Neurology Reviews

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) for the treatment of adult patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) who are anti-AQP4 antibody positive. Uplizna is the second approved treatment for the disorder.

Approval was based on results from the global, placebo-controlled N-MOmentum trial, which included 213 anti-AQP4 antibody–positive patients and 17 anti-AQP4 antibody–negative patients who received inebilizumab-cdon or placebo. Just under 90% of patients in the positive group remained relapse free 6 months after the initial dosing, compared with 58% of patients taking placebo. People who took inebilizumab also saw a reduction in NMOSD-related hospitalizations. There was no evidence of a benefit in patients who were anti-AQP4 antibody negative.

Inebilizumab-cdon was safe and well tolerated during the trial, with the most common adverse events being urinary tract infection (20%), nasopharyngitis (13%), infusion reaction (12%), arthralgia (11%), and headache (10%). The drug is approved as twice-yearly maintenance after initial dosing. The prescribing information for Uplizna includes a warning for infusion reactions, potential depletion of certain proteins (hypogammaglobulinemia), and potential increased risk of infection—including progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy—and potential reactivation of hepatitis B and tuberculosis.

“NMOSD is an extremely challenging disease to treat. Patients experience unpredictable attacks that can lead to permanent disability from blindness and paralysis. In addition, each subsequent attack may result in a cumulative worsening of disability,” Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, lead investigator for the N-MOmentum trial and professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a press release. “Uplizna is an important new treatment option that provides prescribing physicians and patients living with NMOSD a therapy with proven efficacy, a favorable safety profile and a twice-a-year maintenance dosing schedule.”

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) for the treatment of adult patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) who are anti-AQP4 antibody positive. Uplizna is the second approved treatment for the disorder.

Approval was based on results from the global, placebo-controlled N-MOmentum trial, which included 213 anti-AQP4 antibody–positive patients and 17 anti-AQP4 antibody–negative patients who received inebilizumab-cdon or placebo. Just under 90% of patients in the positive group remained relapse free 6 months after the initial dosing, compared with 58% of patients taking placebo. People who took inebilizumab also saw a reduction in NMOSD-related hospitalizations. There was no evidence of a benefit in patients who were anti-AQP4 antibody negative.

Inebilizumab-cdon was safe and well tolerated during the trial, with the most common adverse events being urinary tract infection (20%), nasopharyngitis (13%), infusion reaction (12%), arthralgia (11%), and headache (10%). The drug is approved as twice-yearly maintenance after initial dosing. The prescribing information for Uplizna includes a warning for infusion reactions, potential depletion of certain proteins (hypogammaglobulinemia), and potential increased risk of infection—including progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy—and potential reactivation of hepatitis B and tuberculosis.

“NMOSD is an extremely challenging disease to treat. Patients experience unpredictable attacks that can lead to permanent disability from blindness and paralysis. In addition, each subsequent attack may result in a cumulative worsening of disability,” Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, lead investigator for the N-MOmentum trial and professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a press release. “Uplizna is an important new treatment option that provides prescribing physicians and patients living with NMOSD a therapy with proven efficacy, a favorable safety profile and a twice-a-year maintenance dosing schedule.”

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) for the treatment of adult patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) who are anti-AQP4 antibody positive. Uplizna is the second approved treatment for the disorder.

Approval was based on results from the global, placebo-controlled N-MOmentum trial, which included 213 anti-AQP4 antibody–positive patients and 17 anti-AQP4 antibody–negative patients who received inebilizumab-cdon or placebo. Just under 90% of patients in the positive group remained relapse free 6 months after the initial dosing, compared with 58% of patients taking placebo. People who took inebilizumab also saw a reduction in NMOSD-related hospitalizations. There was no evidence of a benefit in patients who were anti-AQP4 antibody negative.

Inebilizumab-cdon was safe and well tolerated during the trial, with the most common adverse events being urinary tract infection (20%), nasopharyngitis (13%), infusion reaction (12%), arthralgia (11%), and headache (10%). The drug is approved as twice-yearly maintenance after initial dosing. The prescribing information for Uplizna includes a warning for infusion reactions, potential depletion of certain proteins (hypogammaglobulinemia), and potential increased risk of infection—including progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy—and potential reactivation of hepatitis B and tuberculosis.

“NMOSD is an extremely challenging disease to treat. Patients experience unpredictable attacks that can lead to permanent disability from blindness and paralysis. In addition, each subsequent attack may result in a cumulative worsening of disability,” Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, lead investigator for the N-MOmentum trial and professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a press release. “Uplizna is an important new treatment option that provides prescribing physicians and patients living with NMOSD a therapy with proven efficacy, a favorable safety profile and a twice-a-year maintenance dosing schedule.”

lfranki@mdedge.com

In a new analysis of international registry data, renal denervation resulted in similar reduced blood pressure levels in patients with varying high-risk comorbidities and across a range of cardiovascular risk scores.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

At 3 years, 24-hour systolic BP was reduced by an average of –8.9 mm Hg overall, with slightly higher or lower readings seen in those with higher cardiovascular risk scores (–10.4 mm Hg) and 65 years or older (–10.2 mm Hg). Similar reductions were seen in those with resistant hypertension (–8.7 mm Hg), diabetes (–8.6 mm Hg), isolated systolic hypertension (–10.1 mm Hg), chronic kidney disease (–10.1 mm Hg), or atrial fibrillation (–10.0 mm Hg).

“In the largest international registry of its kind, the efficacy of renal denervation was similar in patients with and without baseline conditions associated with increased sympathetic activity and irrespective of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] risk,” first author Felix Mahfoud, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Mahfoud, from University Hospital of Saarland, Homburg, Germany, and colleagues published their analysis in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The article reported a post hoc analysis of data from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry (GSR), an international, Medtronic-funded effort that includes 2,652 patients with uncontrolled hypertension treated with a Symplicity denervation system. Data were obtained from 196 centers in 45 countries.

“Blood pressure reductions were durable and sustained to 3 years and the rates of new-onset, end-stage renal disease and elevation in serum creatinine levels were very low in patients at high and low [cardiovascular] risk,” reported Dr. Mahfoud.

As expected, adverse event rates were higher for patients with higher baseline cardiovascular risk. “Elevated rates were also seen in patients with [atrial fibrillation] and diabetes, identifying these subgroups who might derive even greater clinical benefit from improved BP control using renal denervation,” said Dr. Mahfoud.

Asked which patients might be optimal candidates for renal denervation, Dr. Mahfoud recommended the technology for “patients with uncontrolled hypertension on medication, patients with nonadherence, unwillingness, or intolerability to medication, and patients with combined systolic and diastolic hypertension.”
 

Analyses limited by incomplete data

Stephen C. Textor, MD, has concerns over the amount of missing data in the GSR database and its continued use as a repository of information on renal denervation.

“I am a bit lukewarm on this paper in part because of the nature of the registry data they’re using,” he added in an interview. “The problem I see is that the registry is not terribly uniform as to what information they collect on each patient, not terribly uniform in terms of how the procedure is performed, and not terribly uniform on how they follow up patients.”

Indeed, the post hoc subgroup analyses represent only a limited subset because of incomplete data, added Dr. Textor, a nephrologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“Remarkably, only 504 [patients] had “matched” data for office [systolic BP] levels at the time points defined in the report,” he wrote in an editorial comment accompanying the registry report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jun 16;75[23]:2889-91).

Similarly, the researchers were able to calculate baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk scores in only 1,485 patients (56% of total), primarily because of missing cholesterol measurements.

“They simply did these paired comparison that may have included a couple hundred cases, and on average, there were no differences in response, but what I would have liked to see is a multivariate analysis, where you have all the data on everybody and look at what are the factors that impact response?” Dr. Textor said in the interview.

“They really couldn’t do that because they just, they’re just too many holes in the data,” he added.

On the bright side, Dr. Textor noted that, while the impact overall on systolic BP was “modest,” the standard deviations in some cases were large, indicating that some people had large reductions of systolic BP of more than 30-40 mm Hg.

“There is a belief out there that there are some people that really benefit from this, but how to identify them has been the question,” Dr. Textor said.

Enthusiasm for renal denervation plummeted after results from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 showed the procedure failing to meet its efficacy endpoint in resistant hypertension. The procedure was associated with a 14–mm Hg fall in systolic BP, compared with an 11–mm Hg drop in the “sham” control group (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370:1393-401). However, post hoc analysis of the trial revealed significant shortcomings in design and execution.

No renal denervation device is approved in the United States. The Symplicity device used in this registry is approved in the European Union.

In early 2020, the Food and Drug Administration promised a rigorous review of new renal denervation trials. Subsequently, primary results from the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED pivotal trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in March and showed promising efficacy.

SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED was designed in collaboration with the FDA to obtain meaningful evidence of whether renal denervation performed with the Symplicity Spyral multielectrode catheter (Medtronic Vascular) could reduce BP in patients not taking antihypertensive medication.

Dr. Mahfoud reported he has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic and ReCor. Two other authors are employees of Medtronic. Dr. Textor reported no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper. The Global SYMPLICITY Registry is funded by Medtronic Vascular.

SOURCE: Mahfoud F et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 June 16;75:2879-88.

This article was updated 6/16/20.

In a new analysis of international registry data, renal denervation resulted in similar reduced blood pressure levels in patients with varying high-risk comorbidities and across a range of cardiovascular risk scores.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

At 3 years, 24-hour systolic BP was reduced by an average of –8.9 mm Hg overall, with slightly higher or lower readings seen in those with higher cardiovascular risk scores (–10.4 mm Hg) and 65 years or older (–10.2 mm Hg). Similar reductions were seen in those with resistant hypertension (–8.7 mm Hg), diabetes (–8.6 mm Hg), isolated systolic hypertension (–10.1 mm Hg), chronic kidney disease (–10.1 mm Hg), or atrial fibrillation (–10.0 mm Hg).

“In the largest international registry of its kind, the efficacy of renal denervation was similar in patients with and without baseline conditions associated with increased sympathetic activity and irrespective of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] risk,” first author Felix Mahfoud, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Mahfoud, from University Hospital of Saarland, Homburg, Germany, and colleagues published their analysis in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The article reported a post hoc analysis of data from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry (GSR), an international, Medtronic-funded effort that includes 2,652 patients with uncontrolled hypertension treated with a Symplicity denervation system. Data were obtained from 196 centers in 45 countries.

“Blood pressure reductions were durable and sustained to 3 years and the rates of new-onset, end-stage renal disease and elevation in serum creatinine levels were very low in patients at high and low [cardiovascular] risk,” reported Dr. Mahfoud.

As expected, adverse event rates were higher for patients with higher baseline cardiovascular risk. “Elevated rates were also seen in patients with [atrial fibrillation] and diabetes, identifying these subgroups who might derive even greater clinical benefit from improved BP control using renal denervation,” said Dr. Mahfoud.

Asked which patients might be optimal candidates for renal denervation, Dr. Mahfoud recommended the technology for “patients with uncontrolled hypertension on medication, patients with nonadherence, unwillingness, or intolerability to medication, and patients with combined systolic and diastolic hypertension.”
 

Analyses limited by incomplete data

Stephen C. Textor, MD, has concerns over the amount of missing data in the GSR database and its continued use as a repository of information on renal denervation.

“I am a bit lukewarm on this paper in part because of the nature of the registry data they’re using,” he added in an interview. “The problem I see is that the registry is not terribly uniform as to what information they collect on each patient, not terribly uniform in terms of how the procedure is performed, and not terribly uniform on how they follow up patients.”

Indeed, the post hoc subgroup analyses represent only a limited subset because of incomplete data, added Dr. Textor, a nephrologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“Remarkably, only 504 [patients] had “matched” data for office [systolic BP] levels at the time points defined in the report,” he wrote in an editorial comment accompanying the registry report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jun 16;75[23]:2889-91).

Similarly, the researchers were able to calculate baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk scores in only 1,485 patients (56% of total), primarily because of missing cholesterol measurements.

“They simply did these paired comparison that may have included a couple hundred cases, and on average, there were no differences in response, but what I would have liked to see is a multivariate analysis, where you have all the data on everybody and look at what are the factors that impact response?” Dr. Textor said in the interview.

“They really couldn’t do that because they just, they’re just too many holes in the data,” he added.

On the bright side, Dr. Textor noted that, while the impact overall on systolic BP was “modest,” the standard deviations in some cases were large, indicating that some people had large reductions of systolic BP of more than 30-40 mm Hg.

“There is a belief out there that there are some people that really benefit from this, but how to identify them has been the question,” Dr. Textor said.

Enthusiasm for renal denervation plummeted after results from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 showed the procedure failing to meet its efficacy endpoint in resistant hypertension. The procedure was associated with a 14–mm Hg fall in systolic BP, compared with an 11–mm Hg drop in the “sham” control group (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370:1393-401). However, post hoc analysis of the trial revealed significant shortcomings in design and execution.

No renal denervation device is approved in the United States. The Symplicity device used in this registry is approved in the European Union.

In early 2020, the Food and Drug Administration promised a rigorous review of new renal denervation trials. Subsequently, primary results from the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED pivotal trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in March and showed promising efficacy.

SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED was designed in collaboration with the FDA to obtain meaningful evidence of whether renal denervation performed with the Symplicity Spyral multielectrode catheter (Medtronic Vascular) could reduce BP in patients not taking antihypertensive medication.

Dr. Mahfoud reported he has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic and ReCor. Two other authors are employees of Medtronic. Dr. Textor reported no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper. The Global SYMPLICITY Registry is funded by Medtronic Vascular.

SOURCE: Mahfoud F et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 June 16;75:2879-88.

This article was updated 6/16/20.

In a new analysis of international registry data, renal denervation resulted in similar reduced blood pressure levels in patients with varying high-risk comorbidities and across a range of cardiovascular risk scores.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

At 3 years, 24-hour systolic BP was reduced by an average of –8.9 mm Hg overall, with slightly higher or lower readings seen in those with higher cardiovascular risk scores (–10.4 mm Hg) and 65 years or older (–10.2 mm Hg). Similar reductions were seen in those with resistant hypertension (–8.7 mm Hg), diabetes (–8.6 mm Hg), isolated systolic hypertension (–10.1 mm Hg), chronic kidney disease (–10.1 mm Hg), or atrial fibrillation (–10.0 mm Hg).

“In the largest international registry of its kind, the efficacy of renal denervation was similar in patients with and without baseline conditions associated with increased sympathetic activity and irrespective of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] risk,” first author Felix Mahfoud, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Mahfoud, from University Hospital of Saarland, Homburg, Germany, and colleagues published their analysis in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The article reported a post hoc analysis of data from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry (GSR), an international, Medtronic-funded effort that includes 2,652 patients with uncontrolled hypertension treated with a Symplicity denervation system. Data were obtained from 196 centers in 45 countries.

“Blood pressure reductions were durable and sustained to 3 years and the rates of new-onset, end-stage renal disease and elevation in serum creatinine levels were very low in patients at high and low [cardiovascular] risk,” reported Dr. Mahfoud.

As expected, adverse event rates were higher for patients with higher baseline cardiovascular risk. “Elevated rates were also seen in patients with [atrial fibrillation] and diabetes, identifying these subgroups who might derive even greater clinical benefit from improved BP control using renal denervation,” said Dr. Mahfoud.

Asked which patients might be optimal candidates for renal denervation, Dr. Mahfoud recommended the technology for “patients with uncontrolled hypertension on medication, patients with nonadherence, unwillingness, or intolerability to medication, and patients with combined systolic and diastolic hypertension.”
 

Analyses limited by incomplete data

Stephen C. Textor, MD, has concerns over the amount of missing data in the GSR database and its continued use as a repository of information on renal denervation.

“I am a bit lukewarm on this paper in part because of the nature of the registry data they’re using,” he added in an interview. “The problem I see is that the registry is not terribly uniform as to what information they collect on each patient, not terribly uniform in terms of how the procedure is performed, and not terribly uniform on how they follow up patients.”

Indeed, the post hoc subgroup analyses represent only a limited subset because of incomplete data, added Dr. Textor, a nephrologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“Remarkably, only 504 [patients] had “matched” data for office [systolic BP] levels at the time points defined in the report,” he wrote in an editorial comment accompanying the registry report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jun 16;75[23]:2889-91).

Similarly, the researchers were able to calculate baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk scores in only 1,485 patients (56% of total), primarily because of missing cholesterol measurements.

“They simply did these paired comparison that may have included a couple hundred cases, and on average, there were no differences in response, but what I would have liked to see is a multivariate analysis, where you have all the data on everybody and look at what are the factors that impact response?” Dr. Textor said in the interview.

“They really couldn’t do that because they just, they’re just too many holes in the data,” he added.

On the bright side, Dr. Textor noted that, while the impact overall on systolic BP was “modest,” the standard deviations in some cases were large, indicating that some people had large reductions of systolic BP of more than 30-40 mm Hg.

“There is a belief out there that there are some people that really benefit from this, but how to identify them has been the question,” Dr. Textor said.

Enthusiasm for renal denervation plummeted after results from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 showed the procedure failing to meet its efficacy endpoint in resistant hypertension. The procedure was associated with a 14–mm Hg fall in systolic BP, compared with an 11–mm Hg drop in the “sham” control group (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370:1393-401). However, post hoc analysis of the trial revealed significant shortcomings in design and execution.

No renal denervation device is approved in the United States. The Symplicity device used in this registry is approved in the European Union.

In early 2020, the Food and Drug Administration promised a rigorous review of new renal denervation trials. Subsequently, primary results from the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED pivotal trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in March and showed promising efficacy.

SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED was designed in collaboration with the FDA to obtain meaningful evidence of whether renal denervation performed with the Symplicity Spyral multielectrode catheter (Medtronic Vascular) could reduce BP in patients not taking antihypertensive medication.

Dr. Mahfoud reported he has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic and ReCor. Two other authors are employees of Medtronic. Dr. Textor reported no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper. The Global SYMPLICITY Registry is funded by Medtronic Vascular.

SOURCE: Mahfoud F et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 June 16;75:2879-88.

This article was updated 6/16/20.

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

For patients with painful diabetic neuropathy that doesn’t resolve with standard treatment, use of a 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation device may relieve pain and improve sensation, initial results of a large randomized controlled trial suggest.

Some 79% of patients had substantial pain relief 3 months after starting treatment, compared with 5% of patients managed with conventional medical treatment, according to results of SENZA-PDN, which investigators say is the largest-ever randomized, controlled trial of spinal cord stimulation for managing painful diabetic neuropathy.

Although this was not a comparative trial, investigator Erika Petersen, MD, said in an interview that results seen with the 10-kHz spinal cord stimulator (Nevro Corp.) exceed what has been seen in previous studies of spinal cord stimulation devices operating at lower frequencies, where response rates have been in the 40%-55% range.

New option for front line providers?

“My overall takeaway here is that these initial 3-month results are very promising,” said Dr. Petersen, who is Director of Functional & Restorative Neurosurgery and Neuromodulation at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock.

Patient-perceived numbness and sensory assessments by investigators also improved following implantation of the spinal cord stimulator, according to Dr. Peterson, who added that measurements of sleep and activity also seemed to improve in these patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.

“Spinal cord stimulation has been established for chronic back and leg pain, but being able to innovate in this population with diabetic neuropathy is really something that we anticipate will improve quality of life and functional benefit for a large number of patients who currently have been stuck with the options that are currently available,” Dr. Petersen said in an interview.

Courtesy Mayo Clinic

Natalie H. Strand, MD, assistant professor of pain medicine at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz., said that while the findings of this randomized study may require corroboration, they do suggest that this neuromodulation device may provide another option for front line diabetes providers when patients have persistent pain despite appropriately medication management.

“These patients are probably under-referred to interventional pain specialists,” said Dr. Strand in an interview. “The primary care physicians and endocrinologists may not think of neuromodulation as an appropriate treatment, and they may not know that it can be so effective.”

“Anything that we can add as physicians to help decrease the burden of diabetes is going to be very impactful,” Dr. Strand added. “While this is focused on pain, what we’re really trying to treat is the entire patient – improve their quality of life and make diabetes more manageable.”

Nearly 80% of treated patients responded at 3 months

The SENZA-PDN study results were presented as a late-breaking poster presentation at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. Those results included 103 patients randomized to conventional medical management alone, and 113 who received medical management plus the spinal cord stimulator, which Dr. Strand described as a minimally invasive, reversibly implanted epidural device designed to stimulate the spinal cord and reverse pain sensations.

The median age was about 61 years and roughly two-thirds were male. All patients had to have lower extremity pain with an average intensity of at least 5 out of 10 cm on the visual analog scale (VAS) at enrollment, according to published inclusion criteria for the study (NCT03228420).

Three months after device implantation, 75 out of 95 evaluable patients (79%) had a response, defined as 50% or greater pain relief plus no worsening of neurological deficit related to painful diabetic neuropathy. By contrast, only 5 of 94 medically managed patients (5%) met those response criteria (P < 0.001), according to reported data.

The mean VAS score in the device group dropped from 7.6 at baseline to 2.4 at 1 month and 1.7 at 3 months, data show. In the medical management group, mean VAS scores were 7.0 at baseline, 6.7 at 1 month, and 6.5 at 3 months.

Sensory assessment of monofilament and pinprick perception, performed by investigators at 3 months, indicated a 72% improvement in the device arm versus 7% improvement in the medical management arm, while analysis of patient-drawn diagrams additionally suggested improvement in perceived numbness, according to investigators.

Quality-of-life improvements related to sleep and activity were also apparent at 3 months in the device group, Dr. Petersen said, with investigators noting substantial reductions in trouble falling asleep because of pain and awakening due to pain. Likewise, data at this initial report suggested improvements in 6-minute walk test that were apparent in the device group but not the medical management group.


While the spinal cord stimulator under investigation is already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Petersen said a lack of data specific to painful diabetic neuropathy has been a hurdle to insurance coverage for some patients.

“I’ve had patients who clearly have every suggestion that they match the characteristics of our research population here, but the insurance will decline the procedure as being experimental,” she said. “My hope is that randomized, controlled trial results in a research study such as this is something that will improve the access of the therapy to patients who would not be able to afford it without having insurance cover the procedure.”

Follow-up of the study will continue for 24 months and will include assessment of health economics and use of pain medication, Dr. Petersen said.

The SENZA-PDN study is funded by Nevro Corp. Dr. Petersen said that she receives research funding and consulting fees from Nevro Corp. and other device manufacturers. Dr. Strand said she had no disclosures related to the research.

cardnews@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Petersen E. ADA 2020, Late-breaking poster 31-LB.

For patients with painful diabetic neuropathy that doesn’t resolve with standard treatment, use of a 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation device may relieve pain and improve sensation, initial results of a large randomized controlled trial suggest.

Some 79% of patients had substantial pain relief 3 months after starting treatment, compared with 5% of patients managed with conventional medical treatment, according to results of SENZA-PDN, which investigators say is the largest-ever randomized, controlled trial of spinal cord stimulation for managing painful diabetic neuropathy.

Although this was not a comparative trial, investigator Erika Petersen, MD, said in an interview that results seen with the 10-kHz spinal cord stimulator (Nevro Corp.) exceed what has been seen in previous studies of spinal cord stimulation devices operating at lower frequencies, where response rates have been in the 40%-55% range.

New option for front line providers?

“My overall takeaway here is that these initial 3-month results are very promising,” said Dr. Petersen, who is Director of Functional & Restorative Neurosurgery and Neuromodulation at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock.

Patient-perceived numbness and sensory assessments by investigators also improved following implantation of the spinal cord stimulator, according to Dr. Peterson, who added that measurements of sleep and activity also seemed to improve in these patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.

“Spinal cord stimulation has been established for chronic back and leg pain, but being able to innovate in this population with diabetic neuropathy is really something that we anticipate will improve quality of life and functional benefit for a large number of patients who currently have been stuck with the options that are currently available,” Dr. Petersen said in an interview.

Courtesy Mayo Clinic

Natalie H. Strand, MD, assistant professor of pain medicine at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz., said that while the findings of this randomized study may require corroboration, they do suggest that this neuromodulation device may provide another option for front line diabetes providers when patients have persistent pain despite appropriately medication management.

“These patients are probably under-referred to interventional pain specialists,” said Dr. Strand in an interview. “The primary care physicians and endocrinologists may not think of neuromodulation as an appropriate treatment, and they may not know that it can be so effective.”

“Anything that we can add as physicians to help decrease the burden of diabetes is going to be very impactful,” Dr. Strand added. “While this is focused on pain, what we’re really trying to treat is the entire patient – improve their quality of life and make diabetes more manageable.”

Nearly 80% of treated patients responded at 3 months

The SENZA-PDN study results were presented as a late-breaking poster presentation at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. Those results included 103 patients randomized to conventional medical management alone, and 113 who received medical management plus the spinal cord stimulator, which Dr. Strand described as a minimally invasive, reversibly implanted epidural device designed to stimulate the spinal cord and reverse pain sensations.

The median age was about 61 years and roughly two-thirds were male. All patients had to have lower extremity pain with an average intensity of at least 5 out of 10 cm on the visual analog scale (VAS) at enrollment, according to published inclusion criteria for the study (NCT03228420).

Three months after device implantation, 75 out of 95 evaluable patients (79%) had a response, defined as 50% or greater pain relief plus no worsening of neurological deficit related to painful diabetic neuropathy. By contrast, only 5 of 94 medically managed patients (5%) met those response criteria (P < 0.001), according to reported data.

The mean VAS score in the device group dropped from 7.6 at baseline to 2.4 at 1 month and 1.7 at 3 months, data show. In the medical management group, mean VAS scores were 7.0 at baseline, 6.7 at 1 month, and 6.5 at 3 months.

Sensory assessment of monofilament and pinprick perception, performed by investigators at 3 months, indicated a 72% improvement in the device arm versus 7% improvement in the medical management arm, while analysis of patient-drawn diagrams additionally suggested improvement in perceived numbness, according to investigators.

Quality-of-life improvements related to sleep and activity were also apparent at 3 months in the device group, Dr. Petersen said, with investigators noting substantial reductions in trouble falling asleep because of pain and awakening due to pain. Likewise, data at this initial report suggested improvements in 6-minute walk test that were apparent in the device group but not the medical management group.


While the spinal cord stimulator under investigation is already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Petersen said a lack of data specific to painful diabetic neuropathy has been a hurdle to insurance coverage for some patients.

“I’ve had patients who clearly have every suggestion that they match the characteristics of our research population here, but the insurance will decline the procedure as being experimental,” she said. “My hope is that randomized, controlled trial results in a research study such as this is something that will improve the access of the therapy to patients who would not be able to afford it without having insurance cover the procedure.”

Follow-up of the study will continue for 24 months and will include assessment of health economics and use of pain medication, Dr. Petersen said.

The SENZA-PDN study is funded by Nevro Corp. Dr. Petersen said that she receives research funding and consulting fees from Nevro Corp. and other device manufacturers. Dr. Strand said she had no disclosures related to the research.

cardnews@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Petersen E. ADA 2020, Late-breaking poster 31-LB.

For patients with painful diabetic neuropathy that doesn’t resolve with standard treatment, use of a 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation device may relieve pain and improve sensation, initial results of a large randomized controlled trial suggest.

Some 79% of patients had substantial pain relief 3 months after starting treatment, compared with 5% of patients managed with conventional medical treatment, according to results of SENZA-PDN, which investigators say is the largest-ever randomized, controlled trial of spinal cord stimulation for managing painful diabetic neuropathy.

Although this was not a comparative trial, investigator Erika Petersen, MD, said in an interview that results seen with the 10-kHz spinal cord stimulator (Nevro Corp.) exceed what has been seen in previous studies of spinal cord stimulation devices operating at lower frequencies, where response rates have been in the 40%-55% range.

New option for front line providers?

“My overall takeaway here is that these initial 3-month results are very promising,” said Dr. Petersen, who is Director of Functional & Restorative Neurosurgery and Neuromodulation at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock.

Patient-perceived numbness and sensory assessments by investigators also improved following implantation of the spinal cord stimulator, according to Dr. Peterson, who added that measurements of sleep and activity also seemed to improve in these patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.

“Spinal cord stimulation has been established for chronic back and leg pain, but being able to innovate in this population with diabetic neuropathy is really something that we anticipate will improve quality of life and functional benefit for a large number of patients who currently have been stuck with the options that are currently available,” Dr. Petersen said in an interview.

Courtesy Mayo Clinic

Natalie H. Strand, MD, assistant professor of pain medicine at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz., said that while the findings of this randomized study may require corroboration, they do suggest that this neuromodulation device may provide another option for front line diabetes providers when patients have persistent pain despite appropriately medication management.

“These patients are probably under-referred to interventional pain specialists,” said Dr. Strand in an interview. “The primary care physicians and endocrinologists may not think of neuromodulation as an appropriate treatment, and they may not know that it can be so effective.”

“Anything that we can add as physicians to help decrease the burden of diabetes is going to be very impactful,” Dr. Strand added. “While this is focused on pain, what we’re really trying to treat is the entire patient – improve their quality of life and make diabetes more manageable.”

Nearly 80% of treated patients responded at 3 months

The SENZA-PDN study results were presented as a late-breaking poster presentation at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. Those results included 103 patients randomized to conventional medical management alone, and 113 who received medical management plus the spinal cord stimulator, which Dr. Strand described as a minimally invasive, reversibly implanted epidural device designed to stimulate the spinal cord and reverse pain sensations.

The median age was about 61 years and roughly two-thirds were male. All patients had to have lower extremity pain with an average intensity of at least 5 out of 10 cm on the visual analog scale (VAS) at enrollment, according to published inclusion criteria for the study (NCT03228420).

Three months after device implantation, 75 out of 95 evaluable patients (79%) had a response, defined as 50% or greater pain relief plus no worsening of neurological deficit related to painful diabetic neuropathy. By contrast, only 5 of 94 medically managed patients (5%) met those response criteria (P < 0.001), according to reported data.

The mean VAS score in the device group dropped from 7.6 at baseline to 2.4 at 1 month and 1.7 at 3 months, data show. In the medical management group, mean VAS scores were 7.0 at baseline, 6.7 at 1 month, and 6.5 at 3 months.

Sensory assessment of monofilament and pinprick perception, performed by investigators at 3 months, indicated a 72% improvement in the device arm versus 7% improvement in the medical management arm, while analysis of patient-drawn diagrams additionally suggested improvement in perceived numbness, according to investigators.

Quality-of-life improvements related to sleep and activity were also apparent at 3 months in the device group, Dr. Petersen said, with investigators noting substantial reductions in trouble falling asleep because of pain and awakening due to pain. Likewise, data at this initial report suggested improvements in 6-minute walk test that were apparent in the device group but not the medical management group.


While the spinal cord stimulator under investigation is already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Petersen said a lack of data specific to painful diabetic neuropathy has been a hurdle to insurance coverage for some patients.

“I’ve had patients who clearly have every suggestion that they match the characteristics of our research population here, but the insurance will decline the procedure as being experimental,” she said. “My hope is that randomized, controlled trial results in a research study such as this is something that will improve the access of the therapy to patients who would not be able to afford it without having insurance cover the procedure.”

Follow-up of the study will continue for 24 months and will include assessment of health economics and use of pain medication, Dr. Petersen said.

The SENZA-PDN study is funded by Nevro Corp. Dr. Petersen said that she receives research funding and consulting fees from Nevro Corp. and other device manufacturers. Dr. Strand said she had no disclosures related to the research.

cardnews@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Petersen E. ADA 2020, Late-breaking poster 31-LB.

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New preliminary data from the T1D Exchange suggest that, although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.

The new findings – the first US data on individuals with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 – were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

Two UK studies are the only prior ones to previously examine the topic.

The newly published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites, including 15 T1D Exchange member clinics and an additional 49 endocrinology clinics from around the country. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. Another publication with a more detailed analysis of risk factors and adjustment for confounders is planned for later this year.

Some of the findings from the preliminary data have shifted, but many aspects remain consistent, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

“One thing still very true, even with the unpublished findings, is the influence of A1c and glycemic management. ...With higher A1c levels, we’re seeing more COVID-19 hospitalizations and worse outcomes,” he said.

And as has been generally reported for COVID-19, high body mass index was a major risk factor in the preliminary dataset – and remains so.

There were two deaths in the preliminary report, both individuals with comorbidities in addition to type 1 diabetes, Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Interestingly, females predominate in both cohorts. That may be a reporting phenomenon, another factor that is being analyzed.

Hyperglycemia Remains a Major Risk Factor

The study is specifically being conducted by the T1D Exchange’s Quality Improvement Collaborative, which Ebekozien heads.

Data were obtained for 33 patients with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for COVID-19, and another 31 who were classified as “COVID-19–like” because they had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but hadn’t been tested for the virus.

For all 64 patients, the mean age was 20.9 years and two thirds (65.6%) were aged 18 or younger. A higher proportion of the COVID-19–like patients were pediatric than the confirmed cases. The larger dataset includes more adult patients, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, 60.9% of patients were female. Nearly half were white, a quarter Hispanic, and 18.8% black. More confirmed COVID-19 cases were black compared with suspected cases (30.3% vs 6.5%).

Median A1c for the overall group (including suspected COVID-19 cases) was 8.0%, but it was 8.5% among confirmed cases. Overall, six patients (9.8%) presented with new-onset type 1 diabetes after they developed COVID-19.

Hyperglycemia was present in half (32) of patients overall. DKA occurred in 19 people (30.2%): 15 of the confirmed COVID-19 cases (45.5%) versus just 4 (13.3%) of the COVID-19–like cases. Nausea was reported in 30.2% of patients overall.

Other symptoms were typical of COVID-19, including fever (41.3%), dry cough (38.1%), and shortness of breath (27.0%). Loss of taste and smell was less common, at just 9.5% overall.

Obesity was present in 39.7% of patients overall, with similar proportions in the confirmed and suspected COVID-19 groups. Hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease were present in 14.3% of patients overall, and the rate was similar between the two subgroups.

One of the two patients who died was a 79-year-old man who had hypertension and a prior stroke in addition to type 1 diabetes. The other was a 19-year-old woman with a history of asthma who developed a pulmonary embolism during the onset of COVID-19. Neither had DKA.

Even in Type 1 Diabetes, COVID-19 Can Be Managed at Home

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home, with 27.3% of the confirmed and 43.3% of the suspected cases able to do so.

At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit; 30.3% of the confirmed versus 13.3% of suspected cases.

Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to hospital.

“Interestingly, even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist. ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Ebekozien said.

“But, we’re seeing a good number of patients who are managed at home and the symptoms resolve in a week or two, and the illness runs its course, and they don’t have to even be seen,” he added.

The research team is also collecting data on barriers to remote care, including challenges with telemedicine and how frontline providers are navigating them.

“Those are all things that our future paper will be able to shed more light on,” he explained.

Endocrinologists around the country are invited to report cases of COVID-19 in patients with type 1 diabetes to the T1D Exchange by emailing QI@T1Dexchange.org.

And in fact, Ebekozien also requested that clinicians with a large type 1 diabetes population also report if they’ve had no COVID-19 cases.

“Even if they haven’t had a case, that’s very useful information for us to know. One of the things we want to calculate down the line is the incidence ratio. Not all participating sites have had a case.”

Endocrinologists from all the participating sites have formed a dedicated community that meets regularly via webinars to share information, he noted. “It’s been a very selfless effort to work collaboratively as a community to quickly answer critical questions.”

The Helmsley Charitable Trust funds the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The T1D Exchange received financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, JDRF, Insulet Corporation, Lilly, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New preliminary data from the T1D Exchange suggest that, although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.

The new findings – the first US data on individuals with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 – were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

Two UK studies are the only prior ones to previously examine the topic.

The newly published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites, including 15 T1D Exchange member clinics and an additional 49 endocrinology clinics from around the country. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. Another publication with a more detailed analysis of risk factors and adjustment for confounders is planned for later this year.

Some of the findings from the preliminary data have shifted, but many aspects remain consistent, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

“One thing still very true, even with the unpublished findings, is the influence of A1c and glycemic management. ...With higher A1c levels, we’re seeing more COVID-19 hospitalizations and worse outcomes,” he said.

And as has been generally reported for COVID-19, high body mass index was a major risk factor in the preliminary dataset – and remains so.

There were two deaths in the preliminary report, both individuals with comorbidities in addition to type 1 diabetes, Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Interestingly, females predominate in both cohorts. That may be a reporting phenomenon, another factor that is being analyzed.

Hyperglycemia Remains a Major Risk Factor

The study is specifically being conducted by the T1D Exchange’s Quality Improvement Collaborative, which Ebekozien heads.

Data were obtained for 33 patients with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for COVID-19, and another 31 who were classified as “COVID-19–like” because they had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but hadn’t been tested for the virus.

For all 64 patients, the mean age was 20.9 years and two thirds (65.6%) were aged 18 or younger. A higher proportion of the COVID-19–like patients were pediatric than the confirmed cases. The larger dataset includes more adult patients, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, 60.9% of patients were female. Nearly half were white, a quarter Hispanic, and 18.8% black. More confirmed COVID-19 cases were black compared with suspected cases (30.3% vs 6.5%).

Median A1c for the overall group (including suspected COVID-19 cases) was 8.0%, but it was 8.5% among confirmed cases. Overall, six patients (9.8%) presented with new-onset type 1 diabetes after they developed COVID-19.

Hyperglycemia was present in half (32) of patients overall. DKA occurred in 19 people (30.2%): 15 of the confirmed COVID-19 cases (45.5%) versus just 4 (13.3%) of the COVID-19–like cases. Nausea was reported in 30.2% of patients overall.

Other symptoms were typical of COVID-19, including fever (41.3%), dry cough (38.1%), and shortness of breath (27.0%). Loss of taste and smell was less common, at just 9.5% overall.

Obesity was present in 39.7% of patients overall, with similar proportions in the confirmed and suspected COVID-19 groups. Hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease were present in 14.3% of patients overall, and the rate was similar between the two subgroups.

One of the two patients who died was a 79-year-old man who had hypertension and a prior stroke in addition to type 1 diabetes. The other was a 19-year-old woman with a history of asthma who developed a pulmonary embolism during the onset of COVID-19. Neither had DKA.

Even in Type 1 Diabetes, COVID-19 Can Be Managed at Home

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home, with 27.3% of the confirmed and 43.3% of the suspected cases able to do so.

At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit; 30.3% of the confirmed versus 13.3% of suspected cases.

Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to hospital.

“Interestingly, even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist. ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Ebekozien said.

“But, we’re seeing a good number of patients who are managed at home and the symptoms resolve in a week or two, and the illness runs its course, and they don’t have to even be seen,” he added.

The research team is also collecting data on barriers to remote care, including challenges with telemedicine and how frontline providers are navigating them.

“Those are all things that our future paper will be able to shed more light on,” he explained.

Endocrinologists around the country are invited to report cases of COVID-19 in patients with type 1 diabetes to the T1D Exchange by emailing QI@T1Dexchange.org.

And in fact, Ebekozien also requested that clinicians with a large type 1 diabetes population also report if they’ve had no COVID-19 cases.

“Even if they haven’t had a case, that’s very useful information for us to know. One of the things we want to calculate down the line is the incidence ratio. Not all participating sites have had a case.”

Endocrinologists from all the participating sites have formed a dedicated community that meets regularly via webinars to share information, he noted. “It’s been a very selfless effort to work collaboratively as a community to quickly answer critical questions.”

The Helmsley Charitable Trust funds the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The T1D Exchange received financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, JDRF, Insulet Corporation, Lilly, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New preliminary data from the T1D Exchange suggest that, although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.

The new findings – the first US data on individuals with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 – were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

Two UK studies are the only prior ones to previously examine the topic.

The newly published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites, including 15 T1D Exchange member clinics and an additional 49 endocrinology clinics from around the country. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. Another publication with a more detailed analysis of risk factors and adjustment for confounders is planned for later this year.

Some of the findings from the preliminary data have shifted, but many aspects remain consistent, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

“One thing still very true, even with the unpublished findings, is the influence of A1c and glycemic management. ...With higher A1c levels, we’re seeing more COVID-19 hospitalizations and worse outcomes,” he said.

And as has been generally reported for COVID-19, high body mass index was a major risk factor in the preliminary dataset – and remains so.

There were two deaths in the preliminary report, both individuals with comorbidities in addition to type 1 diabetes, Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Interestingly, females predominate in both cohorts. That may be a reporting phenomenon, another factor that is being analyzed.

Hyperglycemia Remains a Major Risk Factor

The study is specifically being conducted by the T1D Exchange’s Quality Improvement Collaborative, which Ebekozien heads.

Data were obtained for 33 patients with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for COVID-19, and another 31 who were classified as “COVID-19–like” because they had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but hadn’t been tested for the virus.

For all 64 patients, the mean age was 20.9 years and two thirds (65.6%) were aged 18 or younger. A higher proportion of the COVID-19–like patients were pediatric than the confirmed cases. The larger dataset includes more adult patients, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, 60.9% of patients were female. Nearly half were white, a quarter Hispanic, and 18.8% black. More confirmed COVID-19 cases were black compared with suspected cases (30.3% vs 6.5%).

Median A1c for the overall group (including suspected COVID-19 cases) was 8.0%, but it was 8.5% among confirmed cases. Overall, six patients (9.8%) presented with new-onset type 1 diabetes after they developed COVID-19.

Hyperglycemia was present in half (32) of patients overall. DKA occurred in 19 people (30.2%): 15 of the confirmed COVID-19 cases (45.5%) versus just 4 (13.3%) of the COVID-19–like cases. Nausea was reported in 30.2% of patients overall.

Other symptoms were typical of COVID-19, including fever (41.3%), dry cough (38.1%), and shortness of breath (27.0%). Loss of taste and smell was less common, at just 9.5% overall.

Obesity was present in 39.7% of patients overall, with similar proportions in the confirmed and suspected COVID-19 groups. Hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease were present in 14.3% of patients overall, and the rate was similar between the two subgroups.

One of the two patients who died was a 79-year-old man who had hypertension and a prior stroke in addition to type 1 diabetes. The other was a 19-year-old woman with a history of asthma who developed a pulmonary embolism during the onset of COVID-19. Neither had DKA.

Even in Type 1 Diabetes, COVID-19 Can Be Managed at Home

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home, with 27.3% of the confirmed and 43.3% of the suspected cases able to do so.

At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit; 30.3% of the confirmed versus 13.3% of suspected cases.

Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to hospital.

“Interestingly, even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist. ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Ebekozien said.

“But, we’re seeing a good number of patients who are managed at home and the symptoms resolve in a week or two, and the illness runs its course, and they don’t have to even be seen,” he added.

The research team is also collecting data on barriers to remote care, including challenges with telemedicine and how frontline providers are navigating them.

“Those are all things that our future paper will be able to shed more light on,” he explained.

Endocrinologists around the country are invited to report cases of COVID-19 in patients with type 1 diabetes to the T1D Exchange by emailing QI@T1Dexchange.org.

And in fact, Ebekozien also requested that clinicians with a large type 1 diabetes population also report if they’ve had no COVID-19 cases.

“Even if they haven’t had a case, that’s very useful information for us to know. One of the things we want to calculate down the line is the incidence ratio. Not all participating sites have had a case.”

Endocrinologists from all the participating sites have formed a dedicated community that meets regularly via webinars to share information, he noted. “It’s been a very selfless effort to work collaboratively as a community to quickly answer critical questions.”

The Helmsley Charitable Trust funds the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The T1D Exchange received financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, JDRF, Insulet Corporation, Lilly, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid clouds of choking tear gas, booming flash-bang grenades and other “riot control agents,” volunteer medics plunged into street protests over the past weeks to help the injured – sometimes rushing to the front lines as soon as their hospital shifts ended.

Known as “street medics,” these unorthodox teams of nursing students, veterinarians, doctors, trauma surgeons, security guards, ski patrollers, nurses, wilderness EMTs, and off-the-clock ambulance workers poured water – not milk – into the eyes of tear-gassed protesters. They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go.

Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

So donning cloth masks to protect against the virus – plus helmets, makeshift shields and other gear to guard against rubber bullets, projectiles and tear gas – the volunteer medics organized themselves into a web of first responders to care for people on the streets. They showed up early, set up first-aid stations, established transportation networks and covered their arms, helmets and backpacks with crosses made of red duct tape, to signify that they were medics. Some stayed late into the night past curfews until every protester had left.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. She didn’t see it as a choice.

“I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America.

After going out as a medic on her own, she soon met other volunteers. Together they used text-message chains to organize their efforts. One night, she responded to a man who had been shot with a rubber bullet in the chest; she said his torso had turned blue and purple from the impact. She also provided aid after a shooting near the protest left someone in critical condition.

“It’s hard, but bills need to be paid and justice needs to be served,” she said.

The street medic movement traces its roots, in part, to the 1960s protests, as well as the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. Denver Action Medic Network offers a 20-hour training course that prepares them to treat patients in conflicts with police and large crowds; a four-hour session is offered to medical professionals as “bridge” training.

Since the coronavirus pandemic began, the Denver Action Medic Network has added new training guidelines: Don’t go to protests if sick or in contact with those who are infected; wear a mask; give people lots of space and use hand sanitizer. Jordan Garcia, a 39-year-old medic for over 20 years who works with the network of veteran street medics, said they also warn medics about the increased risk of transmission because of protesters coughing from tear gas, and urge them to get tested for the virus after the protests.

The number of volunteer medics swelled after George Floyd’s May 25 killing in Minneapolis. In Denver alone, at least 40 people reached out to the Denver Action Medic Network for training.

On June 3, Dr. Rupa Marya, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California,San Francisco, and the co-founder of the Do No Harm Coalition, which runs street medic training in the Bay Area, hosted a national webinar attended by over 3,000 medical professionals to provide the bridge training to be a street medic. In her online bio, Marya describes the coalition as “an organization of over 450 health workers committed to structural change” in addressing health problems.

“When we see suffering, that’s where we go,” Marya said. “And right now that suffering is happening on the streets.”

In the recent Denver protests, street medics responded to major head, face and eye injuries among protesters from what are sometimes described as “kinetic impact projectiles” or “less-than-lethal” bullets shot at protesters, along with tear-gas and flash-bang stun grenade canisters that either hit them or exploded in their faces.

Garcia, who by day works for an immigrant rights nonprofit, said that these weapons are not designed to be shot directly at people.

“We’re seeing police use these less-lethal weapons in lethal ways, and that is pretty upsetting,” Garcia said about the recent protests.

Denver police Chief Paul Pazen promised to make changes, including banning chokeholds and requiring SWAT teams to turn on their body cameras. Last week, a federal judge also issued a temporary injunction to stop Denver police from using tear gas and other less-than-lethal weapons in response to a class action lawsuit, in which a medic stated he was shot multiple times by police with pepper balls while treating patients. (Last week in North Carolina police were recorded destroying medic stations.)

Denver street medic Kevin Connell, a 30-year-old emergency room nurse, said he was hit with pepper balls in the back of his medic vest – which was clearly marked by red crosses – while treating a patient. He showed up to the Denver protests every night he did not have to work, he said, wearing a Kevlar medic vest, protective goggles and a homemade gas mask fashioned from a water bottle. As a member of the Denver Action Medic Network, Connell also served at the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota in a dispute over the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“I mean, as bad as it sounds, it was only tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets that were being fired on us,” Connell said of his recent experience in Denver. “When I was at Standing Rock, they were using high-powered water hoses even when it was, like, freezing cold. … So I think the police here had a little bit more restraint.”

Still, first-time street medic Aj Mossman, a 31-year-old Denver emergency medical technician studying for nursing school, was shocked to be tear-gassed and struck in the back of the leg with a flash grenade while treating a protester on May 30. Mossman still has a large leg bruise.

The following night, Mossman, who uses the pronoun they, brought more protective gear, but said they are still having difficulty processing what felt like a war zone.

“I thought I understood what my black friends went through. I thought I understood what the black community went through,” said Mossman, who is white. “But I had absolutely no idea how violent the police were and how little they cared about who they hurt.”

For Butler, serving as a medic with others from various walks of life was inspiring. “They’re also out there to protect black and brown bodies. And that’s amazing,” she said. “That’s just a beautiful sight.”

This article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Amid clouds of choking tear gas, booming flash-bang grenades and other “riot control agents,” volunteer medics plunged into street protests over the past weeks to help the injured – sometimes rushing to the front lines as soon as their hospital shifts ended.

Known as “street medics,” these unorthodox teams of nursing students, veterinarians, doctors, trauma surgeons, security guards, ski patrollers, nurses, wilderness EMTs, and off-the-clock ambulance workers poured water – not milk – into the eyes of tear-gassed protesters. They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go.

Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

So donning cloth masks to protect against the virus – plus helmets, makeshift shields and other gear to guard against rubber bullets, projectiles and tear gas – the volunteer medics organized themselves into a web of first responders to care for people on the streets. They showed up early, set up first-aid stations, established transportation networks and covered their arms, helmets and backpacks with crosses made of red duct tape, to signify that they were medics. Some stayed late into the night past curfews until every protester had left.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. She didn’t see it as a choice.

“I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America.

After going out as a medic on her own, she soon met other volunteers. Together they used text-message chains to organize their efforts. One night, she responded to a man who had been shot with a rubber bullet in the chest; she said his torso had turned blue and purple from the impact. She also provided aid after a shooting near the protest left someone in critical condition.

“It’s hard, but bills need to be paid and justice needs to be served,” she said.

The street medic movement traces its roots, in part, to the 1960s protests, as well as the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. Denver Action Medic Network offers a 20-hour training course that prepares them to treat patients in conflicts with police and large crowds; a four-hour session is offered to medical professionals as “bridge” training.

Since the coronavirus pandemic began, the Denver Action Medic Network has added new training guidelines: Don’t go to protests if sick or in contact with those who are infected; wear a mask; give people lots of space and use hand sanitizer. Jordan Garcia, a 39-year-old medic for over 20 years who works with the network of veteran street medics, said they also warn medics about the increased risk of transmission because of protesters coughing from tear gas, and urge them to get tested for the virus after the protests.

The number of volunteer medics swelled after George Floyd’s May 25 killing in Minneapolis. In Denver alone, at least 40 people reached out to the Denver Action Medic Network for training.

On June 3, Dr. Rupa Marya, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California,San Francisco, and the co-founder of the Do No Harm Coalition, which runs street medic training in the Bay Area, hosted a national webinar attended by over 3,000 medical professionals to provide the bridge training to be a street medic. In her online bio, Marya describes the coalition as “an organization of over 450 health workers committed to structural change” in addressing health problems.

“When we see suffering, that’s where we go,” Marya said. “And right now that suffering is happening on the streets.”

In the recent Denver protests, street medics responded to major head, face and eye injuries among protesters from what are sometimes described as “kinetic impact projectiles” or “less-than-lethal” bullets shot at protesters, along with tear-gas and flash-bang stun grenade canisters that either hit them or exploded in their faces.

Garcia, who by day works for an immigrant rights nonprofit, said that these weapons are not designed to be shot directly at people.

“We’re seeing police use these less-lethal weapons in lethal ways, and that is pretty upsetting,” Garcia said about the recent protests.

Denver police Chief Paul Pazen promised to make changes, including banning chokeholds and requiring SWAT teams to turn on their body cameras. Last week, a federal judge also issued a temporary injunction to stop Denver police from using tear gas and other less-than-lethal weapons in response to a class action lawsuit, in which a medic stated he was shot multiple times by police with pepper balls while treating patients. (Last week in North Carolina police were recorded destroying medic stations.)

Denver street medic Kevin Connell, a 30-year-old emergency room nurse, said he was hit with pepper balls in the back of his medic vest – which was clearly marked by red crosses – while treating a patient. He showed up to the Denver protests every night he did not have to work, he said, wearing a Kevlar medic vest, protective goggles and a homemade gas mask fashioned from a water bottle. As a member of the Denver Action Medic Network, Connell also served at the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota in a dispute over the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“I mean, as bad as it sounds, it was only tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets that were being fired on us,” Connell said of his recent experience in Denver. “When I was at Standing Rock, they were using high-powered water hoses even when it was, like, freezing cold. … So I think the police here had a little bit more restraint.”

Still, first-time street medic Aj Mossman, a 31-year-old Denver emergency medical technician studying for nursing school, was shocked to be tear-gassed and struck in the back of the leg with a flash grenade while treating a protester on May 30. Mossman still has a large leg bruise.

The following night, Mossman, who uses the pronoun they, brought more protective gear, but said they are still having difficulty processing what felt like a war zone.

“I thought I understood what my black friends went through. I thought I understood what the black community went through,” said Mossman, who is white. “But I had absolutely no idea how violent the police were and how little they cared about who they hurt.”

For Butler, serving as a medic with others from various walks of life was inspiring. “They’re also out there to protect black and brown bodies. And that’s amazing,” she said. “That’s just a beautiful sight.”

This article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Amid clouds of choking tear gas, booming flash-bang grenades and other “riot control agents,” volunteer medics plunged into street protests over the past weeks to help the injured – sometimes rushing to the front lines as soon as their hospital shifts ended.

Known as “street medics,” these unorthodox teams of nursing students, veterinarians, doctors, trauma surgeons, security guards, ski patrollers, nurses, wilderness EMTs, and off-the-clock ambulance workers poured water – not milk – into the eyes of tear-gassed protesters. They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go.

Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

So donning cloth masks to protect against the virus – plus helmets, makeshift shields and other gear to guard against rubber bullets, projectiles and tear gas – the volunteer medics organized themselves into a web of first responders to care for people on the streets. They showed up early, set up first-aid stations, established transportation networks and covered their arms, helmets and backpacks with crosses made of red duct tape, to signify that they were medics. Some stayed late into the night past curfews until every protester had left.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. She didn’t see it as a choice.

“I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America.

After going out as a medic on her own, she soon met other volunteers. Together they used text-message chains to organize their efforts. One night, she responded to a man who had been shot with a rubber bullet in the chest; she said his torso had turned blue and purple from the impact. She also provided aid after a shooting near the protest left someone in critical condition.

“It’s hard, but bills need to be paid and justice needs to be served,” she said.

The street medic movement traces its roots, in part, to the 1960s protests, as well as the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. Denver Action Medic Network offers a 20-hour training course that prepares them to treat patients in conflicts with police and large crowds; a four-hour session is offered to medical professionals as “bridge” training.

Since the coronavirus pandemic began, the Denver Action Medic Network has added new training guidelines: Don’t go to protests if sick or in contact with those who are infected; wear a mask; give people lots of space and use hand sanitizer. Jordan Garcia, a 39-year-old medic for over 20 years who works with the network of veteran street medics, said they also warn medics about the increased risk of transmission because of protesters coughing from tear gas, and urge them to get tested for the virus after the protests.

The number of volunteer medics swelled after George Floyd’s May 25 killing in Minneapolis. In Denver alone, at least 40 people reached out to the Denver Action Medic Network for training.

On June 3, Dr. Rupa Marya, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California,San Francisco, and the co-founder of the Do No Harm Coalition, which runs street medic training in the Bay Area, hosted a national webinar attended by over 3,000 medical professionals to provide the bridge training to be a street medic. In her online bio, Marya describes the coalition as “an organization of over 450 health workers committed to structural change” in addressing health problems.

“When we see suffering, that’s where we go,” Marya said. “And right now that suffering is happening on the streets.”

In the recent Denver protests, street medics responded to major head, face and eye injuries among protesters from what are sometimes described as “kinetic impact projectiles” or “less-than-lethal” bullets shot at protesters, along with tear-gas and flash-bang stun grenade canisters that either hit them or exploded in their faces.

Garcia, who by day works for an immigrant rights nonprofit, said that these weapons are not designed to be shot directly at people.

“We’re seeing police use these less-lethal weapons in lethal ways, and that is pretty upsetting,” Garcia said about the recent protests.

Denver police Chief Paul Pazen promised to make changes, including banning chokeholds and requiring SWAT teams to turn on their body cameras. Last week, a federal judge also issued a temporary injunction to stop Denver police from using tear gas and other less-than-lethal weapons in response to a class action lawsuit, in which a medic stated he was shot multiple times by police with pepper balls while treating patients. (Last week in North Carolina police were recorded destroying medic stations.)

Denver street medic Kevin Connell, a 30-year-old emergency room nurse, said he was hit with pepper balls in the back of his medic vest – which was clearly marked by red crosses – while treating a patient. He showed up to the Denver protests every night he did not have to work, he said, wearing a Kevlar medic vest, protective goggles and a homemade gas mask fashioned from a water bottle. As a member of the Denver Action Medic Network, Connell also served at the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota in a dispute over the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“I mean, as bad as it sounds, it was only tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets that were being fired on us,” Connell said of his recent experience in Denver. “When I was at Standing Rock, they were using high-powered water hoses even when it was, like, freezing cold. … So I think the police here had a little bit more restraint.”

Still, first-time street medic Aj Mossman, a 31-year-old Denver emergency medical technician studying for nursing school, was shocked to be tear-gassed and struck in the back of the leg with a flash grenade while treating a protester on May 30. Mossman still has a large leg bruise.

The following night, Mossman, who uses the pronoun they, brought more protective gear, but said they are still having difficulty processing what felt like a war zone.

“I thought I understood what my black friends went through. I thought I understood what the black community went through,” said Mossman, who is white. “But I had absolutely no idea how violent the police were and how little they cared about who they hurt.”

For Butler, serving as a medic with others from various walks of life was inspiring. “They’re also out there to protect black and brown bodies. And that’s amazing,” she said. “That’s just a beautiful sight.”

This article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.