform trials. That›s what we are aiming for.

CETF isn’t a drug developer — we are a funder for a good proposal to study a repurposed drug. We want to help move the dial — can we get an early yes or an early no? In drug development, we say, “fail fast and fail early.” It’s a numbers game. Only 10% of early candidates will become approved drugs. The value is in the data, whether they are positive or negative — it doesn’t matter. If the study is a definitive “no,” that is just as helpful as a definitive “yes.” Of course, we all want the definitive “yes,” but there are so many things to look at, the “no’s” will help us redirect resources toward what may really help.

You first announced these funding opportunities in April. How is it going so far?

As soon as the website went up, we got 40 applications. Our scientific advisory board, which has expertise from medicinal chemistry and coronavirology to translational and clinical trial expertise, reviewed the applications and prioritized 11 fundable proposals. We are using milestone-based funding; in other words, funding those who are ready to go.

Which drugs are being tested in the funded studies?

One of the earliest grants we supported was Dr David Boulaware’s randomized controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine (NCT 04308668) in 821 asymptomatic patients within 4 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure. That trial did not show any benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19. This trial was important for another reason. It proved the feasibility of a no-contact trial design in the setting of COVID-19, and participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.

Camostat, a transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2) inhibitor licensed for use in Japan to treat pancreatitis and esophagitis, combined with the antiandrogen bicalutamide, is being explored for early COVID-19 treatment. TMPRSS2 primes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to bind to the ACE2 receptor and gain entry to the cell, and has been shown to have antiviral activity. CETF has provided funding support to ongoing trials of Camostat at Yale University and Aarhus University in Denmark.

Another outpatient trial for fluvoxamine, a drug approved in the United States and routinely prescribed for depression, was also partially funded by a CETF grant to Washington University in St. Louis. Fluvoxamine is a serotonin regulator but also activates the sigma-1 receptor, which reduces the body’s immune response to prevent an overactive immune response or cytokine storm, a major cause of clinical deterioration, serious organ damage, and even death from COVID. This trial was recently completed, and the results have been submitted for publication.

Other promising drugs include niclosamide, doxazosin, favipiravir, leronlimab, interferon beta, interferon lambda, and other monoclonal antibodies. New compounds considered to have potential against COVID include a flu drug (MK-4482/EIDD-2801) and GS-441524, a metabolite of the antiviral drug, remdesivir.

Why not just put all of our resources into vaccine development?

We absolutely need a vaccine to control the outbreak and stop the pandemic. However, it’s a long road to finding an effective vaccine, and in the meantime, we need tools to keep people alive. If we can find an antiviral drug that acts early, we can reduce transmission and contribute to outbreak control. All these tools help us get back to normal while we are waiting for a vaccine. The vaccine is only good if we can give it to every susceptible person in the world — which will take longer than 3 years. And there are no guarantees. Remember, we are still waiting for an HIV vaccine.

You are calling on Americans to help. What do you want them to do?

Everyone must participate in the behavioral changes designed to control the outbreak — physical distancing, face-covering, and paying attention to case counts in local areas to enable them to take appropriate precautions. I know people are bored of that message, but we are going to repeat it until we have a vaccine or herd immunity.

This organism is ripping like wildfire through our unimmunized population. Personal behaviors might slow it down, but finding a drug that can be given to people after they’ve been exposed and test positive will have a meaningful impact on helping us get back to normal.

There’s a great spirit of volunteerism — people are constantly asking how they can help. Through us at CETF, we offer three ways that people can help. They can participate as subjects in clinical trials, many of which are ongoing, including clinical trials, surveillance studies, and follow-up studies. They can donate to our fund and help support the research needed to find an effective early treatment. We have a link on our website, TreatEarly.org. And finally, researchers can apply for funding. We think everybody can help in one of these ways by participating in trials, donating, or applying for funding. It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment for our country.

Danzig is the chief medical advisor of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. She has spent more than 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry developing vaccines, diagnostics, and drugs and is currently advising companies and investors.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch realized that until we have a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, we would be at the mercy of this virus. He realized that the fastest and most effective way to reduce COVID-19 fatalities would be to leverage existing drugs to treat patients at the onset of infection — before they become sick. A lack of funded research in this area prompted him to establish the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) with the purpose of funding outpatient clinical trials of promising repurposed drugs.

Medscape spoke with CETF’s chief medical advisor, Lisa Danzig, MD, about the organization’s aim to fund promising research on repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19.

What is CETF trying to do?

Two things: save lives, and get control of this pandemic.

We are facing perhaps the greatest crisis of our lifetime. Doctors who have taken care of patients with COVID are really frustrated about not having anything to offer; they just watch patients die. We want to change that. CETF was founded to find treatments that, when given early, could improve outcomes and avoid catastrophic complications in patients suffering from COVID-19. That means reducing hospitalizations, which can reduce mortality, but it also can mean reducing viral load, and that can have a profound impact on transmission within communities. We are a funding organization — a Band-Aid. We shouldn’t exist, but we do, aiming to close gaps until a coordinated response can get set up.

Tell us about drug repurposing and why you think existing drugs might have a role in mitigating COVID-19 or slowing its transmission.

This disease has two components — the viral infection, and the immunopathology. So the two promising categories of drugs are classical antivirals (or repurposed drugs with antiviral activity), and the immunomodulators. We are mechanism-agnostic. It doesn’t matter what kind of drug it is if it keeps people out of the hospital and prevents chronic morbidity and mortality.

Repurposed drugs are sort of the low-hanging fruit of clinical drugs. The QBI Coronavirus Research Group identified 69 compounds that have theoretical activity against SARS-CoV-2, 29 of which are already FDA-approved drugs. We thought, why don’t we start testing them?

Some people might call this a long shot. Does drug repurposing really work?

Drugmakers don’t test their drugs on every disease they might be effective for. Drug repurposing can work, but if we don’t look, we definitely won’t find anything. The classic repurposed drug is Viagra, a failed hypertension drug. When the studies ended because it didn’t work, the drug company asked patients to send back the unused drugs. The women all returned the drugs, but the men didn’t. And the rest is history.

There’s a long list of potential drugs that can be repurposed, but few are being tested. The famous poster child of a repurposed drug — hydroxychloroquine — has been the subject of more than 250 clinical trials, but the others weren’t getting much attention.

The beauty of a repurposed drug is that if you can get funding and start enrolling patients, you could potentially find out fairly quickly, as early as a few months, if that drug has an antiviral effect or not. These data would help prioritize drugs to be tested in larger confirmatory studies.

Your focus is on early treatment. What’s the rationale for that?

We are focusing on early treatment because it has been overlooked. The attention has been on vaccines and therapeutics for hospitalized patients. But if you are spending $20 billion on potential vaccines and billions more on diagnostics, we need to give proportional resources toward drugs that might actually work, when given early, in preventing severe disease and death.

Early treatment, if successful, would allow us to avoid the severe complications that we are seeing now. If we can find an early treatment with an existing drug, it would be the fastest, most clinically- and cost-effective way to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and get us on the road to recovery.

How do you get from a potential repurposed drug for COVID-19 to having a therapeutic agent that will save lives?

Most of the studies we are funding are smaller outpatient studies with virologic endpoints. We are looking for a signal that the drug has antiviral activity. We want to know whether a drug works before we spend the money on questions that take a much larger sample size to answer, for example, a big postexposure prophylaxis study. We’d like to see a meaningful signal in proof-of-concept studies, so we can look at a small group of patients with positive tests and see whether their viral load dropped by more than half if they got the drug compared with those who took the placebo. If the drug had an impact on the viral load and shortened the period of infectivity and was safe, these findings would provide justification to spend a lot of money on a large clinical trial. That would probably encourage the NIH and ACTIV [Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines] collaboration to prioritize the drug for one of their big platform trials. That›s what we are aiming for.

CETF isn’t a drug developer — we are a funder for a good proposal to study a repurposed drug. We want to help move the dial — can we get an early yes or an early no? In drug development, we say, “fail fast and fail early.” It’s a numbers game. Only 10% of early candidates will become approved drugs. The value is in the data, whether they are positive or negative — it doesn’t matter. If the study is a definitive “no,” that is just as helpful as a definitive “yes.” Of course, we all want the definitive “yes,” but there are so many things to look at, the “no’s” will help us redirect resources toward what may really help.

You first announced these funding opportunities in April. How is it going so far?

As soon as the website went up, we got 40 applications. Our scientific advisory board, which has expertise from medicinal chemistry and coronavirology to translational and clinical trial expertise, reviewed the applications and prioritized 11 fundable proposals. We are using milestone-based funding; in other words, funding those who are ready to go.

Which drugs are being tested in the funded studies?

One of the earliest grants we supported was Dr David Boulaware’s randomized controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine (NCT 04308668) in 821 asymptomatic patients within 4 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure. That trial did not show any benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19. This trial was important for another reason. It proved the feasibility of a no-contact trial design in the setting of COVID-19, and participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.

Camostat, a transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2) inhibitor licensed for use in Japan to treat pancreatitis and esophagitis, combined with the antiandrogen bicalutamide, is being explored for early COVID-19 treatment. TMPRSS2 primes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to bind to the ACE2 receptor and gain entry to the cell, and has been shown to have antiviral activity. CETF has provided funding support to ongoing trials of Camostat at Yale University and Aarhus University in Denmark.

Another outpatient trial for fluvoxamine, a drug approved in the United States and routinely prescribed for depression, was also partially funded by a CETF grant to Washington University in St. Louis. Fluvoxamine is a serotonin regulator but also activates the sigma-1 receptor, which reduces the body’s immune response to prevent an overactive immune response or cytokine storm, a major cause of clinical deterioration, serious organ damage, and even death from COVID. This trial was recently completed, and the results have been submitted for publication.

Other promising drugs include niclosamide, doxazosin, favipiravir, leronlimab, interferon beta, interferon lambda, and other monoclonal antibodies. New compounds considered to have potential against COVID include a flu drug (MK-4482/EIDD-2801) and GS-441524, a metabolite of the antiviral drug, remdesivir.

Why not just put all of our resources into vaccine development?

We absolutely need a vaccine to control the outbreak and stop the pandemic. However, it’s a long road to finding an effective vaccine, and in the meantime, we need tools to keep people alive. If we can find an antiviral drug that acts early, we can reduce transmission and contribute to outbreak control. All these tools help us get back to normal while we are waiting for a vaccine. The vaccine is only good if we can give it to every susceptible person in the world — which will take longer than 3 years. And there are no guarantees. Remember, we are still waiting for an HIV vaccine.

You are calling on Americans to help. What do you want them to do?

Everyone must participate in the behavioral changes designed to control the outbreak — physical distancing, face-covering, and paying attention to case counts in local areas to enable them to take appropriate precautions. I know people are bored of that message, but we are going to repeat it until we have a vaccine or herd immunity.

This organism is ripping like wildfire through our unimmunized population. Personal behaviors might slow it down, but finding a drug that can be given to people after they’ve been exposed and test positive will have a meaningful impact on helping us get back to normal.

There’s a great spirit of volunteerism — people are constantly asking how they can help. Through us at CETF, we offer three ways that people can help. They can participate as subjects in clinical trials, many of which are ongoing, including clinical trials, surveillance studies, and follow-up studies. They can donate to our fund and help support the research needed to find an effective early treatment. We have a link on our website, TreatEarly.org. And finally, researchers can apply for funding. We think everybody can help in one of these ways by participating in trials, donating, or applying for funding. It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment for our country.

Danzig is the chief medical advisor of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. She has spent more than 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry developing vaccines, diagnostics, and drugs and is currently advising companies and investors.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch realized that until we have a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, we would be at the mercy of this virus. He realized that the fastest and most effective way to reduce COVID-19 fatalities would be to leverage existing drugs to treat patients at the onset of infection — before they become sick. A lack of funded research in this area prompted him to establish the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) with the purpose of funding outpatient clinical trials of promising repurposed drugs.

Medscape spoke with CETF’s chief medical advisor, Lisa Danzig, MD, about the organization’s aim to fund promising research on repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19.

What is CETF trying to do?

Two things: save lives, and get control of this pandemic.

We are facing perhaps the greatest crisis of our lifetime. Doctors who have taken care of patients with COVID are really frustrated about not having anything to offer; they just watch patients die. We want to change that. CETF was founded to find treatments that, when given early, could improve outcomes and avoid catastrophic complications in patients suffering from COVID-19. That means reducing hospitalizations, which can reduce mortality, but it also can mean reducing viral load, and that can have a profound impact on transmission within communities. We are a funding organization — a Band-Aid. We shouldn’t exist, but we do, aiming to close gaps until a coordinated response can get set up.

Tell us about drug repurposing and why you think existing drugs might have a role in mitigating COVID-19 or slowing its transmission.

This disease has two components — the viral infection, and the immunopathology. So the two promising categories of drugs are classical antivirals (or repurposed drugs with antiviral activity), and the immunomodulators. We are mechanism-agnostic. It doesn’t matter what kind of drug it is if it keeps people out of the hospital and prevents chronic morbidity and mortality.

Repurposed drugs are sort of the low-hanging fruit of clinical drugs. The QBI Coronavirus Research Group identified 69 compounds that have theoretical activity against SARS-CoV-2, 29 of which are already FDA-approved drugs. We thought, why don’t we start testing them?

Some people might call this a long shot. Does drug repurposing really work?

Drugmakers don’t test their drugs on every disease they might be effective for. Drug repurposing can work, but if we don’t look, we definitely won’t find anything. The classic repurposed drug is Viagra, a failed hypertension drug. When the studies ended because it didn’t work, the drug company asked patients to send back the unused drugs. The women all returned the drugs, but the men didn’t. And the rest is history.

There’s a long list of potential drugs that can be repurposed, but few are being tested. The famous poster child of a repurposed drug — hydroxychloroquine — has been the subject of more than 250 clinical trials, but the others weren’t getting much attention.

The beauty of a repurposed drug is that if you can get funding and start enrolling patients, you could potentially find out fairly quickly, as early as a few months, if that drug has an antiviral effect or not. These data would help prioritize drugs to be tested in larger confirmatory studies.

Your focus is on early treatment. What’s the rationale for that?

We are focusing on early treatment because it has been overlooked. The attention has been on vaccines and therapeutics for hospitalized patients. But if you are spending $20 billion on potential vaccines and billions more on diagnostics, we need to give proportional resources toward drugs that might actually work, when given early, in preventing severe disease and death.

Early treatment, if successful, would allow us to avoid the severe complications that we are seeing now. If we can find an early treatment with an existing drug, it would be the fastest, most clinically- and cost-effective way to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and get us on the road to recovery.

How do you get from a potential repurposed drug for COVID-19 to having a therapeutic agent that will save lives?

Most of the studies we are funding are smaller outpatient studies with virologic endpoints. We are looking for a signal that the drug has antiviral activity. We want to know whether a drug works before we spend the money on questions that take a much larger sample size to answer, for example, a big postexposure prophylaxis study. We’d like to see a meaningful signal in proof-of-concept studies, so we can look at a small group of patients with positive tests and see whether their viral load dropped by more than half if they got the drug compared with those who took the placebo. If the drug had an impact on the viral load and shortened the period of infectivity and was safe, these findings would provide justification to spend a lot of money on a large clinical trial. That would probably encourage the NIH and ACTIV [Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines] collaboration to prioritize the drug for one of their big platform trials. That›s what we are aiming for.

CETF isn’t a drug developer — we are a funder for a good proposal to study a repurposed drug. We want to help move the dial — can we get an early yes or an early no? In drug development, we say, “fail fast and fail early.” It’s a numbers game. Only 10% of early candidates will become approved drugs. The value is in the data, whether they are positive or negative — it doesn’t matter. If the study is a definitive “no,” that is just as helpful as a definitive “yes.” Of course, we all want the definitive “yes,” but there are so many things to look at, the “no’s” will help us redirect resources toward what may really help.

You first announced these funding opportunities in April. How is it going so far?

As soon as the website went up, we got 40 applications. Our scientific advisory board, which has expertise from medicinal chemistry and coronavirology to translational and clinical trial expertise, reviewed the applications and prioritized 11 fundable proposals. We are using milestone-based funding; in other words, funding those who are ready to go.

Which drugs are being tested in the funded studies?

One of the earliest grants we supported was Dr David Boulaware’s randomized controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine (NCT 04308668) in 821 asymptomatic patients within 4 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure. That trial did not show any benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19. This trial was important for another reason. It proved the feasibility of a no-contact trial design in the setting of COVID-19, and participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.

Camostat, a transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2) inhibitor licensed for use in Japan to treat pancreatitis and esophagitis, combined with the antiandrogen bicalutamide, is being explored for early COVID-19 treatment. TMPRSS2 primes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to bind to the ACE2 receptor and gain entry to the cell, and has been shown to have antiviral activity. CETF has provided funding support to ongoing trials of Camostat at Yale University and Aarhus University in Denmark.

Another outpatient trial for fluvoxamine, a drug approved in the United States and routinely prescribed for depression, was also partially funded by a CETF grant to Washington University in St. Louis. Fluvoxamine is a serotonin regulator but also activates the sigma-1 receptor, which reduces the body’s immune response to prevent an overactive immune response or cytokine storm, a major cause of clinical deterioration, serious organ damage, and even death from COVID. This trial was recently completed, and the results have been submitted for publication.

Other promising drugs include niclosamide, doxazosin, favipiravir, leronlimab, interferon beta, interferon lambda, and other monoclonal antibodies. New compounds considered to have potential against COVID include a flu drug (MK-4482/EIDD-2801) and GS-441524, a metabolite of the antiviral drug, remdesivir.

Why not just put all of our resources into vaccine development?

We absolutely need a vaccine to control the outbreak and stop the pandemic. However, it’s a long road to finding an effective vaccine, and in the meantime, we need tools to keep people alive. If we can find an antiviral drug that acts early, we can reduce transmission and contribute to outbreak control. All these tools help us get back to normal while we are waiting for a vaccine. The vaccine is only good if we can give it to every susceptible person in the world — which will take longer than 3 years. And there are no guarantees. Remember, we are still waiting for an HIV vaccine.

You are calling on Americans to help. What do you want them to do?

Everyone must participate in the behavioral changes designed to control the outbreak — physical distancing, face-covering, and paying attention to case counts in local areas to enable them to take appropriate precautions. I know people are bored of that message, but we are going to repeat it until we have a vaccine or herd immunity.

This organism is ripping like wildfire through our unimmunized population. Personal behaviors might slow it down, but finding a drug that can be given to people after they’ve been exposed and test positive will have a meaningful impact on helping us get back to normal.

There’s a great spirit of volunteerism — people are constantly asking how they can help. Through us at CETF, we offer three ways that people can help. They can participate as subjects in clinical trials, many of which are ongoing, including clinical trials, surveillance studies, and follow-up studies. They can donate to our fund and help support the research needed to find an effective early treatment. We have a link on our website, TreatEarly.org. And finally, researchers can apply for funding. We think everybody can help in one of these ways by participating in trials, donating, or applying for funding. It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment for our country.

Danzig is the chief medical advisor of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. She has spent more than 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry developing vaccines, diagnostics, and drugs and is currently advising companies and investors.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome caused by COVID-19 typically seem to avoid coronary artery dilation early on, but they may be prone to cardiac injury and dysfunction longer term that requires a more discerning diagnostic approach to sort out.

The findings were revealed in a study of 28 children with COVID-19–related multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The study reported that cardiac injury and dysfunction are common in these patients – even those who have preserved ejection fraction – and that diastolic dysfunction is persistent. For comparison, the study also included 20 healthy controls and 20 patients with classic Kawasaki disease (KD).

The study analyzed echocardiography findings in the patients, reporting left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function were worse than in classic Kawasaki disease (KD), which MIS-C mimics. Lead author Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported that four markers – LV global longitudinal strain, LV circumferential strain rate, right ventricular strain, and left atrial strain – were the strongest predictors of myocardial injury in these patients. After the acute phase, systolic function tended to recover, but diastolic dysfunction persisted.
 

‘Strain’ measurement boosts accuracy

While echocardiography has been reported to be valuable in evaluating coronary artery function in MIS-C patients, Dr. Matsubara of the division of cardiology at CHOP, said in an interview that study is the first to use the newer echocardiography indexes, known as “strain,” to assess heart function.

“Strain is a more sensitive tool than more conventional indexes and can detect subtle decrease in heart function, even when ejection fraction is preserved,” he said. “Numerous publications have reached conclusions that strain improves the prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography in a wide variety of cardiac pathologies causing LV dysfunction.”

Dr. Matsubara noted that the coronary arteries were mostly unaffected in the acute stage of MIS-C, as only one patient in their MIS-C cohort had coronary artery involvement, which normalized during early follow-up. “On the other hand, 20% of our classic KD patients had coronary abnormalities, including two with aneurysms.”

By using positive troponin I or elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) to assess cardiac injury, they found a “high” (60%) incidence of myocardial injury in their MIS-C cohort. During early follow-up, most of the MIS-C patients showed normalization of systolic function, although diastolic dysfunction persisted.

When compared with the classic KD group, MIS-C patients had higher rates of mitral regurgitation (46% vs. 15%, P = .06), more pericardial effusion (32% vs. 15%, P = 0.46), and more pleural effusion (39% vs. 0%, P = .004). MIS-C patients with suspected myocardial injury show these findings more frequently than those with actual myocardial injury.

Compared with the healthy controls, the MIS-C patients showed both LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction as well as significantly lower left atrium (LA) strain and peak right ventricle (RV) free-wall longitudinal strain.

“In addition to the left ventricle, two other chambers of the heart, the LA and the RV that are often labeled as the ‘forgotten chambers’ of the heart, were also affected by MIS-C,” Dr. Matsubara said. “Both LA and RV strains were markedly reduced in MIS-C patients, compared to normal and KD patients.”

The study also indicates that elevated troponin I levels may not be as dire in children as they are in adults. Dr. Matsubara cited a study of more than 2,700 adult COVID-19 patients that found that even mild increases in troponin I level were associated with increased death during hospitalization (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:533-46).

However, most of the patients in the CHOP study, even those with elevated troponin I levels, recovered systolic function quickly. “We speculate that the elevation in cardiac troponins may have less dire implications in children, likely due to a more transient type of cardiac injury and less comorbidities in children,” he said. “Clearly further studies are needed before a definitive statement can be made.”

Dr. Matsubara added that recovered COVID-19 patients may be able to participate in sports as some schools reopen. “We are not saying restrict sport participation, but we are merely urging caution.”

Comprehensive LV evaluation needed

The findings reinforce that myocardial involvement is more frequent and sometimes more severe in MIS-C than previously thought, said Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital. “We are underestimating it by using just traditional measures like ejection fraction. It requires a comprehensive evaluation of left ventricular function; it really affects all aspects of the ventricle, both the systolic function and the diastolic function.”

This study supports that MIS-C patients should have a more detailed analysis than EF on echocardiography, including strain imaging. “Probably these patients should all be followed at centers where they can evaluate a more detailed analysis of the LV and RV function,” he said. Patients with ongoing CA enlargement and LV dysfunction should have follow-up cardiac care indefinitely. Patients who have no cardiac symptoms during the acute phase probably don’t need long-term follow-up.

“We’re just trying to learn more about this disease, and it’s certainly concerning that so many kids are having cardiac involvement,” Dr. Friedman said. “Fortunately they’re getting better; we’re just trying to find out what this means for the long term.”

Dr. Matsubara and Dr. Friedman have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Matsubara D et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.056.

Patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome caused by COVID-19 typically seem to avoid coronary artery dilation early on, but they may be prone to cardiac injury and dysfunction longer term that requires a more discerning diagnostic approach to sort out.

The findings were revealed in a study of 28 children with COVID-19–related multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The study reported that cardiac injury and dysfunction are common in these patients – even those who have preserved ejection fraction – and that diastolic dysfunction is persistent. For comparison, the study also included 20 healthy controls and 20 patients with classic Kawasaki disease (KD).

The study analyzed echocardiography findings in the patients, reporting left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function were worse than in classic Kawasaki disease (KD), which MIS-C mimics. Lead author Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported that four markers – LV global longitudinal strain, LV circumferential strain rate, right ventricular strain, and left atrial strain – were the strongest predictors of myocardial injury in these patients. After the acute phase, systolic function tended to recover, but diastolic dysfunction persisted.
 

‘Strain’ measurement boosts accuracy

While echocardiography has been reported to be valuable in evaluating coronary artery function in MIS-C patients, Dr. Matsubara of the division of cardiology at CHOP, said in an interview that study is the first to use the newer echocardiography indexes, known as “strain,” to assess heart function.

“Strain is a more sensitive tool than more conventional indexes and can detect subtle decrease in heart function, even when ejection fraction is preserved,” he said. “Numerous publications have reached conclusions that strain improves the prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography in a wide variety of cardiac pathologies causing LV dysfunction.”

Dr. Matsubara noted that the coronary arteries were mostly unaffected in the acute stage of MIS-C, as only one patient in their MIS-C cohort had coronary artery involvement, which normalized during early follow-up. “On the other hand, 20% of our classic KD patients had coronary abnormalities, including two with aneurysms.”

By using positive troponin I or elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) to assess cardiac injury, they found a “high” (60%) incidence of myocardial injury in their MIS-C cohort. During early follow-up, most of the MIS-C patients showed normalization of systolic function, although diastolic dysfunction persisted.

When compared with the classic KD group, MIS-C patients had higher rates of mitral regurgitation (46% vs. 15%, P = .06), more pericardial effusion (32% vs. 15%, P = 0.46), and more pleural effusion (39% vs. 0%, P = .004). MIS-C patients with suspected myocardial injury show these findings more frequently than those with actual myocardial injury.

Compared with the healthy controls, the MIS-C patients showed both LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction as well as significantly lower left atrium (LA) strain and peak right ventricle (RV) free-wall longitudinal strain.

“In addition to the left ventricle, two other chambers of the heart, the LA and the RV that are often labeled as the ‘forgotten chambers’ of the heart, were also affected by MIS-C,” Dr. Matsubara said. “Both LA and RV strains were markedly reduced in MIS-C patients, compared to normal and KD patients.”

The study also indicates that elevated troponin I levels may not be as dire in children as they are in adults. Dr. Matsubara cited a study of more than 2,700 adult COVID-19 patients that found that even mild increases in troponin I level were associated with increased death during hospitalization (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:533-46).

However, most of the patients in the CHOP study, even those with elevated troponin I levels, recovered systolic function quickly. “We speculate that the elevation in cardiac troponins may have less dire implications in children, likely due to a more transient type of cardiac injury and less comorbidities in children,” he said. “Clearly further studies are needed before a definitive statement can be made.”

Dr. Matsubara added that recovered COVID-19 patients may be able to participate in sports as some schools reopen. “We are not saying restrict sport participation, but we are merely urging caution.”

Comprehensive LV evaluation needed

The findings reinforce that myocardial involvement is more frequent and sometimes more severe in MIS-C than previously thought, said Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital. “We are underestimating it by using just traditional measures like ejection fraction. It requires a comprehensive evaluation of left ventricular function; it really affects all aspects of the ventricle, both the systolic function and the diastolic function.”

This study supports that MIS-C patients should have a more detailed analysis than EF on echocardiography, including strain imaging. “Probably these patients should all be followed at centers where they can evaluate a more detailed analysis of the LV and RV function,” he said. Patients with ongoing CA enlargement and LV dysfunction should have follow-up cardiac care indefinitely. Patients who have no cardiac symptoms during the acute phase probably don’t need long-term follow-up.

“We’re just trying to learn more about this disease, and it’s certainly concerning that so many kids are having cardiac involvement,” Dr. Friedman said. “Fortunately they’re getting better; we’re just trying to find out what this means for the long term.”

Dr. Matsubara and Dr. Friedman have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Matsubara D et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.056.

Patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome caused by COVID-19 typically seem to avoid coronary artery dilation early on, but they may be prone to cardiac injury and dysfunction longer term that requires a more discerning diagnostic approach to sort out.

The findings were revealed in a study of 28 children with COVID-19–related multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The study reported that cardiac injury and dysfunction are common in these patients – even those who have preserved ejection fraction – and that diastolic dysfunction is persistent. For comparison, the study also included 20 healthy controls and 20 patients with classic Kawasaki disease (KD).

The study analyzed echocardiography findings in the patients, reporting left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function were worse than in classic Kawasaki disease (KD), which MIS-C mimics. Lead author Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported that four markers – LV global longitudinal strain, LV circumferential strain rate, right ventricular strain, and left atrial strain – were the strongest predictors of myocardial injury in these patients. After the acute phase, systolic function tended to recover, but diastolic dysfunction persisted.
 

‘Strain’ measurement boosts accuracy

While echocardiography has been reported to be valuable in evaluating coronary artery function in MIS-C patients, Dr. Matsubara of the division of cardiology at CHOP, said in an interview that study is the first to use the newer echocardiography indexes, known as “strain,” to assess heart function.

“Strain is a more sensitive tool than more conventional indexes and can detect subtle decrease in heart function, even when ejection fraction is preserved,” he said. “Numerous publications have reached conclusions that strain improves the prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography in a wide variety of cardiac pathologies causing LV dysfunction.”

Dr. Matsubara noted that the coronary arteries were mostly unaffected in the acute stage of MIS-C, as only one patient in their MIS-C cohort had coronary artery involvement, which normalized during early follow-up. “On the other hand, 20% of our classic KD patients had coronary abnormalities, including two with aneurysms.”

By using positive troponin I or elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) to assess cardiac injury, they found a “high” (60%) incidence of myocardial injury in their MIS-C cohort. During early follow-up, most of the MIS-C patients showed normalization of systolic function, although diastolic dysfunction persisted.

When compared with the classic KD group, MIS-C patients had higher rates of mitral regurgitation (46% vs. 15%, P = .06), more pericardial effusion (32% vs. 15%, P = 0.46), and more pleural effusion (39% vs. 0%, P = .004). MIS-C patients with suspected myocardial injury show these findings more frequently than those with actual myocardial injury.

Compared with the healthy controls, the MIS-C patients showed both LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction as well as significantly lower left atrium (LA) strain and peak right ventricle (RV) free-wall longitudinal strain.

“In addition to the left ventricle, two other chambers of the heart, the LA and the RV that are often labeled as the ‘forgotten chambers’ of the heart, were also affected by MIS-C,” Dr. Matsubara said. “Both LA and RV strains were markedly reduced in MIS-C patients, compared to normal and KD patients.”

The study also indicates that elevated troponin I levels may not be as dire in children as they are in adults. Dr. Matsubara cited a study of more than 2,700 adult COVID-19 patients that found that even mild increases in troponin I level were associated with increased death during hospitalization (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:533-46).

However, most of the patients in the CHOP study, even those with elevated troponin I levels, recovered systolic function quickly. “We speculate that the elevation in cardiac troponins may have less dire implications in children, likely due to a more transient type of cardiac injury and less comorbidities in children,” he said. “Clearly further studies are needed before a definitive statement can be made.”

Dr. Matsubara added that recovered COVID-19 patients may be able to participate in sports as some schools reopen. “We are not saying restrict sport participation, but we are merely urging caution.”

Comprehensive LV evaluation needed

The findings reinforce that myocardial involvement is more frequent and sometimes more severe in MIS-C than previously thought, said Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital. “We are underestimating it by using just traditional measures like ejection fraction. It requires a comprehensive evaluation of left ventricular function; it really affects all aspects of the ventricle, both the systolic function and the diastolic function.”

This study supports that MIS-C patients should have a more detailed analysis than EF on echocardiography, including strain imaging. “Probably these patients should all be followed at centers where they can evaluate a more detailed analysis of the LV and RV function,” he said. Patients with ongoing CA enlargement and LV dysfunction should have follow-up cardiac care indefinitely. Patients who have no cardiac symptoms during the acute phase probably don’t need long-term follow-up.

“We’re just trying to learn more about this disease, and it’s certainly concerning that so many kids are having cardiac involvement,” Dr. Friedman said. “Fortunately they’re getting better; we’re just trying to find out what this means for the long term.”

Dr. Matsubara and Dr. Friedman have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Matsubara D et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.056.

The immune system overactivation known as a “cytokine storm” does not play a major role in more severe COVID-19 outcomes, according to unexpected findings in new research. The findings stand in direct contrast to many previous reports.

“We were indeed surprised by the results of our study,” senior study author Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

In a unique approach, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues compared cytokine levels in critically ill people with COVID-19 with those in patients with bacterial sepsis, trauma, and after cardiac arrest.

“For the first time, we measured the cytokines in different diseases using the same methods. Our results convincingly show that the circulating cytokine concentrations are not higher, but lower, compared to other diseases,” said Dr. Pickkers, who is affiliated with the department of intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The team’s research was published online on Sept. 3 in a letter in JAMA.
 

Cytokines lower than expected

Normally, cytokines trigger inflammation and promote healing after trauma, infection, or other conditions.

Although a cytokine storm remains ill defined, the authors noted, many researchers have implicated a hyperinflammatory response involving these small proteins in the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

The question remains, however, whether all cytokine storms strike people with different conditions the same way.

Dr. Pickkers, lead author Matthijs Kox, PhD, and colleagues studied 46 people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were admitted to the ICU at Radboud University Medical Center. All participants underwent mechanical ventilation and were treated between March 11 and April 27, 2020.

The investigators measured plasma levels of cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-6, and IL-8. They compared results in this group with those in 51 patients who experienced septic shock and ARDS, 15 patients with septic shock without ARDS, 30 people with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 62 people who experienced multiple traumas. They used historical data for the non–COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Conditional findings

Compared with patients with septic shock and ARDS, the COVID-19 cohort had lower levels of TNF, IL-6, and IL-8. The differences were statistically significant for TNF (P < .01), as well as for IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations (for both, P < .001).

In addition, the COVID-19 group had significantly lower IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations compared with the patients who had septic shock without ARDS.

The researchers likewise found lower concentrations of IL-8 in patients with COVID-19, compared with the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. IL-8 levels did not differ between the COVID-19 and trauma groups.

Furthermore, the researchers found no differences in IL-6 concentrations between patients with COVID-19 and those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma.

However, levels of TNF in people with COVID-19 were higher than in trauma patients.

The small sample sizes and single-center study design are limitations.

“The findings of this preliminary analysis suggest COVID-19 may not be characterized by cytokine storm,” the researchers noted. However, they added, “whether anticytokine therapies will benefit patients with COVID-19 remains to be determined.”

Going forward, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues are investigating the effectiveness of different treatments to lower cytokine levels. They are treating people with COVID-19, for example, with the IL-1 cytokine inhibitor anakinra and steroids.

They also plan to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the immune system. “Following an infection, it is known that the immune system may be suppressed for a longer period of time, and we are determining to what extent this is also present in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Pickkers said.
 

Enough to cause a storm?

The study “is quite interesting, and data in this paper are consistent with our data,” Tadamitsu Kishimoto, MD, PhD, of the department of immune regulation at the Immunology Frontier Research Center at Osaka (Japan) University, said in an interview.

His study, published online August 21 in PNAS, also revealed lower serum IL-6 levels among people with COVID-19, compared with patients with bacterial ARDS or sepsis.

Dr. Kishimoto drew a distinction, however: COVID-19 patients can develop severe respiratory failure, suggesting a distinct immune reaction, compared with patients with bacterial sepsis. SARS-CoV-2 directly infects and activates endothelial cells rather than macrophages, as occurs in sepsis.

For this reason, Dr. Kishimoto said, “SARS-CoV-2 infection causes critical illness and severe dysfunction in respiratory organs and induces a cytokine storm,” even in the setting of lower but still elevated serum IL-6 levels.

Dr. Pickkers and Dr. Kishimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The immune system overactivation known as a “cytokine storm” does not play a major role in more severe COVID-19 outcomes, according to unexpected findings in new research. The findings stand in direct contrast to many previous reports.

“We were indeed surprised by the results of our study,” senior study author Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

In a unique approach, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues compared cytokine levels in critically ill people with COVID-19 with those in patients with bacterial sepsis, trauma, and after cardiac arrest.

“For the first time, we measured the cytokines in different diseases using the same methods. Our results convincingly show that the circulating cytokine concentrations are not higher, but lower, compared to other diseases,” said Dr. Pickkers, who is affiliated with the department of intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The team’s research was published online on Sept. 3 in a letter in JAMA.
 

Cytokines lower than expected

Normally, cytokines trigger inflammation and promote healing after trauma, infection, or other conditions.

Although a cytokine storm remains ill defined, the authors noted, many researchers have implicated a hyperinflammatory response involving these small proteins in the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

The question remains, however, whether all cytokine storms strike people with different conditions the same way.

Dr. Pickkers, lead author Matthijs Kox, PhD, and colleagues studied 46 people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were admitted to the ICU at Radboud University Medical Center. All participants underwent mechanical ventilation and were treated between March 11 and April 27, 2020.

The investigators measured plasma levels of cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-6, and IL-8. They compared results in this group with those in 51 patients who experienced septic shock and ARDS, 15 patients with septic shock without ARDS, 30 people with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 62 people who experienced multiple traumas. They used historical data for the non–COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Conditional findings

Compared with patients with septic shock and ARDS, the COVID-19 cohort had lower levels of TNF, IL-6, and IL-8. The differences were statistically significant for TNF (P < .01), as well as for IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations (for both, P < .001).

In addition, the COVID-19 group had significantly lower IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations compared with the patients who had septic shock without ARDS.

The researchers likewise found lower concentrations of IL-8 in patients with COVID-19, compared with the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. IL-8 levels did not differ between the COVID-19 and trauma groups.

Furthermore, the researchers found no differences in IL-6 concentrations between patients with COVID-19 and those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma.

However, levels of TNF in people with COVID-19 were higher than in trauma patients.

The small sample sizes and single-center study design are limitations.

“The findings of this preliminary analysis suggest COVID-19 may not be characterized by cytokine storm,” the researchers noted. However, they added, “whether anticytokine therapies will benefit patients with COVID-19 remains to be determined.”

Going forward, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues are investigating the effectiveness of different treatments to lower cytokine levels. They are treating people with COVID-19, for example, with the IL-1 cytokine inhibitor anakinra and steroids.

They also plan to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the immune system. “Following an infection, it is known that the immune system may be suppressed for a longer period of time, and we are determining to what extent this is also present in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Pickkers said.
 

Enough to cause a storm?

The study “is quite interesting, and data in this paper are consistent with our data,” Tadamitsu Kishimoto, MD, PhD, of the department of immune regulation at the Immunology Frontier Research Center at Osaka (Japan) University, said in an interview.

His study, published online August 21 in PNAS, also revealed lower serum IL-6 levels among people with COVID-19, compared with patients with bacterial ARDS or sepsis.

Dr. Kishimoto drew a distinction, however: COVID-19 patients can develop severe respiratory failure, suggesting a distinct immune reaction, compared with patients with bacterial sepsis. SARS-CoV-2 directly infects and activates endothelial cells rather than macrophages, as occurs in sepsis.

For this reason, Dr. Kishimoto said, “SARS-CoV-2 infection causes critical illness and severe dysfunction in respiratory organs and induces a cytokine storm,” even in the setting of lower but still elevated serum IL-6 levels.

Dr. Pickkers and Dr. Kishimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The immune system overactivation known as a “cytokine storm” does not play a major role in more severe COVID-19 outcomes, according to unexpected findings in new research. The findings stand in direct contrast to many previous reports.

“We were indeed surprised by the results of our study,” senior study author Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

In a unique approach, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues compared cytokine levels in critically ill people with COVID-19 with those in patients with bacterial sepsis, trauma, and after cardiac arrest.

“For the first time, we measured the cytokines in different diseases using the same methods. Our results convincingly show that the circulating cytokine concentrations are not higher, but lower, compared to other diseases,” said Dr. Pickkers, who is affiliated with the department of intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The team’s research was published online on Sept. 3 in a letter in JAMA.
 

Cytokines lower than expected

Normally, cytokines trigger inflammation and promote healing after trauma, infection, or other conditions.

Although a cytokine storm remains ill defined, the authors noted, many researchers have implicated a hyperinflammatory response involving these small proteins in the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

The question remains, however, whether all cytokine storms strike people with different conditions the same way.

Dr. Pickkers, lead author Matthijs Kox, PhD, and colleagues studied 46 people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were admitted to the ICU at Radboud University Medical Center. All participants underwent mechanical ventilation and were treated between March 11 and April 27, 2020.

The investigators measured plasma levels of cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-6, and IL-8. They compared results in this group with those in 51 patients who experienced septic shock and ARDS, 15 patients with septic shock without ARDS, 30 people with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 62 people who experienced multiple traumas. They used historical data for the non–COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Conditional findings

Compared with patients with septic shock and ARDS, the COVID-19 cohort had lower levels of TNF, IL-6, and IL-8. The differences were statistically significant for TNF (P < .01), as well as for IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations (for both, P < .001).

In addition, the COVID-19 group had significantly lower IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations compared with the patients who had septic shock without ARDS.

The researchers likewise found lower concentrations of IL-8 in patients with COVID-19, compared with the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. IL-8 levels did not differ between the COVID-19 and trauma groups.

Furthermore, the researchers found no differences in IL-6 concentrations between patients with COVID-19 and those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma.

However, levels of TNF in people with COVID-19 were higher than in trauma patients.

The small sample sizes and single-center study design are limitations.

“The findings of this preliminary analysis suggest COVID-19 may not be characterized by cytokine storm,” the researchers noted. However, they added, “whether anticytokine therapies will benefit patients with COVID-19 remains to be determined.”

Going forward, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues are investigating the effectiveness of different treatments to lower cytokine levels. They are treating people with COVID-19, for example, with the IL-1 cytokine inhibitor anakinra and steroids.

They also plan to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the immune system. “Following an infection, it is known that the immune system may be suppressed for a longer period of time, and we are determining to what extent this is also present in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Pickkers said.
 

Enough to cause a storm?

The study “is quite interesting, and data in this paper are consistent with our data,” Tadamitsu Kishimoto, MD, PhD, of the department of immune regulation at the Immunology Frontier Research Center at Osaka (Japan) University, said in an interview.

His study, published online August 21 in PNAS, also revealed lower serum IL-6 levels among people with COVID-19, compared with patients with bacterial ARDS or sepsis.

Dr. Kishimoto drew a distinction, however: COVID-19 patients can develop severe respiratory failure, suggesting a distinct immune reaction, compared with patients with bacterial sepsis. SARS-CoV-2 directly infects and activates endothelial cells rather than macrophages, as occurs in sepsis.

For this reason, Dr. Kishimoto said, “SARS-CoV-2 infection causes critical illness and severe dysfunction in respiratory organs and induces a cytokine storm,” even in the setting of lower but still elevated serum IL-6 levels.

Dr. Pickkers and Dr. Kishimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.

Comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and obesity also were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in this observational study of 11,721 adults. History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.

One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative. 

The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
 

COVID-19 and comorbidities

“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.

With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.

In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.

Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.

“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.

Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.

This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
 

Key findings

A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.

Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).

“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.

The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.  

Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).

When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.

Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.

People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.

Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
 

COVID-19 therapies?

Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.

The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.

“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.

Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.

A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.

The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.

The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”

The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.

“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
 

Some limitations

“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.

On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.” 

Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.

Comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and obesity also were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in this observational study of 11,721 adults. History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.

One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative. 

The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
 

COVID-19 and comorbidities

“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.

With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.

In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.

Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.

“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.

Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.

This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
 

Key findings

A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.

Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).

“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.

The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.  

Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).

When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.

Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.

People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.

Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
 

COVID-19 therapies?

Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.

The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.

“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.

Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.

A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.

The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.

The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”

The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.

“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
 

Some limitations

“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.

On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.” 

Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.

Comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and obesity also were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in this observational study of 11,721 adults. History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.

One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative. 

The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
 

COVID-19 and comorbidities

“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.

With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.

In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.

Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.

“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.

Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.

This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
 

Key findings

A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.

Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).

“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.

The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.  

Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).

When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.

Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.

People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.

Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
 

COVID-19 therapies?

Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.

The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.

“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.

Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.

A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.

The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.

The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”

The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.

“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
 

Some limitations

“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.

On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.” 

Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who also had certain interstitial lung abnormalities experienced more exacerbations and reduced lung function than those without such abnormalities, findings from a retrospective study has shown.

Interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) are considered precursor lesions of interstitial lung disease and previous studies suggested an association with poor outcomes among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but data on long-term clinical relevance are limited, wrote Tae Seung Lee, MD, of Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, and colleagues.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 363 COPD patients including 44 with equivocal ILA and 103 with definite ILA. Overall, the ILA patients were older and had poorer lung function than non-ILA patients. Patients received chest CT scan and longitudinal pulmonary function tests between January 2013 and December 2018.

Over an average follow-up period of 5.4 years, patients with ILA experienced significantly more acute COPD exacerbations than did those without ILA (adjusted odds ratio, 2.03). The percentages of frequent exacerbators among patients with no ILA, equivocal ILA, and definite ILA were 8.3%, 15.9%, and 20.4%, respectively.

“Acute exacerbation is an important event during the clinical course of COPD, because it is associated with temporary or persistent reductions in lung function, lower quality of life, hospitalization, and mortality,” the researchers noted.

In a multivariate analysis, the annual decline in lung function (FEV₁) was –35.7 in patients with equivocal ILA, compared with –28.0 in patients with no ILA and –15.9 in those with definite ILA.

“This may be due to the distribution of the spirometric stages in each group, and to the resulting changes in lung function,” the researchers wrote. In this study, “the equivocal ILA group had a significantly lower baseline FEV₁ than the other groups. In our study population, the lower the spirometric stage, the faster the annual decline in FEV₁, consistent with the results of a prior prospective study of a COPD cohort.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and relatively small number of ILA patients, as well as the limited evaluation of ILA and potential for selection bias, the researchers noted. However, the result support the impact of ILA on exacerbations and accelerated decline in lung function in COPD patients.

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

SOURCE: Lee TS et al. Chest. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.08.017.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who also had certain interstitial lung abnormalities experienced more exacerbations and reduced lung function than those without such abnormalities, findings from a retrospective study has shown.

Interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) are considered precursor lesions of interstitial lung disease and previous studies suggested an association with poor outcomes among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but data on long-term clinical relevance are limited, wrote Tae Seung Lee, MD, of Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, and colleagues.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 363 COPD patients including 44 with equivocal ILA and 103 with definite ILA. Overall, the ILA patients were older and had poorer lung function than non-ILA patients. Patients received chest CT scan and longitudinal pulmonary function tests between January 2013 and December 2018.

Over an average follow-up period of 5.4 years, patients with ILA experienced significantly more acute COPD exacerbations than did those without ILA (adjusted odds ratio, 2.03). The percentages of frequent exacerbators among patients with no ILA, equivocal ILA, and definite ILA were 8.3%, 15.9%, and 20.4%, respectively.

“Acute exacerbation is an important event during the clinical course of COPD, because it is associated with temporary or persistent reductions in lung function, lower quality of life, hospitalization, and mortality,” the researchers noted.

In a multivariate analysis, the annual decline in lung function (FEV₁) was –35.7 in patients with equivocal ILA, compared with –28.0 in patients with no ILA and –15.9 in those with definite ILA.

“This may be due to the distribution of the spirometric stages in each group, and to the resulting changes in lung function,” the researchers wrote. In this study, “the equivocal ILA group had a significantly lower baseline FEV₁ than the other groups. In our study population, the lower the spirometric stage, the faster the annual decline in FEV₁, consistent with the results of a prior prospective study of a COPD cohort.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and relatively small number of ILA patients, as well as the limited evaluation of ILA and potential for selection bias, the researchers noted. However, the result support the impact of ILA on exacerbations and accelerated decline in lung function in COPD patients.

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

SOURCE: Lee TS et al. Chest. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.08.017.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who also had certain interstitial lung abnormalities experienced more exacerbations and reduced lung function than those without such abnormalities, findings from a retrospective study has shown.

Interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) are considered precursor lesions of interstitial lung disease and previous studies suggested an association with poor outcomes among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but data on long-term clinical relevance are limited, wrote Tae Seung Lee, MD, of Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, and colleagues.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 363 COPD patients including 44 with equivocal ILA and 103 with definite ILA. Overall, the ILA patients were older and had poorer lung function than non-ILA patients. Patients received chest CT scan and longitudinal pulmonary function tests between January 2013 and December 2018.

Over an average follow-up period of 5.4 years, patients with ILA experienced significantly more acute COPD exacerbations than did those without ILA (adjusted odds ratio, 2.03). The percentages of frequent exacerbators among patients with no ILA, equivocal ILA, and definite ILA were 8.3%, 15.9%, and 20.4%, respectively.

“Acute exacerbation is an important event during the clinical course of COPD, because it is associated with temporary or persistent reductions in lung function, lower quality of life, hospitalization, and mortality,” the researchers noted.

In a multivariate analysis, the annual decline in lung function (FEV₁) was –35.7 in patients with equivocal ILA, compared with –28.0 in patients with no ILA and –15.9 in those with definite ILA.

“This may be due to the distribution of the spirometric stages in each group, and to the resulting changes in lung function,” the researchers wrote. In this study, “the equivocal ILA group had a significantly lower baseline FEV₁ than the other groups. In our study population, the lower the spirometric stage, the faster the annual decline in FEV₁, consistent with the results of a prior prospective study of a COPD cohort.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and relatively small number of ILA patients, as well as the limited evaluation of ILA and potential for selection bias, the researchers noted. However, the result support the impact of ILA on exacerbations and accelerated decline in lung function in COPD patients.

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

SOURCE: Lee TS et al. Chest. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.08.017.

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis of existing research confirms a stark link between excess weight and COVID-19: People with obesity are much more likely to be diagnosed with the novel coronavirus, undergo hospitalization and ICU admission, and die.

Obese patients faced the greatest bump in risk on the hospitalization front, with their odds of being admitted listed as 113% higher. The odds of diagnosis, ICU admission, and death were 46% higher (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.65; P < .0001); 74% higher (OR, 1.74, CI, 1.46-2.08, P < .0001); 48% (OR, 1.48, CI, 1.22–1.80, P < .001, all pooled analyses and 95% CI), respectively. All differences were highly significantly different, investigators reported in a systematic review and meta-analysis published online Aug. 26 in Obesity Reviews.

“Essentially, these are pretty scary statistics,” nutrition researcher and study lead author Barry M. Popkin, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health, said in an interview. “Other studies have talked about an increase in mortality, and we were thinking there’d be a little increase like 10% – nothing like 48%.”

According to the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine tracker, nearly 6 million people in the United States had been diagnosed with COVID-19 as of Aug. 30. The number of deaths had surpassed 183,000.

The authors of the new review launched their project to better understand the link between obesity and COVID-19 “all the way from being diagnosed to death,” Dr. Popkin said, adding that the meta-analysis is the largest of its kind to examine the link.

Dr. Popkin and colleagues analyzed 75 studies during January to June 2020 that tracked 399,461 patients (55% of whom were male) diagnosed with COVID-19. They found that 18 of 20 studies linked obesity with a 46% higher risk of diagnosis, but Dr. Popkin cautioned that this may be misleading. “I suspect it’s because they’re sicker and getting tested more for COVID,” he said. “I don’t think obesity enhances your likelihood of getting COVID. We don’t have a biological rationale for that.”

The researchers examined 19 studies that explored a link between obesity and hospitalization; all 19 found a higher risk of hospitalization in patients with obesity (pooled OR, 2.13). Twenty-one of 22 studies that looked at ICU admissions discovered a higher risk for patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.74). And 27 of 35 studies that examined COVID-19 mortality found a higher death rate in patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.48).

The review also looked at 14 studies that examined links between obesity and administration of invasive mechanical ventilation. All the studies found a higher risk for patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.38-1.99; P < .0001).

Could socioeconomic factors explain the difference in risk for people with obesity? It’s not clear. According to Dr. Popkin, most of the studies don’t examine factors such as income. While he believes physical factors are the key to the higher risk, he said “there’s clearly a social side to this.”

On the biological front, it appears that “the immune system is much weaker if you’re obese,” he said, and excess weight may worsen the course of a respiratory disease such as COVID-19 because of lung disorders such as sleep apnea.

In addition to highlighting inflammation and a weakened immune system, the review offers multiple explanations for why patients with obesity face worse outcomes in COVID-19. It may be more difficult for medical professionals to care for them in the hospital because of their weight, the authors wrote, and “obesity may also impair therapeutic treatments during COVID-19 infections.” The authors noted that ACE inhibitors may worsen COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers noted that “potentially the vaccines developed to address COVID-19 will be less effective for individuals with obesity due to a weakened immune response.” They pointed to research that suggests T-cell responses are weaker and antibody titers wane at a faster rate in people with obesity who are vaccinated against influenza.

SOURCE: Popkin BM et al. Obes Rev. 2020 Aug 26. doi: 10.1111/obr.13128.

A new analysis of existing research confirms a stark link between excess weight and COVID-19: People with obesity are much more likely to be diagnosed with the novel coronavirus, undergo hospitalization and ICU admission, and die.

Obese patients faced the greatest bump in risk on the hospitalization front, with their odds of being admitted listed as 113% higher. The odds of diagnosis, ICU admission, and death were 46% higher (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.65; P < .0001); 74% higher (OR, 1.74, CI, 1.46-2.08, P < .0001); 48% (OR, 1.48, CI, 1.22–1.80, P < .001, all pooled analyses and 95% CI), respectively. All differences were highly significantly different, investigators reported in a systematic review and meta-analysis published online Aug. 26 in Obesity Reviews.

“Essentially, these are pretty scary statistics,” nutrition researcher and study lead author Barry M. Popkin, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health, said in an interview. “Other studies have talked about an increase in mortality, and we were thinking there’d be a little increase like 10% – nothing like 48%.”

According to the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine tracker, nearly 6 million people in the United States had been diagnosed with COVID-19 as of Aug. 30. The number of deaths had surpassed 183,000.

The authors of the new review launched their project to better understand the link between obesity and COVID-19 “all the way from being diagnosed to death,” Dr. Popkin said, adding that the meta-analysis is the largest of its kind to examine the link.

Dr. Popkin and colleagues analyzed 75 studies during January to June 2020 that tracked 399,461 patients (55% of whom were male) diagnosed with COVID-19. They found that 18 of 20 studies linked obesity with a 46% higher risk of diagnosis, but Dr. Popkin cautioned that this may be misleading. “I suspect it’s because they’re sicker and getting tested more for COVID,” he said. “I don’t think obesity enhances your likelihood of getting COVID. We don’t have a biological rationale for that.”

The researchers examined 19 studies that explored a link between obesity and hospitalization; all 19 found a higher risk of hospitalization in patients with obesity (pooled OR, 2.13). Twenty-one of 22 studies that looked at ICU admissions discovered a higher risk for patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.74). And 27 of 35 studies that examined COVID-19 mortality found a higher death rate in patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.48).

The review also looked at 14 studies that examined links between obesity and administration of invasive mechanical ventilation. All the studies found a higher risk for patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.38-1.99; P < .0001).

Could socioeconomic factors explain the difference in risk for people with obesity? It’s not clear. According to Dr. Popkin, most of the studies don’t examine factors such as income. While he believes physical factors are the key to the higher risk, he said “there’s clearly a social side to this.”

On the biological front, it appears that “the immune system is much weaker if you’re obese,” he said, and excess weight may worsen the course of a respiratory disease such as COVID-19 because of lung disorders such as sleep apnea.

In addition to highlighting inflammation and a weakened immune system, the review offers multiple explanations for why patients with obesity face worse outcomes in COVID-19. It may be more difficult for medical professionals to care for them in the hospital because of their weight, the authors wrote, and “obesity may also impair therapeutic treatments during COVID-19 infections.” The authors noted that ACE inhibitors may worsen COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers noted that “potentially the vaccines developed to address COVID-19 will be less effective for individuals with obesity due to a weakened immune response.” They pointed to research that suggests T-cell responses are weaker and antibody titers wane at a faster rate in people with obesity who are vaccinated against influenza.

SOURCE: Popkin BM et al. Obes Rev. 2020 Aug 26. doi: 10.1111/obr.13128.

A new analysis of existing research confirms a stark link between excess weight and COVID-19: People with obesity are much more likely to be diagnosed with the novel coronavirus, undergo hospitalization and ICU admission, and die.

Obese patients faced the greatest bump in risk on the hospitalization front, with their odds of being admitted listed as 113% higher. The odds of diagnosis, ICU admission, and death were 46% higher (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.65; P < .0001); 74% higher (OR, 1.74, CI, 1.46-2.08, P < .0001); 48% (OR, 1.48, CI, 1.22–1.80, P < .001, all pooled analyses and 95% CI), respectively. All differences were highly significantly different, investigators reported in a systematic review and meta-analysis published online Aug. 26 in Obesity Reviews.

“Essentially, these are pretty scary statistics,” nutrition researcher and study lead author Barry M. Popkin, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health, said in an interview. “Other studies have talked about an increase in mortality, and we were thinking there’d be a little increase like 10% – nothing like 48%.”

According to the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine tracker, nearly 6 million people in the United States had been diagnosed with COVID-19 as of Aug. 30. The number of deaths had surpassed 183,000.

The authors of the new review launched their project to better understand the link between obesity and COVID-19 “all the way from being diagnosed to death,” Dr. Popkin said, adding that the meta-analysis is the largest of its kind to examine the link.

Dr. Popkin and colleagues analyzed 75 studies during January to June 2020 that tracked 399,461 patients (55% of whom were male) diagnosed with COVID-19. They found that 18 of 20 studies linked obesity with a 46% higher risk of diagnosis, but Dr. Popkin cautioned that this may be misleading. “I suspect it’s because they’re sicker and getting tested more for COVID,” he said. “I don’t think obesity enhances your likelihood of getting COVID. We don’t have a biological rationale for that.”

The researchers examined 19 studies that explored a link between obesity and hospitalization; all 19 found a higher risk of hospitalization in patients with obesity (pooled OR, 2.13). Twenty-one of 22 studies that looked at ICU admissions discovered a higher risk for patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.74). And 27 of 35 studies that examined COVID-19 mortality found a higher death rate in patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.48).

The review also looked at 14 studies that examined links between obesity and administration of invasive mechanical ventilation. All the studies found a higher risk for patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.38-1.99; P < .0001).

Could socioeconomic factors explain the difference in risk for people with obesity? It’s not clear. According to Dr. Popkin, most of the studies don’t examine factors such as income. While he believes physical factors are the key to the higher risk, he said “there’s clearly a social side to this.”

On the biological front, it appears that “the immune system is much weaker if you’re obese,” he said, and excess weight may worsen the course of a respiratory disease such as COVID-19 because of lung disorders such as sleep apnea.

In addition to highlighting inflammation and a weakened immune system, the review offers multiple explanations for why patients with obesity face worse outcomes in COVID-19. It may be more difficult for medical professionals to care for them in the hospital because of their weight, the authors wrote, and “obesity may also impair therapeutic treatments during COVID-19 infections.” The authors noted that ACE inhibitors may worsen COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers noted that “potentially the vaccines developed to address COVID-19 will be less effective for individuals with obesity due to a weakened immune response.” They pointed to research that suggests T-cell responses are weaker and antibody titers wane at a faster rate in people with obesity who are vaccinated against influenza.

SOURCE: Popkin BM et al. Obes Rev. 2020 Aug 26. doi: 10.1111/obr.13128.

The US Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 28 expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of remdesivir (Veklury) to include treatment of all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease.

An EUA of remdesivir issued in May allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who need oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

“Today, based on the Agency’s ongoing review of the EUA, including its review of the totality of scientific information now available, the FDA has determined that it is reasonable to believe Veklury may be effective for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients,” the FDA news release about the expanded EUA said. “The Agency’s review has also concluded that the known and potential benefits of Veklury outweigh the known and potential risks for these uses.”
 

‘Further evaluation’ needed

The EUA expansion is partially based on the results of a randomized, open-label trial that Gilead Sciences, remdesivir’s manufacturer, conducted at multiple sites.

The trial showed that a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with statistically significant improvement among patients hospitalized with moderate COVID-19 in comparison with those receiving standard care. However, patients who were randomly assigned to a receive longer, 10-day remdesivir course had not improved significantly 11 days after treatment started, compared with those who received standard care.

Results with remdesivir in this trial and in two previously reported randomized trials varied, “raising the question of whether the discrepancies are artifacts of study design choices, including patient populations, or whether the drug is less efficacious than hoped,” wrote Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in an editorial that accompanied publication of the trials in JAMA.

Angus previously expressed concern that expanding remdesivir’s EUA could “interrupt or thwart efforts to execute the needed RCTs [randomized controlled trials].

“We think there really needs to be further evaluation of remdesivir in large-scale RCTs adequately powered to understand in which patients, at which dose, given at which point in the course of illness leads to what concrete and tangible improvement in clinical outcomes,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“At this point, remdesivir definitely holds promise, but given the cost to produce and distribute the drug, it seems crucial to know with more certainty how best to use it,” Angus said.

The EUA expansion is also partially based on results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases conducted. In that trial, there was a statistically significant reduction in median recovery time and higher odds of clinical improvement after 2 weeks for hospitalized patients who received remdesivir.

For hospitalized patients with mild to moderate disease, the results were consistent with the overall study results but were not statistically significant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 28 expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of remdesivir (Veklury) to include treatment of all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease.

An EUA of remdesivir issued in May allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who need oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

“Today, based on the Agency’s ongoing review of the EUA, including its review of the totality of scientific information now available, the FDA has determined that it is reasonable to believe Veklury may be effective for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients,” the FDA news release about the expanded EUA said. “The Agency’s review has also concluded that the known and potential benefits of Veklury outweigh the known and potential risks for these uses.”
 

‘Further evaluation’ needed

The EUA expansion is partially based on the results of a randomized, open-label trial that Gilead Sciences, remdesivir’s manufacturer, conducted at multiple sites.

The trial showed that a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with statistically significant improvement among patients hospitalized with moderate COVID-19 in comparison with those receiving standard care. However, patients who were randomly assigned to a receive longer, 10-day remdesivir course had not improved significantly 11 days after treatment started, compared with those who received standard care.

Results with remdesivir in this trial and in two previously reported randomized trials varied, “raising the question of whether the discrepancies are artifacts of study design choices, including patient populations, or whether the drug is less efficacious than hoped,” wrote Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in an editorial that accompanied publication of the trials in JAMA.

Angus previously expressed concern that expanding remdesivir’s EUA could “interrupt or thwart efforts to execute the needed RCTs [randomized controlled trials].

“We think there really needs to be further evaluation of remdesivir in large-scale RCTs adequately powered to understand in which patients, at which dose, given at which point in the course of illness leads to what concrete and tangible improvement in clinical outcomes,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“At this point, remdesivir definitely holds promise, but given the cost to produce and distribute the drug, it seems crucial to know with more certainty how best to use it,” Angus said.

The EUA expansion is also partially based on results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases conducted. In that trial, there was a statistically significant reduction in median recovery time and higher odds of clinical improvement after 2 weeks for hospitalized patients who received remdesivir.

For hospitalized patients with mild to moderate disease, the results were consistent with the overall study results but were not statistically significant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 28 expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of remdesivir (Veklury) to include treatment of all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease.

An EUA of remdesivir issued in May allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who need oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

“Today, based on the Agency’s ongoing review of the EUA, including its review of the totality of scientific information now available, the FDA has determined that it is reasonable to believe Veklury may be effective for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients,” the FDA news release about the expanded EUA said. “The Agency’s review has also concluded that the known and potential benefits of Veklury outweigh the known and potential risks for these uses.”
 

‘Further evaluation’ needed

The EUA expansion is partially based on the results of a randomized, open-label trial that Gilead Sciences, remdesivir’s manufacturer, conducted at multiple sites.

The trial showed that a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with statistically significant improvement among patients hospitalized with moderate COVID-19 in comparison with those receiving standard care. However, patients who were randomly assigned to a receive longer, 10-day remdesivir course had not improved significantly 11 days after treatment started, compared with those who received standard care.

Results with remdesivir in this trial and in two previously reported randomized trials varied, “raising the question of whether the discrepancies are artifacts of study design choices, including patient populations, or whether the drug is less efficacious than hoped,” wrote Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in an editorial that accompanied publication of the trials in JAMA.

Angus previously expressed concern that expanding remdesivir’s EUA could “interrupt or thwart efforts to execute the needed RCTs [randomized controlled trials].

“We think there really needs to be further evaluation of remdesivir in large-scale RCTs adequately powered to understand in which patients, at which dose, given at which point in the course of illness leads to what concrete and tangible improvement in clinical outcomes,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“At this point, remdesivir definitely holds promise, but given the cost to produce and distribute the drug, it seems crucial to know with more certainty how best to use it,” Angus said.

The EUA expansion is also partially based on results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases conducted. In that trial, there was a statistically significant reduction in median recovery time and higher odds of clinical improvement after 2 weeks for hospitalized patients who received remdesivir.

For hospitalized patients with mild to moderate disease, the results were consistent with the overall study results but were not statistically significant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has removed two senior public relations employees, one of whom advised the agency against unbridled promotion of convalescent blood plasma as a treatment for people with COVID-19, multiple media outlets reported Aug. 28.

Officials claim the dismissals are coincidental and are not related to a controversy about whether claims regarding convalescent plasma therapy that were put forth by President Donald Trump and FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, were exaggerated, according to reports from The New York Times , CNN, and elsewhere.

One of the PR employees, Emily Miller, was on the job less than 2 weeks. The White House named her FDA chief spokeswoman 11 days ago, but Hahn removed her from that post Aug. 28.

On Aug. 27, the US Department of Health and Human Services terminated the contract for Wayne L. Pines, a PR consultant to the FDA. Pines reportedly advised Hahn to apologize for making misleading claims about the therapeutic benefits of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

The FDA did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The controversy stems from comments Hahn made about the announcement of the emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma for patients with COVID-19. He said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 people who were treated. That statement was later found to be erroneous because he presented a relative risk reduction as an absolute decrease in risk. He later apologized via Twitter.

Researchers running clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 are concerned that the emergency use authorization could thwart efforts to recruit participants for their studies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has removed two senior public relations employees, one of whom advised the agency against unbridled promotion of convalescent blood plasma as a treatment for people with COVID-19, multiple media outlets reported Aug. 28.

Officials claim the dismissals are coincidental and are not related to a controversy about whether claims regarding convalescent plasma therapy that were put forth by President Donald Trump and FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, were exaggerated, according to reports from The New York Times , CNN, and elsewhere.

One of the PR employees, Emily Miller, was on the job less than 2 weeks. The White House named her FDA chief spokeswoman 11 days ago, but Hahn removed her from that post Aug. 28.

On Aug. 27, the US Department of Health and Human Services terminated the contract for Wayne L. Pines, a PR consultant to the FDA. Pines reportedly advised Hahn to apologize for making misleading claims about the therapeutic benefits of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

The FDA did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The controversy stems from comments Hahn made about the announcement of the emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma for patients with COVID-19. He said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 people who were treated. That statement was later found to be erroneous because he presented a relative risk reduction as an absolute decrease in risk. He later apologized via Twitter.

Researchers running clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 are concerned that the emergency use authorization could thwart efforts to recruit participants for their studies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has removed two senior public relations employees, one of whom advised the agency against unbridled promotion of convalescent blood plasma as a treatment for people with COVID-19, multiple media outlets reported Aug. 28.

Officials claim the dismissals are coincidental and are not related to a controversy about whether claims regarding convalescent plasma therapy that were put forth by President Donald Trump and FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, were exaggerated, according to reports from The New York Times , CNN, and elsewhere.

One of the PR employees, Emily Miller, was on the job less than 2 weeks. The White House named her FDA chief spokeswoman 11 days ago, but Hahn removed her from that post Aug. 28.

On Aug. 27, the US Department of Health and Human Services terminated the contract for Wayne L. Pines, a PR consultant to the FDA. Pines reportedly advised Hahn to apologize for making misleading claims about the therapeutic benefits of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

The FDA did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The controversy stems from comments Hahn made about the announcement of the emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma for patients with COVID-19. He said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 people who were treated. That statement was later found to be erroneous because he presented a relative risk reduction as an absolute decrease in risk. He later apologized via Twitter.

Researchers running clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 are concerned that the emergency use authorization could thwart efforts to recruit participants for their studies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New York City Health + Hospitals (NYCH+H), the country’s largest public health care system, encompasses 11 hospitals with 4,354 staffed acute beds during normal times. It serves as the safety net for 1.1 million of the 8.4 million residents of the most populous city in the United States, many of them uninsured, undocumented, covered by Medicaid, or otherwise disadvantaged.

At the very epicenter in the early days of the historic COVID-19 pandemic, NYCH+H transferred patients between its facilities, added medical and ICU beds by the hundreds, mobilized palliative care volunteers, harnessed telemedicine and a clinician hotline, and made other sweeping changes to ensure that the city’s public health system would be able to respond to demand at the peak of the surge. That peak hit in April, when an average of 9,000 new COVID-19 cases were being reported in the city every day.

Through it all, hospitalists have played critical roles in both planning for the system’s response and caring for severely ill COVID-19 patients. Their stories reflect both the unprecedented demands on the system and the dedication of frontline clinicians.

One of those, Carla Saladini-Aponte, MD, who just finished her residency in June 2019, found herself on the firing line in March 2020 as an attending physician at 457-bed NYCH+H/Jacobi Hospital in the Bronx. “I have experienced so much in my first year on the job, dealing with a disease that we’ve never seen before,” she said. “We didn’t grasp the extent of the COVID crisis in the beginning, so we were emotionally unprepared when it first hit.”

Starting on March 30, NYCH+H administration mobilized a centralized incident command structure to coordinate response systemwide to a rapidly changing situation.

Two weeks later Jacobi was a COVID-19 hospital, top to bottom, with its medical ICU beds increased from 12 to more than 100. By mid-April, Dr. Saladini-Aponte’s team, one of 11 medical teams in the hospital, had 26 patients, all of them with COVID-19. There was not a consensus in the early days on how to manage patients with severe respiratory distress. “But by the time the surge came, we had a better understanding of the scope of the situation,” she said.

Learning to be an attending

“They don’t teach you how to be an attending during residency,” Dr. Saladini-Aponte said. “At the beginning I wasn’t such a good teacher. I just wanted to prove myself and stay one step ahead of the residents. But as an academic hospitalist you have to listen to others. I learned to ask questions of the residents every morning, including how they were doing personally.”

Sometimes a visiting consultant would ask on the floor: “‘Where’s your attending?’” not recognizing Dr. Saladini-Aponte, fresh out of residency, filling that role. At times, she felt like a PGY-4 (postgraduate year 4). But she quickly grew into the attending role and was asked to be site coordinator for the mobilization of palliative medicine volunteers at Jacobi.

“We found ourselves having to make tough ethical decisions. Some patients, even if we provided a ventilator and maximum oxygen therapy, would still die. There were difficult discussions when we didn’t know if we had enough dialysis machines, or how to manage other limited resources. The hospital was saying: You decide, if there’s a high degree of certainty about the outcome. But we had never practiced medicine this way before,” she said.

“That’s why our hospital provided daily ethics meetings with our ethics council. There would be eight people sitting 6 feet apart in a conference room, all wearing masks. We’d talk about situations that were giving us trouble. Their role wasn’t to provide answers but to help us see the scope of the situation and the complexities,” she explained.

Dr. Saladini-Aponte said she has had many sleepless nights since the pandemic began. “Sometimes, I would come home from work and lie down on the floor and cry,” she said. “But we had so much support from volunteers helping our little hospitalist service of seven.” It was also important to keep up with the clinical information, and one of her coworkers created “cheat sheets” for the clinicians, regularly updated with the latest essential information on antibiotics, testing, and the like.

“At the peak, I was trying to read everything I could about the virus. I was just pulling myself in too many directions. I asked for help from my boyfriend to remind me not to log onto my computer when I came home from work,” she said. “One of my techniques for preventing burnout was just to avoid social media. I couldn’t deal with what was going on in the news. It just angered me. Even now, seeing people without masks makes me very uncomfortable.”
 

Organizing the crisis response

As chief value officer for NYCH+H, Hyung (Harry) Cho, MD, FACP, SFHM, typically focuses on issues of patient safety and overuse of medical treatments in the health system. But in the COVID-19 crisis, he found himself at the forefront of organizing its response. “We tried to provide support centrally and to standardize practice in how we test and treat,” he said.

“We were truly at the epicenter of the pandemic,” Dr. Cho said. “All of our hospitals had different experiences, and unique responses. But the system worked well.” Patients were transferred from the more overtaxed hospitals to Bellevue and other NYCH+H hospitals with spare beds. An emergency medical response structure was put in place, and every morning the system’s Tiger Team, with multidisciplinary personnel from administration, operations, logistics, and medical/technical specialists, would gather virtually to discuss needs across the system.

“It was a very open atmosphere and we asked people to report what was happening on the ground,” Dr. Cho said. “We started rapidly reviewing batches of 20 patients at a time for transfer in order to alleviate pressure in the most overtaxed ERs.”

NYCH+H also had to work through concerns about PPE, just like other U.S. hospitals. Treatment guidelines were changing by the day. Medical concerns were relayed at a rapid pace. Another priority was trying to limit unnecessary exposure for staff through a recommendation that only one clinician from a team would go into the room of an infected patient, unless another was absolutely needed.

The reality of public health

NYCH+H was created by the New York State Legislature in 1969 and rebranded in 2015. It includes a low- to no-cost health insurance plan called MetroPlus, along with outpatient centers, comprehensive case management, and social supports in the home.

“What people know about public health systems is that we typically are underresourced. That’s just the reality of public health,” Dr. Cho said. “We help the community, the underserved. The people who truly needed our help are also the ones who have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. And that is where we really shine as a system.”

Dr. Cho lauded the performance of the health system’s frontline staff. “Watching them come together during the entire pandemic, and do their best every day, was truly inspiring,” he said. “But when they got to the peak, it really took an emotional toll on them.”

NYCH+H’s in-house staff support program, called Helping Healers Heal, was mobilized with specially trained teams at each of its 11 hospitals to provide peer-to-peer support, mental health expertise, and team-debriefing sessions to staff members following traumatic events. Support is provided both over the phone and in person on the floors, Dr. Cho said. “During the surge, everything was happening so quickly, there was no time to take a pause. Now, as we are able to catch our breath, that’s when they most need support.”

The hospitalists at NYCH+H hospitals intended to have goals-of-care conversations with all patients, but everyone was very busy – so having these conversations became harder and harder, Dr. Cho said. Recognizing limited staffing for the quadrupling of patients who needed palliative care at NYCH+H hospitals, he asked the medicine chairs about their palliative care needs and then used social media outreach to ask for help. The message went viral, attracting 413 volunteers from across the country. Sixty-seven telepalliative volunteers were put to work doing goals-of-care conversations remotely with inpatients and their families.¹

Expediting transfers

For Ian Fagan, MD, a hospitalist and associate medical director for general internal medicine Inpatient Services at Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan, hospitalist shifts are a normal part of his job. But he had to give them up during the surge to focus on planning, management, and especially scheduling other doctors, with sufficient backups needed to cover last minute changes. Dr. Fagan did that by using the existing pool of hospitalist staff, physicians who were reassigned from other specialties, agency staff, military medical personnel, and volunteer doctors who flew in from around the country to help. He also worked 10- to 12-hour days for 36 consecutive days.

The impact of disparities in access to care in New York City was reflected in the greater demand for care in the hospitals in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. “With fewer patients and more hospital beds in Manhattan, we had the capacity to share our beds,” Dr. Fagan said. “It was so amazing to me how quickly we could move patients from one hospital to another. We started accepting up to 40 transfers a day. But hey, we were still really busy.”

Bellevue is the nation’s oldest public hospital. “We care for the homeless, for immigrants, and we don’t ask questions. That’s our mission. I’m so proud to work here, and so grateful,” Dr. Fagan said. “If someone is undocumented or without insurance, I will give them exactly the same care. We stepped up in a big way to care for people of New York, but we’ve always been there for them – and we were there for them during the COVID surge.”

The hospitals in the system also worked together in ways Dr. Fagan had never seen. “It helped to have a central command structure with a bird’s eye view from above the level of individual hospitals, to organize and see which hospitals could step up. It’s good to have the data to put it in perspective,” he said. The system also utilized a temporary low-acuity medical center set up by NYCH+H on Roosevelt Island, as well as field hospitals organized at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center.

“At Bellevue we tried to stay ready, with the ability to turn former hospital units that were being used as offices back to beds. We always had three units lined up that were fully ready to convert. For example, I was medical director of the preop clinic and one day they gave us 24 hours to pack everything and move out. Three days later, it was a 24-bed unit. We also built a more robust rapid response and code team,” he said.

“It was hard for me not to take hospitalist shifts, because my identity is being a doctor. I eventually came to terms with the importance of the role that I was doing every day. I felt I could protect my colleagues, and if they were having an emotional day, to give them the opportunity to talk to someone. I also did the onboarding, one-on-one, of the new doctors.”

As the crisis in New York City has ebbed, Dr. Fagan was recently able to again take a week of clinical service. “The first day back on the floor I felt that I had forgotten everything. But by the end of the day, I thought, ‘Okay, I do know how to do this, after all.’ Census is down here. It’s quiet. That’s good. We need it now,” he said.

“I think the hardest moment for me was when the head nurse on our trauma unit, Ernesto DeLeon, known to everybody here, died of COVID in our ICU in April,” Dr. Fagan said. When Mr. DeLeon died, 100 hospital personnel gathered in the halls outside the room to pay their respects. “There had been a palpable fear in our lives – and this showed us that the fear was real. Ernesto was the first person I knew well who died, who acquired COVID at work doing what we’re all doing. We haven’t lost any doctors yet, but when this nurse died, we allowed ourselves to realize that this is personal. In that moment, we needed to allow ourselves to be human.”

Joan Curcio, MD, associate director of medicine at Elmhurst Hospital, said Elmhurst was where the story started for New York City and for NYCH+H. “I trained here and have spent my entire career at this hospital. It came to feel like what a battleground must be like, with things coming at you from every direction,” she said. “It was overwhelming in ways I could not have foreseen. I had seen videos from Italy [an early COVID-19 epicenter], but until it happened here, it was just hard to process.”

Things started slowly, with a few patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and a 5- to 7-day turnaround to get results of their viral infection tests. “By week 2, a greater number of patients from our clinics and testing sites were filtering through the emergency department. Then hundreds.”

The normal occupancy rate for the department of medicine at Elmhurst is 110-115%, which typically means full beds plus patients in the emergency department. “We started to grow to 160, then 180, and then a peak of 250% of occupancy. We took over a rehab surgery floor, then a 35-bed surgery and hospice floor, which went to full capacity just like that,” she said. The number of non–critical care service teams increased to 20, working with redeployed staff, volunteers, military, and agency personnel, while ICU beds increased from 20 to 105.

“We were dealing with a much higher acuity level and enduring emotional turmoil with families, trying to carve out time to call them after our shift was over,” Dr. Curcio explained. Elmhurst developed a call-in hotline and a daily call-out service for families. Technology was mobilized to provide video visits and new systems were designed for isolation and for PPE distribution and use.

“I just felt that I couldn’t get everything done. I felt continually overwhelmed, and it didn’t matter how much time I took. I never felt I was able to give enough to anybody in any area, which was hard to take,” Dr. Curcio said. “But I still felt a sense of purpose and that I was making a difference – thanks to lots of support from the central office.”

Patient volume at Elmhurst is now down, lower than Dr. Curcio has ever seen it. “One of the main issues right now, moving forward, is ‘how do we function in a post-crisis mode?’” she said. The process of transitioning back to non-COVID-19 care will be complex. “When we clear a floor and clean it to go back to being a cold [COVID-19-negative] unit, it’s a whole different level of cleaning that takes 7 days.”

One moment that was particularly jarring for Dr. Curcio occurred while she was giving a tour of the hospital to visiting military medical personnel. “We went into the emergency department and I turned around and looked into a shower room, which was full of body bags. They were all full.”

But the experience has also been inspiring. “People gave their all without complaint. We hospitalists, and all those recruited to act as hospitalists, essentially took responsibility for the COVID response,” she said. “This was, hopefully, the experience of a lifetime as a medical professional. I wouldn’t want to ever experience something as daunting as this again.”
 

Reference

1. Israilov S et al. National outreach of telepalliative medicine volunteers for a New York City safety net system COVID-19 pandemic response. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2020 May 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.05.026.

New York City Health + Hospitals (NYCH+H), the country’s largest public health care system, encompasses 11 hospitals with 4,354 staffed acute beds during normal times. It serves as the safety net for 1.1 million of the 8.4 million residents of the most populous city in the United States, many of them uninsured, undocumented, covered by Medicaid, or otherwise disadvantaged.

At the very epicenter in the early days of the historic COVID-19 pandemic, NYCH+H transferred patients between its facilities, added medical and ICU beds by the hundreds, mobilized palliative care volunteers, harnessed telemedicine and a clinician hotline, and made other sweeping changes to ensure that the city’s public health system would be able to respond to demand at the peak of the surge. That peak hit in April, when an average of 9,000 new COVID-19 cases were being reported in the city every day.

Through it all, hospitalists have played critical roles in both planning for the system’s response and caring for severely ill COVID-19 patients. Their stories reflect both the unprecedented demands on the system and the dedication of frontline clinicians.

One of those, Carla Saladini-Aponte, MD, who just finished her residency in June 2019, found herself on the firing line in March 2020 as an attending physician at 457-bed NYCH+H/Jacobi Hospital in the Bronx. “I have experienced so much in my first year on the job, dealing with a disease that we’ve never seen before,” she said. “We didn’t grasp the extent of the COVID crisis in the beginning, so we were emotionally unprepared when it first hit.”

Starting on March 30, NYCH+H administration mobilized a centralized incident command structure to coordinate response systemwide to a rapidly changing situation.

Two weeks later Jacobi was a COVID-19 hospital, top to bottom, with its medical ICU beds increased from 12 to more than 100. By mid-April, Dr. Saladini-Aponte’s team, one of 11 medical teams in the hospital, had 26 patients, all of them with COVID-19. There was not a consensus in the early days on how to manage patients with severe respiratory distress. “But by the time the surge came, we had a better understanding of the scope of the situation,” she said.

Learning to be an attending

“They don’t teach you how to be an attending during residency,” Dr. Saladini-Aponte said. “At the beginning I wasn’t such a good teacher. I just wanted to prove myself and stay one step ahead of the residents. But as an academic hospitalist you have to listen to others. I learned to ask questions of the residents every morning, including how they were doing personally.”

Sometimes a visiting consultant would ask on the floor: “‘Where’s your attending?’” not recognizing Dr. Saladini-Aponte, fresh out of residency, filling that role. At times, she felt like a PGY-4 (postgraduate year 4). But she quickly grew into the attending role and was asked to be site coordinator for the mobilization of palliative medicine volunteers at Jacobi.

“We found ourselves having to make tough ethical decisions. Some patients, even if we provided a ventilator and maximum oxygen therapy, would still die. There were difficult discussions when we didn’t know if we had enough dialysis machines, or how to manage other limited resources. The hospital was saying: You decide, if there’s a high degree of certainty about the outcome. But we had never practiced medicine this way before,” she said.

“That’s why our hospital provided daily ethics meetings with our ethics council. There would be eight people sitting 6 feet apart in a conference room, all wearing masks. We’d talk about situations that were giving us trouble. Their role wasn’t to provide answers but to help us see the scope of the situation and the complexities,” she explained.

Dr. Saladini-Aponte said she has had many sleepless nights since the pandemic began. “Sometimes, I would come home from work and lie down on the floor and cry,” she said. “But we had so much support from volunteers helping our little hospitalist service of seven.” It was also important to keep up with the clinical information, and one of her coworkers created “cheat sheets” for the clinicians, regularly updated with the latest essential information on antibiotics, testing, and the like.

“At the peak, I was trying to read everything I could about the virus. I was just pulling myself in too many directions. I asked for help from my boyfriend to remind me not to log onto my computer when I came home from work,” she said. “One of my techniques for preventing burnout was just to avoid social media. I couldn’t deal with what was going on in the news. It just angered me. Even now, seeing people without masks makes me very uncomfortable.”
 

Organizing the crisis response

As chief value officer for NYCH+H, Hyung (Harry) Cho, MD, FACP, SFHM, typically focuses on issues of patient safety and overuse of medical treatments in the health system. But in the COVID-19 crisis, he found himself at the forefront of organizing its response. “We tried to provide support centrally and to standardize practice in how we test and treat,” he said.

“We were truly at the epicenter of the pandemic,” Dr. Cho said. “All of our hospitals had different experiences, and unique responses. But the system worked well.” Patients were transferred from the more overtaxed hospitals to Bellevue and other NYCH+H hospitals with spare beds. An emergency medical response structure was put in place, and every morning the system’s Tiger Team, with multidisciplinary personnel from administration, operations, logistics, and medical/technical specialists, would gather virtually to discuss needs across the system.

“It was a very open atmosphere and we asked people to report what was happening on the ground,” Dr. Cho said. “We started rapidly reviewing batches of 20 patients at a time for transfer in order to alleviate pressure in the most overtaxed ERs.”

NYCH+H also had to work through concerns about PPE, just like other U.S. hospitals. Treatment guidelines were changing by the day. Medical concerns were relayed at a rapid pace. Another priority was trying to limit unnecessary exposure for staff through a recommendation that only one clinician from a team would go into the room of an infected patient, unless another was absolutely needed.

The reality of public health

NYCH+H was created by the New York State Legislature in 1969 and rebranded in 2015. It includes a low- to no-cost health insurance plan called MetroPlus, along with outpatient centers, comprehensive case management, and social supports in the home.

“What people know about public health systems is that we typically are underresourced. That’s just the reality of public health,” Dr. Cho said. “We help the community, the underserved. The people who truly needed our help are also the ones who have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. And that is where we really shine as a system.”

Dr. Cho lauded the performance of the health system’s frontline staff. “Watching them come together during the entire pandemic, and do their best every day, was truly inspiring,” he said. “But when they got to the peak, it really took an emotional toll on them.”

NYCH+H’s in-house staff support program, called Helping Healers Heal, was mobilized with specially trained teams at each of its 11 hospitals to provide peer-to-peer support, mental health expertise, and team-debriefing sessions to staff members following traumatic events. Support is provided both over the phone and in person on the floors, Dr. Cho said. “During the surge, everything was happening so quickly, there was no time to take a pause. Now, as we are able to catch our breath, that’s when they most need support.”

The hospitalists at NYCH+H hospitals intended to have goals-of-care conversations with all patients, but everyone was very busy – so having these conversations became harder and harder, Dr. Cho said. Recognizing limited staffing for the quadrupling of patients who needed palliative care at NYCH+H hospitals, he asked the medicine chairs about their palliative care needs and then used social media outreach to ask for help. The message went viral, attracting 413 volunteers from across the country. Sixty-seven telepalliative volunteers were put to work doing goals-of-care conversations remotely with inpatients and their families.¹

Expediting transfers

For Ian Fagan, MD, a hospitalist and associate medical director for general internal medicine Inpatient Services at Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan, hospitalist shifts are a normal part of his job. But he had to give them up during the surge to focus on planning, management, and especially scheduling other doctors, with sufficient backups needed to cover last minute changes. Dr. Fagan did that by using the existing pool of hospitalist staff, physicians who were reassigned from other specialties, agency staff, military medical personnel, and volunteer doctors who flew in from around the country to help. He also worked 10- to 12-hour days for 36 consecutive days.

The impact of disparities in access to care in New York City was reflected in the greater demand for care in the hospitals in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. “With fewer patients and more hospital beds in Manhattan, we had the capacity to share our beds,” Dr. Fagan said. “It was so amazing to me how quickly we could move patients from one hospital to another. We started accepting up to 40 transfers a day. But hey, we were still really busy.”

Bellevue is the nation’s oldest public hospital. “We care for the homeless, for immigrants, and we don’t ask questions. That’s our mission. I’m so proud to work here, and so grateful,” Dr. Fagan said. “If someone is undocumented or without insurance, I will give them exactly the same care. We stepped up in a big way to care for people of New York, but we’ve always been there for them – and we were there for them during the COVID surge.”

The hospitals in the system also worked together in ways Dr. Fagan had never seen. “It helped to have a central command structure with a bird’s eye view from above the level of individual hospitals, to organize and see which hospitals could step up. It’s good to have the data to put it in perspective,” he said. The system also utilized a temporary low-acuity medical center set up by NYCH+H on Roosevelt Island, as well as field hospitals organized at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center.

“At Bellevue we tried to stay ready, with the ability to turn former hospital units that were being used as offices back to beds. We always had three units lined up that were fully ready to convert. For example, I was medical director of the preop clinic and one day they gave us 24 hours to pack everything and move out. Three days later, it was a 24-bed unit. We also built a more robust rapid response and code team,” he said.

“It was hard for me not to take hospitalist shifts, because my identity is being a doctor. I eventually came to terms with the importance of the role that I was doing every day. I felt I could protect my colleagues, and if they were having an emotional day, to give them the opportunity to talk to someone. I also did the onboarding, one-on-one, of the new doctors.”

As the crisis in New York City has ebbed, Dr. Fagan was recently able to again take a week of clinical service. “The first day back on the floor I felt that I had forgotten everything. But by the end of the day, I thought, ‘Okay, I do know how to do this, after all.’ Census is down here. It’s quiet. That’s good. We need it now,” he said.

“I think the hardest moment for me was when the head nurse on our trauma unit, Ernesto DeLeon, known to everybody here, died of COVID in our ICU in April,” Dr. Fagan said. When Mr. DeLeon died, 100 hospital personnel gathered in the halls outside the room to pay their respects. “There had been a palpable fear in our lives – and this showed us that the fear was real. Ernesto was the first person I knew well who died, who acquired COVID at work doing what we’re all doing. We haven’t lost any doctors yet, but when this nurse died, we allowed ourselves to realize that this is personal. In that moment, we needed to allow ourselves to be human.”

Joan Curcio, MD, associate director of medicine at Elmhurst Hospital, said Elmhurst was where the story started for New York City and for NYCH+H. “I trained here and have spent my entire career at this hospital. It came to feel like what a battleground must be like, with things coming at you from every direction,” she said. “It was overwhelming in ways I could not have foreseen. I had seen videos from Italy [an early COVID-19 epicenter], but until it happened here, it was just hard to process.”

Things started slowly, with a few patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and a 5- to 7-day turnaround to get results of their viral infection tests. “By week 2, a greater number of patients from our clinics and testing sites were filtering through the emergency department. Then hundreds.”

The normal occupancy rate for the department of medicine at Elmhurst is 110-115%, which typically means full beds plus patients in the emergency department. “We started to grow to 160, then 180, and then a peak of 250% of occupancy. We took over a rehab surgery floor, then a 35-bed surgery and hospice floor, which went to full capacity just like that,” she said. The number of non–critical care service teams increased to 20, working with redeployed staff, volunteers, military, and agency personnel, while ICU beds increased from 20 to 105.

“We were dealing with a much higher acuity level and enduring emotional turmoil with families, trying to carve out time to call them after our shift was over,” Dr. Curcio explained. Elmhurst developed a call-in hotline and a daily call-out service for families. Technology was mobilized to provide video visits and new systems were designed for isolation and for PPE distribution and use.

“I just felt that I couldn’t get everything done. I felt continually overwhelmed, and it didn’t matter how much time I took. I never felt I was able to give enough to anybody in any area, which was hard to take,” Dr. Curcio said. “But I still felt a sense of purpose and that I was making a difference – thanks to lots of support from the central office.”

Patient volume at Elmhurst is now down, lower than Dr. Curcio has ever seen it. “One of the main issues right now, moving forward, is ‘how do we function in a post-crisis mode?’” she said. The process of transitioning back to non-COVID-19 care will be complex. “When we clear a floor and clean it to go back to being a cold [COVID-19-negative] unit, it’s a whole different level of cleaning that takes 7 days.”

One moment that was particularly jarring for Dr. Curcio occurred while she was giving a tour of the hospital to visiting military medical personnel. “We went into the emergency department and I turned around and looked into a shower room, which was full of body bags. They were all full.”

But the experience has also been inspiring. “People gave their all without complaint. We hospitalists, and all those recruited to act as hospitalists, essentially took responsibility for the COVID response,” she said. “This was, hopefully, the experience of a lifetime as a medical professional. I wouldn’t want to ever experience something as daunting as this again.”
 

Reference

1. Israilov S et al. National outreach of telepalliative medicine volunteers for a New York City safety net system COVID-19 pandemic response. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2020 May 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.05.026.

New York City Health + Hospitals (NYCH+H), the country’s largest public health care system, encompasses 11 hospitals with 4,354 staffed acute beds during normal times. It serves as the safety net for 1.1 million of the 8.4 million residents of the most populous city in the United States, many of them uninsured, undocumented, covered by Medicaid, or otherwise disadvantaged.

At the very epicenter in the early days of the historic COVID-19 pandemic, NYCH+H transferred patients between its facilities, added medical and ICU beds by the hundreds, mobilized palliative care volunteers, harnessed telemedicine and a clinician hotline, and made other sweeping changes to ensure that the city’s public health system would be able to respond to demand at the peak of the surge. That peak hit in April, when an average of 9,000 new COVID-19 cases were being reported in the city every day.

Through it all, hospitalists have played critical roles in both planning for the system’s response and caring for severely ill COVID-19 patients. Their stories reflect both the unprecedented demands on the system and the dedication of frontline clinicians.

One of those, Carla Saladini-Aponte, MD, who just finished her residency in June 2019, found herself on the firing line in March 2020 as an attending physician at 457-bed NYCH+H/Jacobi Hospital in the Bronx. “I have experienced so much in my first year on the job, dealing with a disease that we’ve never seen before,” she said. “We didn’t grasp the extent of the COVID crisis in the beginning, so we were emotionally unprepared when it first hit.”

Starting on March 30, NYCH+H administration mobilized a centralized incident command structure to coordinate response systemwide to a rapidly changing situation.

Two weeks later Jacobi was a COVID-19 hospital, top to bottom, with its medical ICU beds increased from 12 to more than 100. By mid-April, Dr. Saladini-Aponte’s team, one of 11 medical teams in the hospital, had 26 patients, all of them with COVID-19. There was not a consensus in the early days on how to manage patients with severe respiratory distress. “But by the time the surge came, we had a better understanding of the scope of the situation,” she said.

Learning to be an attending

“They don’t teach you how to be an attending during residency,” Dr. Saladini-Aponte said. “At the beginning I wasn’t such a good teacher. I just wanted to prove myself and stay one step ahead of the residents. But as an academic hospitalist you have to listen to others. I learned to ask questions of the residents every morning, including how they were doing personally.”

Sometimes a visiting consultant would ask on the floor: “‘Where’s your attending?’” not recognizing Dr. Saladini-Aponte, fresh out of residency, filling that role. At times, she felt like a PGY-4 (postgraduate year 4). But she quickly grew into the attending role and was asked to be site coordinator for the mobilization of palliative medicine volunteers at Jacobi.

“We found ourselves having to make tough ethical decisions. Some patients, even if we provided a ventilator and maximum oxygen therapy, would still die. There were difficult discussions when we didn’t know if we had enough dialysis machines, or how to manage other limited resources. The hospital was saying: You decide, if there’s a high degree of certainty about the outcome. But we had never practiced medicine this way before,” she said.

“That’s why our hospital provided daily ethics meetings with our ethics council. There would be eight people sitting 6 feet apart in a conference room, all wearing masks. We’d talk about situations that were giving us trouble. Their role wasn’t to provide answers but to help us see the scope of the situation and the complexities,” she explained.

Dr. Saladini-Aponte said she has had many sleepless nights since the pandemic began. “Sometimes, I would come home from work and lie down on the floor and cry,” she said. “But we had so much support from volunteers helping our little hospitalist service of seven.” It was also important to keep up with the clinical information, and one of her coworkers created “cheat sheets” for the clinicians, regularly updated with the latest essential information on antibiotics, testing, and the like.

“At the peak, I was trying to read everything I could about the virus. I was just pulling myself in too many directions. I asked for help from my boyfriend to remind me not to log onto my computer when I came home from work,” she said. “One of my techniques for preventing burnout was just to avoid social media. I couldn’t deal with what was going on in the news. It just angered me. Even now, seeing people without masks makes me very uncomfortable.”
 

Organizing the crisis response

As chief value officer for NYCH+H, Hyung (Harry) Cho, MD, FACP, SFHM, typically focuses on issues of patient safety and overuse of medical treatments in the health system. But in the COVID-19 crisis, he found himself at the forefront of organizing its response. “We tried to provide support centrally and to standardize practice in how we test and treat,” he said.

“We were truly at the epicenter of the pandemic,” Dr. Cho said. “All of our hospitals had different experiences, and unique responses. But the system worked well.” Patients were transferred from the more overtaxed hospitals to Bellevue and other NYCH+H hospitals with spare beds. An emergency medical response structure was put in place, and every morning the system’s Tiger Team, with multidisciplinary personnel from administration, operations, logistics, and medical/technical specialists, would gather virtually to discuss needs across the system.

“It was a very open atmosphere and we asked people to report what was happening on the ground,” Dr. Cho said. “We started rapidly reviewing batches of 20 patients at a time for transfer in order to alleviate pressure in the most overtaxed ERs.”

NYCH+H also had to work through concerns about PPE, just like other U.S. hospitals. Treatment guidelines were changing by the day. Medical concerns were relayed at a rapid pace. Another priority was trying to limit unnecessary exposure for staff through a recommendation that only one clinician from a team would go into the room of an infected patient, unless another was absolutely needed.

The reality of public health

NYCH+H was created by the New York State Legislature in 1969 and rebranded in 2015. It includes a low- to no-cost health insurance plan called MetroPlus, along with outpatient centers, comprehensive case management, and social supports in the home.

“What people know about public health systems is that we typically are underresourced. That’s just the reality of public health,” Dr. Cho said. “We help the community, the underserved. The people who truly needed our help are also the ones who have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. And that is where we really shine as a system.”

Dr. Cho lauded the performance of the health system’s frontline staff. “Watching them come together during the entire pandemic, and do their best every day, was truly inspiring,” he said. “But when they got to the peak, it really took an emotional toll on them.”

NYCH+H’s in-house staff support program, called Helping Healers Heal, was mobilized with specially trained teams at each of its 11 hospitals to provide peer-to-peer support, mental health expertise, and team-debriefing sessions to staff members following traumatic events. Support is provided both over the phone and in person on the floors, Dr. Cho said. “During the surge, everything was happening so quickly, there was no time to take a pause. Now, as we are able to catch our breath, that’s when they most need support.”

The hospitalists at NYCH+H hospitals intended to have goals-of-care conversations with all patients, but everyone was very busy – so having these conversations became harder and harder, Dr. Cho said. Recognizing limited staffing for the quadrupling of patients who needed palliative care at NYCH+H hospitals, he asked the medicine chairs about their palliative care needs and then used social media outreach to ask for help. The message went viral, attracting 413 volunteers from across the country. Sixty-seven telepalliative volunteers were put to work doing goals-of-care conversations remotely with inpatients and their families.¹

Expediting transfers

For Ian Fagan, MD, a hospitalist and associate medical director for general internal medicine Inpatient Services at Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan, hospitalist shifts are a normal part of his job. But he had to give them up during the surge to focus on planning, management, and especially scheduling other doctors, with sufficient backups needed to cover last minute changes. Dr. Fagan did that by using the existing pool of hospitalist staff, physicians who were reassigned from other specialties, agency staff, military medical personnel, and volunteer doctors who flew in from around the country to help. He also worked 10- to 12-hour days for 36 consecutive days.

The impact of disparities in access to care in New York City was reflected in the greater demand for care in the hospitals in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. “With fewer patients and more hospital beds in Manhattan, we had the capacity to share our beds,” Dr. Fagan said. “It was so amazing to me how quickly we could move patients from one hospital to another. We started accepting up to 40 transfers a day. But hey, we were still really busy.”

Bellevue is the nation’s oldest public hospital. “We care for the homeless, for immigrants, and we don’t ask questions. That’s our mission. I’m so proud to work here, and so grateful,” Dr. Fagan said. “If someone is undocumented or without insurance, I will give them exactly the same care. We stepped up in a big way to care for people of New York, but we’ve always been there for them – and we were there for them during the COVID surge.”

The hospitals in the system also worked together in ways Dr. Fagan had never seen. “It helped to have a central command structure with a bird’s eye view from above the level of individual hospitals, to organize and see which hospitals could step up. It’s good to have the data to put it in perspective,” he said. The system also utilized a temporary low-acuity medical center set up by NYCH+H on Roosevelt Island, as well as field hospitals organized at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center.

“At Bellevue we tried to stay ready, with the ability to turn former hospital units that were being used as offices back to beds. We always had three units lined up that were fully ready to convert. For example, I was medical director of the preop clinic and one day they gave us 24 hours to pack everything and move out. Three days later, it was a 24-bed unit. We also built a more robust rapid response and code team,” he said.

“It was hard for me not to take hospitalist shifts, because my identity is being a doctor. I eventually came to terms with the importance of the role that I was doing every day. I felt I could protect my colleagues, and if they were having an emotional day, to give them the opportunity to talk to someone. I also did the onboarding, one-on-one, of the new doctors.”

As the crisis in New York City has ebbed, Dr. Fagan was recently able to again take a week of clinical service. “The first day back on the floor I felt that I had forgotten everything. But by the end of the day, I thought, ‘Okay, I do know how to do this, after all.’ Census is down here. It’s quiet. That’s good. We need it now,” he said.

“I think the hardest moment for me was when the head nurse on our trauma unit, Ernesto DeLeon, known to everybody here, died of COVID in our ICU in April,” Dr. Fagan said. When Mr. DeLeon died, 100 hospital personnel gathered in the halls outside the room to pay their respects. “There had been a palpable fear in our lives – and this showed us that the fear was real. Ernesto was the first person I knew well who died, who acquired COVID at work doing what we’re all doing. We haven’t lost any doctors yet, but when this nurse died, we allowed ourselves to realize that this is personal. In that moment, we needed to allow ourselves to be human.”

Joan Curcio, MD, associate director of medicine at Elmhurst Hospital, said Elmhurst was where the story started for New York City and for NYCH+H. “I trained here and have spent my entire career at this hospital. It came to feel like what a battleground must be like, with things coming at you from every direction,” she said. “It was overwhelming in ways I could not have foreseen. I had seen videos from Italy [an early COVID-19 epicenter], but until it happened here, it was just hard to process.”

Things started slowly, with a few patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and a 5- to 7-day turnaround to get results of their viral infection tests. “By week 2, a greater number of patients from our clinics and testing sites were filtering through the emergency department. Then hundreds.”

The normal occupancy rate for the department of medicine at Elmhurst is 110-115%, which typically means full beds plus patients in the emergency department. “We started to grow to 160, then 180, and then a peak of 250% of occupancy. We took over a rehab surgery floor, then a 35-bed surgery and hospice floor, which went to full capacity just like that,” she said. The number of non–critical care service teams increased to 20, working with redeployed staff, volunteers, military, and agency personnel, while ICU beds increased from 20 to 105.

“We were dealing with a much higher acuity level and enduring emotional turmoil with families, trying to carve out time to call them after our shift was over,” Dr. Curcio explained. Elmhurst developed a call-in hotline and a daily call-out service for families. Technology was mobilized to provide video visits and new systems were designed for isolation and for PPE distribution and use.

“I just felt that I couldn’t get everything done. I felt continually overwhelmed, and it didn’t matter how much time I took. I never felt I was able to give enough to anybody in any area, which was hard to take,” Dr. Curcio said. “But I still felt a sense of purpose and that I was making a difference – thanks to lots of support from the central office.”

Patient volume at Elmhurst is now down, lower than Dr. Curcio has ever seen it. “One of the main issues right now, moving forward, is ‘how do we function in a post-crisis mode?’” she said. The process of transitioning back to non-COVID-19 care will be complex. “When we clear a floor and clean it to go back to being a cold [COVID-19-negative] unit, it’s a whole different level of cleaning that takes 7 days.”

One moment that was particularly jarring for Dr. Curcio occurred while she was giving a tour of the hospital to visiting military medical personnel. “We went into the emergency department and I turned around and looked into a shower room, which was full of body bags. They were all full.”

But the experience has also been inspiring. “People gave their all without complaint. We hospitalists, and all those recruited to act as hospitalists, essentially took responsibility for the COVID response,” she said. “This was, hopefully, the experience of a lifetime as a medical professional. I wouldn’t want to ever experience something as daunting as this again.”
 

Reference

1. Israilov S et al. National outreach of telepalliative medicine volunteers for a New York City safety net system COVID-19 pandemic response. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2020 May 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.05.026.