Ob.Gyn. News

New data will add fuel to the ongoing debate over the age at which mammography screening for breast cancer should begin. Many guidelines recommend starting at age 50.

But yearly mammography between the ages of 40 and 49 years was associated with a “substantial and significant” 25% reduction in breast cancer mortality during the first 10 years of follow-up, according to new data from the UK Age Trial.

The researchers calculated that 1,150 women needed to undergo screening in the age group of 40-49 years to prevent 1 breast cancer death, or about 1 breast cancer death prevented per 1,000 screened.

However, they also noted that, in the years since the trial first began, there have been improvements in the treatment of breast cancer, so “there might be less scope for screening to reduce mortality in our current era.”

The study was published online August 12 in Lancet Oncology.

“Our results do indicate that screening before age 50 does indeed prevent deaths from breast cancer, with a minimal additional burden of overdiagnosis,” said lead author Stephen W. Duffy, MSc, director of the policy research unit in cancer awareness, screening and early diagnosis, at Queen Mary University, London.

That said, Dr. Duffy explained they do not expect policy makers to extend the age range on the basis of these results alone. “For one thing, they will want to consider costs, both human and financial.” “For another, at this time, the services are concentrating on recovering from the hiatus caused by the COVID-19 crisis, and, at this time, it would be impractical to try to expand the eligibility for screening.”

“I would say our results indicate that lowering the age range, although not necessarily to 40 but to some age below 50, will be at least worth considering when the current crisis is over,” he added.
 

Guideline recommendations differ

Breast cancer screening guidelines have generated debate, much of which has focused on the age at which to begin screening.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and American College of Physicians recommend screening every other year, on average, for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years.

However, other organizations disagree. The American College of Radiology and Society of Breast Imaging both recommend annual mammograms starting at age 40, and continuing “as long as they are in good health.”

In the UK, where the study was conducted, a national breast cancer screening program offers mammography to women aged 50-70 years every 3 years.

Given the uncertainty that continues to exist over the optimal age for average-risk women to begin screening, the UK Age Trial set out to assess if screening should begin at a younger age and if that might lead to overdiagnosis of breast cancer.

Results from the study’s 17-year follow-up, published in 2015, showed a reduction in breast cancer mortality with annual screening, beginning at age 40 years, which was significant in the first 10 years after participants were randomized (Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1123-32).

In the current study, Dr. Duffy and colleagues report on breast cancer incidence and mortality results in the UK Age trial after 23 years of follow-up.

The cohort included 160,921 women enrolled between Oct. 14, 1990, and Sept. 24, 1997, who were randomized to screening (n = 53,883) or the control group (n = 106,953).

Of those screened during the study period, 7,893 (18.1%) had at least one false-positive result. There were 10,439 deaths, of which 683 (7%) were attributed to breast cancer diagnosed during the study period.

At 10 years of follow-up, death from breast cancer was significantly lower among women in the screening versus control group (83 vs 219 deaths; relative risk, 0.75; P = .029).

However, no significant reduction was observed thereafter, with 126 versus 255 deaths occurring after more than 10 years of follow-up (RR, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.22; P = .86), the authors note.

“This follow-up indicates that the gain in survival was concentrated in the first 10 years after the women began to be screened,” commented Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University, Milton Keynes, England.

“In those first 10 years, out of every 10,000 women invited for screening, on average, about 16 died of breast cancer, while in every 10,000 women in the control group who did not get the screening, on average, 21 died. These numbers indicate that lives were saved,” he said.

“But they also indicate that death from breast cancer was pretty rare in women of that age,” he pointed out.

“Because breast cancer deaths in younger women are not common, the estimates of breast cancer death rates are not very precise, despite the fact that the trial involved 160,000 women,” he said.

“Over the whole follow-up period so far, the difference in numbers of deaths between those who were screened in their 40s and those who were not is 6 deaths for every 10,000 women, but because of the statistical uncertainty, this figure could plausibly be larger, at 13 per 10,000. Or, in fact, the data are also consistent with a very slightly higher death rate [1 death per 10,000 women] in those who had the screening,” Dr. McConway explained.

“But none of those numbers is very large, out of 10,000 women. Allowing for the fact that not every woman invited for screening will actually attend the screening, the researchers estimate that 1,150 women would have to be screened in their 40s to prevent one breast cancer death,” he noted.
 

U.S. experts support starting screening at 40

“The American Society of Breast Surgeons has continued to recommend screening women at the age of 40,” said Stephanie Bernik, MD, FACS, chief of breast surgery, Mount Sinai West, and associate professor of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “There is no question that screening earlier saves more lives, and this study adds to the body of evidence already available.”

She pointed out that the argument against early screening was that there were many false positives, which, in turn, increased cost and anxiety. “Because women in their 40s are in the prime of their lives, often with young children, it seems as though screening would be paramount. Furthermore, it is well known that the sooner you find a cancer, the better, as the treatment needed to cure the cancer is less toxic and less dramatic.”

Catherine Tuite, MD, section chief, breast radiology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, echoed a similar viewpoint. “There is no real debate on this issue. The USPSTF recommends beginning screening mammography at age 50, and it is no secret that this is a recommendation based on cost, not on saving women’s lives.”

She emphasized that these recommendations were made without the input of expert physicians. “The data, reaffirmed by this publication, have always been clear that the most years of life saved from deaths due to breast cancer are achieved in women who begin screening mammography at age 40. We know that one-sixth of all breast cancers are diagnosed before age 50, and many of these cancers are the most aggressive types of breast cancer.

“The guidelines from every organization representing health care professionals who actually diagnose and care for women with breast cancer recommend that all women of average risk begin annual screening mammography at age 40 and continue as long as the woman is in good health, with life expectancy of 10 years,” she continued.

As for screening intervals, annual mammogram is also recommended for all age groups in the United States. At her institutions, she explained that they are currently enrolling women into the TMIST screening mammogram trial, which is, among other endpoints, evaluating a biannual screening interval for postmenopausal women of lower than average risk, but again, outside of a trial setting, yearly screening for all women is recommended.

Dr. Duffy commented that, in the United Kingdom, the current screening protocol for mammograms is every 3 years, which he said “works well in women over the age of 50 years.” But for younger women, more frequent screening would be need – in this study, screening was done annually.

“The results not only from our study but from others around the world suggest that this [3-year screening interval] would not be very effective in women under 50, due partly to the denser breast tissue of younger women and partly to the faster progression on average of cancers diagnosed in younger women,” he said. “Some counties in Sweden, for example, offer screening to women under 50 at 18-month intervals, which seems more realistic.”

The study was funded by the Health Technology Assessment program of the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Duffy reported also receiving grants from the NIHR outside this trial. Dr. Bernik, Dr. Tuite, and Dr. Hodgson reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data will add fuel to the ongoing debate over the age at which mammography screening for breast cancer should begin. Many guidelines recommend starting at age 50.

But yearly mammography between the ages of 40 and 49 years was associated with a “substantial and significant” 25% reduction in breast cancer mortality during the first 10 years of follow-up, according to new data from the UK Age Trial.

The researchers calculated that 1,150 women needed to undergo screening in the age group of 40-49 years to prevent 1 breast cancer death, or about 1 breast cancer death prevented per 1,000 screened.

However, they also noted that, in the years since the trial first began, there have been improvements in the treatment of breast cancer, so “there might be less scope for screening to reduce mortality in our current era.”

The study was published online August 12 in Lancet Oncology.

“Our results do indicate that screening before age 50 does indeed prevent deaths from breast cancer, with a minimal additional burden of overdiagnosis,” said lead author Stephen W. Duffy, MSc, director of the policy research unit in cancer awareness, screening and early diagnosis, at Queen Mary University, London.

That said, Dr. Duffy explained they do not expect policy makers to extend the age range on the basis of these results alone. “For one thing, they will want to consider costs, both human and financial.” “For another, at this time, the services are concentrating on recovering from the hiatus caused by the COVID-19 crisis, and, at this time, it would be impractical to try to expand the eligibility for screening.”

“I would say our results indicate that lowering the age range, although not necessarily to 40 but to some age below 50, will be at least worth considering when the current crisis is over,” he added.
 

Guideline recommendations differ

Breast cancer screening guidelines have generated debate, much of which has focused on the age at which to begin screening.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and American College of Physicians recommend screening every other year, on average, for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years.

However, other organizations disagree. The American College of Radiology and Society of Breast Imaging both recommend annual mammograms starting at age 40, and continuing “as long as they are in good health.”

In the UK, where the study was conducted, a national breast cancer screening program offers mammography to women aged 50-70 years every 3 years.

Given the uncertainty that continues to exist over the optimal age for average-risk women to begin screening, the UK Age Trial set out to assess if screening should begin at a younger age and if that might lead to overdiagnosis of breast cancer.

Results from the study’s 17-year follow-up, published in 2015, showed a reduction in breast cancer mortality with annual screening, beginning at age 40 years, which was significant in the first 10 years after participants were randomized (Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1123-32).

In the current study, Dr. Duffy and colleagues report on breast cancer incidence and mortality results in the UK Age trial after 23 years of follow-up.

The cohort included 160,921 women enrolled between Oct. 14, 1990, and Sept. 24, 1997, who were randomized to screening (n = 53,883) or the control group (n = 106,953).

Of those screened during the study period, 7,893 (18.1%) had at least one false-positive result. There were 10,439 deaths, of which 683 (7%) were attributed to breast cancer diagnosed during the study period.

At 10 years of follow-up, death from breast cancer was significantly lower among women in the screening versus control group (83 vs 219 deaths; relative risk, 0.75; P = .029).

However, no significant reduction was observed thereafter, with 126 versus 255 deaths occurring after more than 10 years of follow-up (RR, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.22; P = .86), the authors note.

“This follow-up indicates that the gain in survival was concentrated in the first 10 years after the women began to be screened,” commented Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University, Milton Keynes, England.

“In those first 10 years, out of every 10,000 women invited for screening, on average, about 16 died of breast cancer, while in every 10,000 women in the control group who did not get the screening, on average, 21 died. These numbers indicate that lives were saved,” he said.

“But they also indicate that death from breast cancer was pretty rare in women of that age,” he pointed out.

“Because breast cancer deaths in younger women are not common, the estimates of breast cancer death rates are not very precise, despite the fact that the trial involved 160,000 women,” he said.

“Over the whole follow-up period so far, the difference in numbers of deaths between those who were screened in their 40s and those who were not is 6 deaths for every 10,000 women, but because of the statistical uncertainty, this figure could plausibly be larger, at 13 per 10,000. Or, in fact, the data are also consistent with a very slightly higher death rate [1 death per 10,000 women] in those who had the screening,” Dr. McConway explained.

“But none of those numbers is very large, out of 10,000 women. Allowing for the fact that not every woman invited for screening will actually attend the screening, the researchers estimate that 1,150 women would have to be screened in their 40s to prevent one breast cancer death,” he noted.
 

U.S. experts support starting screening at 40

“The American Society of Breast Surgeons has continued to recommend screening women at the age of 40,” said Stephanie Bernik, MD, FACS, chief of breast surgery, Mount Sinai West, and associate professor of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “There is no question that screening earlier saves more lives, and this study adds to the body of evidence already available.”

She pointed out that the argument against early screening was that there were many false positives, which, in turn, increased cost and anxiety. “Because women in their 40s are in the prime of their lives, often with young children, it seems as though screening would be paramount. Furthermore, it is well known that the sooner you find a cancer, the better, as the treatment needed to cure the cancer is less toxic and less dramatic.”

Catherine Tuite, MD, section chief, breast radiology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, echoed a similar viewpoint. “There is no real debate on this issue. The USPSTF recommends beginning screening mammography at age 50, and it is no secret that this is a recommendation based on cost, not on saving women’s lives.”

She emphasized that these recommendations were made without the input of expert physicians. “The data, reaffirmed by this publication, have always been clear that the most years of life saved from deaths due to breast cancer are achieved in women who begin screening mammography at age 40. We know that one-sixth of all breast cancers are diagnosed before age 50, and many of these cancers are the most aggressive types of breast cancer.

“The guidelines from every organization representing health care professionals who actually diagnose and care for women with breast cancer recommend that all women of average risk begin annual screening mammography at age 40 and continue as long as the woman is in good health, with life expectancy of 10 years,” she continued.

As for screening intervals, annual mammogram is also recommended for all age groups in the United States. At her institutions, she explained that they are currently enrolling women into the TMIST screening mammogram trial, which is, among other endpoints, evaluating a biannual screening interval for postmenopausal women of lower than average risk, but again, outside of a trial setting, yearly screening for all women is recommended.

Dr. Duffy commented that, in the United Kingdom, the current screening protocol for mammograms is every 3 years, which he said “works well in women over the age of 50 years.” But for younger women, more frequent screening would be need – in this study, screening was done annually.

“The results not only from our study but from others around the world suggest that this [3-year screening interval] would not be very effective in women under 50, due partly to the denser breast tissue of younger women and partly to the faster progression on average of cancers diagnosed in younger women,” he said. “Some counties in Sweden, for example, offer screening to women under 50 at 18-month intervals, which seems more realistic.”

The study was funded by the Health Technology Assessment program of the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Duffy reported also receiving grants from the NIHR outside this trial. Dr. Bernik, Dr. Tuite, and Dr. Hodgson reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data will add fuel to the ongoing debate over the age at which mammography screening for breast cancer should begin. Many guidelines recommend starting at age 50.

But yearly mammography between the ages of 40 and 49 years was associated with a “substantial and significant” 25% reduction in breast cancer mortality during the first 10 years of follow-up, according to new data from the UK Age Trial.

The researchers calculated that 1,150 women needed to undergo screening in the age group of 40-49 years to prevent 1 breast cancer death, or about 1 breast cancer death prevented per 1,000 screened.

However, they also noted that, in the years since the trial first began, there have been improvements in the treatment of breast cancer, so “there might be less scope for screening to reduce mortality in our current era.”

The study was published online August 12 in Lancet Oncology.

“Our results do indicate that screening before age 50 does indeed prevent deaths from breast cancer, with a minimal additional burden of overdiagnosis,” said lead author Stephen W. Duffy, MSc, director of the policy research unit in cancer awareness, screening and early diagnosis, at Queen Mary University, London.

That said, Dr. Duffy explained they do not expect policy makers to extend the age range on the basis of these results alone. “For one thing, they will want to consider costs, both human and financial.” “For another, at this time, the services are concentrating on recovering from the hiatus caused by the COVID-19 crisis, and, at this time, it would be impractical to try to expand the eligibility for screening.”

“I would say our results indicate that lowering the age range, although not necessarily to 40 but to some age below 50, will be at least worth considering when the current crisis is over,” he added.
 

Guideline recommendations differ

Breast cancer screening guidelines have generated debate, much of which has focused on the age at which to begin screening.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and American College of Physicians recommend screening every other year, on average, for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years.

However, other organizations disagree. The American College of Radiology and Society of Breast Imaging both recommend annual mammograms starting at age 40, and continuing “as long as they are in good health.”

In the UK, where the study was conducted, a national breast cancer screening program offers mammography to women aged 50-70 years every 3 years.

Given the uncertainty that continues to exist over the optimal age for average-risk women to begin screening, the UK Age Trial set out to assess if screening should begin at a younger age and if that might lead to overdiagnosis of breast cancer.

Results from the study’s 17-year follow-up, published in 2015, showed a reduction in breast cancer mortality with annual screening, beginning at age 40 years, which was significant in the first 10 years after participants were randomized (Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1123-32).

In the current study, Dr. Duffy and colleagues report on breast cancer incidence and mortality results in the UK Age trial after 23 years of follow-up.

The cohort included 160,921 women enrolled between Oct. 14, 1990, and Sept. 24, 1997, who were randomized to screening (n = 53,883) or the control group (n = 106,953).

Of those screened during the study period, 7,893 (18.1%) had at least one false-positive result. There were 10,439 deaths, of which 683 (7%) were attributed to breast cancer diagnosed during the study period.

At 10 years of follow-up, death from breast cancer was significantly lower among women in the screening versus control group (83 vs 219 deaths; relative risk, 0.75; P = .029).

However, no significant reduction was observed thereafter, with 126 versus 255 deaths occurring after more than 10 years of follow-up (RR, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.22; P = .86), the authors note.

“This follow-up indicates that the gain in survival was concentrated in the first 10 years after the women began to be screened,” commented Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University, Milton Keynes, England.

“In those first 10 years, out of every 10,000 women invited for screening, on average, about 16 died of breast cancer, while in every 10,000 women in the control group who did not get the screening, on average, 21 died. These numbers indicate that lives were saved,” he said.

“But they also indicate that death from breast cancer was pretty rare in women of that age,” he pointed out.

“Because breast cancer deaths in younger women are not common, the estimates of breast cancer death rates are not very precise, despite the fact that the trial involved 160,000 women,” he said.

“Over the whole follow-up period so far, the difference in numbers of deaths between those who were screened in their 40s and those who were not is 6 deaths for every 10,000 women, but because of the statistical uncertainty, this figure could plausibly be larger, at 13 per 10,000. Or, in fact, the data are also consistent with a very slightly higher death rate [1 death per 10,000 women] in those who had the screening,” Dr. McConway explained.

“But none of those numbers is very large, out of 10,000 women. Allowing for the fact that not every woman invited for screening will actually attend the screening, the researchers estimate that 1,150 women would have to be screened in their 40s to prevent one breast cancer death,” he noted.
 

U.S. experts support starting screening at 40

“The American Society of Breast Surgeons has continued to recommend screening women at the age of 40,” said Stephanie Bernik, MD, FACS, chief of breast surgery, Mount Sinai West, and associate professor of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “There is no question that screening earlier saves more lives, and this study adds to the body of evidence already available.”

She pointed out that the argument against early screening was that there were many false positives, which, in turn, increased cost and anxiety. “Because women in their 40s are in the prime of their lives, often with young children, it seems as though screening would be paramount. Furthermore, it is well known that the sooner you find a cancer, the better, as the treatment needed to cure the cancer is less toxic and less dramatic.”

Catherine Tuite, MD, section chief, breast radiology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, echoed a similar viewpoint. “There is no real debate on this issue. The USPSTF recommends beginning screening mammography at age 50, and it is no secret that this is a recommendation based on cost, not on saving women’s lives.”

She emphasized that these recommendations were made without the input of expert physicians. “The data, reaffirmed by this publication, have always been clear that the most years of life saved from deaths due to breast cancer are achieved in women who begin screening mammography at age 40. We know that one-sixth of all breast cancers are diagnosed before age 50, and many of these cancers are the most aggressive types of breast cancer.

“The guidelines from every organization representing health care professionals who actually diagnose and care for women with breast cancer recommend that all women of average risk begin annual screening mammography at age 40 and continue as long as the woman is in good health, with life expectancy of 10 years,” she continued.

As for screening intervals, annual mammogram is also recommended for all age groups in the United States. At her institutions, she explained that they are currently enrolling women into the TMIST screening mammogram trial, which is, among other endpoints, evaluating a biannual screening interval for postmenopausal women of lower than average risk, but again, outside of a trial setting, yearly screening for all women is recommended.

Dr. Duffy commented that, in the United Kingdom, the current screening protocol for mammograms is every 3 years, which he said “works well in women over the age of 50 years.” But for younger women, more frequent screening would be need – in this study, screening was done annually.

“The results not only from our study but from others around the world suggest that this [3-year screening interval] would not be very effective in women under 50, due partly to the denser breast tissue of younger women and partly to the faster progression on average of cancers diagnosed in younger women,” he said. “Some counties in Sweden, for example, offer screening to women under 50 at 18-month intervals, which seems more realistic.”

The study was funded by the Health Technology Assessment program of the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Duffy reported also receiving grants from the NIHR outside this trial. Dr. Bernik, Dr. Tuite, and Dr. Hodgson reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Combining specimens from several low-risk inpatients in a single test for SARS-CoV-2 infection allowed hospital staff to stretch testing supplies and provide test results quickly for many more patients than they might have otherwise, researchers found.

“We believe this strategy conserved [personal protective equipment (PPE)], led to a marked reduction in staff and patient anxiety, and improved patient care,” wrote David Mastrianni, MD, and colleagues from Saratoga Hospital in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. “Our impression is that testing all admitted patients has also been reassuring to our community.”

The researchers published their findings July 20 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

“What was really important about this study was they were actually able to implement pooled testing after communication with the [Food and Drug Administration],” Samir S. Shah, MD, MSCE, SFHM, the journal’s editor-in-chief, said in an interview.

“Pooled testing combines samples from multiple people within a single test. The benefit is, if the test is negative [you know that] everyone whose sample was combined … is negative. So you’ve effectively tested anywhere from three to five people with the resources required for only one test,” Dr. Shah continued.

The challenge is that, if the test is positive, everyone in that testing group must be retested individually because one or more of them has the infection, said Dr. Shah, director of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Dr. Mastrianni said early in the pandemic they started getting the “New York surge” at their hospital, located approximately 3 hours from New York City. They wanted to test all of the inpatients at their hospital for COVID-19 and they had a rapid in-house test that worked well, “but we just didn’t have enough cartridges, and we couldn’t get deliveries, and we started pooling.” In fact, they ran out of testing supplies at one point during the study but were able to replenish their supply in about a day, he noted.

For the current study, all patients admitted to the hospital, including those admitted for observation, underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. Staff in the emergency department designated patients as low risk if they had no symptoms or other clinical evidence of COVID-19; those patients underwent pooled testing.

Patients with clinical evidence of COVID-19, such as respiratory symptoms or laboratory or radiographic findings consistent with infection, were considered high risk and were tested on an individual basis and thus excluded from the current analysis.

The pooled testing strategy required some patients to be held in the emergency department until there were three available for pooled testing. On several occasions when this was not practical, specimens from two patients were pooled.

Between April 17 and May 11, clinicians tested 530 patients via pooled testing using 179 cartridges (172 with swabs from three patients and 7 with swabs from two patients). There were four positive pooled tests, which necessitated the use of an additional 11 cartridges. Overall, the testing used 190 cartridges, which is 340 fewer than would have been used if all patients had been tested individually. 

Among the low-risk patients, the positive rate was 0.8% (4/530). No patients from pools that were negative tested positive later during their hospitalization or developed evidence of the infection.
 

Team effort, flexibility needed

Dr. Mastrianni said he expected their study to find that pooled testing saved testing resources, but he “was surprised by the complexity of the logistics in the hospital, and how it really required getting everybody to work together. …There were a lot of details, and it really took a lot of teamwork.”

The nursing supervisor in the emergency department was in charge of the batch and coordinated with the laboratory, he explained. There were many moving parts to manage, including monitoring how many patients were being admitted, what their conditions were, whether they were high or low risk, and where they would house those patients as the emergency department became increasingly busy. “It’s a lot for them, but they’ve adapted really well,” Dr. Mastrianni said.

Pooling tests seems to work best for three to five patients at a time; larger batches increase the chance of having a positive test, and thus identifying the sick individual(s) becomes more challenging and expensive, Dr. Shah said.

“It’s a fine line between having a pool large enough that you save on testing supplies and testing costs but not having the pool so large that you dramatically increase your likelihood of having a positive test,” Dr. Shah said.

Hospitals will likely need to be flexible and adapt as the local positivity rate changes and supply levels vary, according to the authors.

“Pooled testing is mainly dependent on the COVID-19 positive rate in the population of interest in addition to the sensitivity of the [reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)] method used for COVID-19 testing,” said Baha Abdalhamid, MD, PhD, of the department of pathology and microbiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Each laboratory and hospital needs to do their own validation testing because it is dependent on the positive rate of COVID-19,” added Dr. Abdalhamid, who was not involved in the current study.

It’s important for clinicians to “do a good history to find who’s high risk and who’s low risk,” Dr. Mastrianni said. Clinicians also need to remember that, although a patient may test negative initially, they may still have COVID-19, he warned. That test reflects a single point in time, and a patient could be infected and not yet be ill, so clinicians need to be alert to a change in the patient’s status.
 

Best for settings with low-risk individuals

“Pooled COVID-19 testing is a straightforward, cost-effective, and efficient approach,” Dr. Abdalhamid said. He and his colleagues found pooled testing could increase testing capability by 69% or more when the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection is 10% or lower.

He said the approach would be helpful in other settings “as long as the positive rate is equal to or less than 10%. Asymptomatic population or surveillance groups such as students, athletes, and military service members are [an] interesting population to test using pooling testing because we expect these populations to have low positive rates, which makes pooled testing ideal.” 
 

Benefit outweighs risk

“There is risk of missing specimens with low concentration of the virus,” Dr. Abdalhamid cautioned. “These specimens might be missed due to the dilution factor of pooling [false-negative specimens]. We did not have a single false-negative specimen in our proof-of-concept study. In addition, there are practical approaches to deal with false-negative pooled specimens.

“The benefit definitely outweighs the risk of false-negative specimens because false-negative results rarely occur, if any. In addition, there is significant saving of time, reagents, and supplies in [a] pooled specimens approach as well as expansion of the test for higher number of patients,” Dr. Abdalhamid continued. 

Dr. Mastrianni’s hospital currently has enough testing cartridges, but they are continuing to conduct pooled testing to conserve resources for the benefit of their own hospital and for the nation as a whole, he said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Abdalhamid and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining specimens from several low-risk inpatients in a single test for SARS-CoV-2 infection allowed hospital staff to stretch testing supplies and provide test results quickly for many more patients than they might have otherwise, researchers found.

“We believe this strategy conserved [personal protective equipment (PPE)], led to a marked reduction in staff and patient anxiety, and improved patient care,” wrote David Mastrianni, MD, and colleagues from Saratoga Hospital in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. “Our impression is that testing all admitted patients has also been reassuring to our community.”

The researchers published their findings July 20 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

“What was really important about this study was they were actually able to implement pooled testing after communication with the [Food and Drug Administration],” Samir S. Shah, MD, MSCE, SFHM, the journal’s editor-in-chief, said in an interview.

“Pooled testing combines samples from multiple people within a single test. The benefit is, if the test is negative [you know that] everyone whose sample was combined … is negative. So you’ve effectively tested anywhere from three to five people with the resources required for only one test,” Dr. Shah continued.

The challenge is that, if the test is positive, everyone in that testing group must be retested individually because one or more of them has the infection, said Dr. Shah, director of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Dr. Mastrianni said early in the pandemic they started getting the “New York surge” at their hospital, located approximately 3 hours from New York City. They wanted to test all of the inpatients at their hospital for COVID-19 and they had a rapid in-house test that worked well, “but we just didn’t have enough cartridges, and we couldn’t get deliveries, and we started pooling.” In fact, they ran out of testing supplies at one point during the study but were able to replenish their supply in about a day, he noted.

For the current study, all patients admitted to the hospital, including those admitted for observation, underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. Staff in the emergency department designated patients as low risk if they had no symptoms or other clinical evidence of COVID-19; those patients underwent pooled testing.

Patients with clinical evidence of COVID-19, such as respiratory symptoms or laboratory or radiographic findings consistent with infection, were considered high risk and were tested on an individual basis and thus excluded from the current analysis.

The pooled testing strategy required some patients to be held in the emergency department until there were three available for pooled testing. On several occasions when this was not practical, specimens from two patients were pooled.

Between April 17 and May 11, clinicians tested 530 patients via pooled testing using 179 cartridges (172 with swabs from three patients and 7 with swabs from two patients). There were four positive pooled tests, which necessitated the use of an additional 11 cartridges. Overall, the testing used 190 cartridges, which is 340 fewer than would have been used if all patients had been tested individually. 

Among the low-risk patients, the positive rate was 0.8% (4/530). No patients from pools that were negative tested positive later during their hospitalization or developed evidence of the infection.
 

Team effort, flexibility needed

Dr. Mastrianni said he expected their study to find that pooled testing saved testing resources, but he “was surprised by the complexity of the logistics in the hospital, and how it really required getting everybody to work together. …There were a lot of details, and it really took a lot of teamwork.”

The nursing supervisor in the emergency department was in charge of the batch and coordinated with the laboratory, he explained. There were many moving parts to manage, including monitoring how many patients were being admitted, what their conditions were, whether they were high or low risk, and where they would house those patients as the emergency department became increasingly busy. “It’s a lot for them, but they’ve adapted really well,” Dr. Mastrianni said.

Pooling tests seems to work best for three to five patients at a time; larger batches increase the chance of having a positive test, and thus identifying the sick individual(s) becomes more challenging and expensive, Dr. Shah said.

“It’s a fine line between having a pool large enough that you save on testing supplies and testing costs but not having the pool so large that you dramatically increase your likelihood of having a positive test,” Dr. Shah said.

Hospitals will likely need to be flexible and adapt as the local positivity rate changes and supply levels vary, according to the authors.

“Pooled testing is mainly dependent on the COVID-19 positive rate in the population of interest in addition to the sensitivity of the [reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)] method used for COVID-19 testing,” said Baha Abdalhamid, MD, PhD, of the department of pathology and microbiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Each laboratory and hospital needs to do their own validation testing because it is dependent on the positive rate of COVID-19,” added Dr. Abdalhamid, who was not involved in the current study.

It’s important for clinicians to “do a good history to find who’s high risk and who’s low risk,” Dr. Mastrianni said. Clinicians also need to remember that, although a patient may test negative initially, they may still have COVID-19, he warned. That test reflects a single point in time, and a patient could be infected and not yet be ill, so clinicians need to be alert to a change in the patient’s status.
 

Best for settings with low-risk individuals

“Pooled COVID-19 testing is a straightforward, cost-effective, and efficient approach,” Dr. Abdalhamid said. He and his colleagues found pooled testing could increase testing capability by 69% or more when the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection is 10% or lower.

He said the approach would be helpful in other settings “as long as the positive rate is equal to or less than 10%. Asymptomatic population or surveillance groups such as students, athletes, and military service members are [an] interesting population to test using pooling testing because we expect these populations to have low positive rates, which makes pooled testing ideal.” 
 

Benefit outweighs risk

“There is risk of missing specimens with low concentration of the virus,” Dr. Abdalhamid cautioned. “These specimens might be missed due to the dilution factor of pooling [false-negative specimens]. We did not have a single false-negative specimen in our proof-of-concept study. In addition, there are practical approaches to deal with false-negative pooled specimens.

“The benefit definitely outweighs the risk of false-negative specimens because false-negative results rarely occur, if any. In addition, there is significant saving of time, reagents, and supplies in [a] pooled specimens approach as well as expansion of the test for higher number of patients,” Dr. Abdalhamid continued. 

Dr. Mastrianni’s hospital currently has enough testing cartridges, but they are continuing to conduct pooled testing to conserve resources for the benefit of their own hospital and for the nation as a whole, he said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Abdalhamid and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining specimens from several low-risk inpatients in a single test for SARS-CoV-2 infection allowed hospital staff to stretch testing supplies and provide test results quickly for many more patients than they might have otherwise, researchers found.

“We believe this strategy conserved [personal protective equipment (PPE)], led to a marked reduction in staff and patient anxiety, and improved patient care,” wrote David Mastrianni, MD, and colleagues from Saratoga Hospital in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. “Our impression is that testing all admitted patients has also been reassuring to our community.”

The researchers published their findings July 20 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

“What was really important about this study was they were actually able to implement pooled testing after communication with the [Food and Drug Administration],” Samir S. Shah, MD, MSCE, SFHM, the journal’s editor-in-chief, said in an interview.

“Pooled testing combines samples from multiple people within a single test. The benefit is, if the test is negative [you know that] everyone whose sample was combined … is negative. So you’ve effectively tested anywhere from three to five people with the resources required for only one test,” Dr. Shah continued.

The challenge is that, if the test is positive, everyone in that testing group must be retested individually because one or more of them has the infection, said Dr. Shah, director of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Dr. Mastrianni said early in the pandemic they started getting the “New York surge” at their hospital, located approximately 3 hours from New York City. They wanted to test all of the inpatients at their hospital for COVID-19 and they had a rapid in-house test that worked well, “but we just didn’t have enough cartridges, and we couldn’t get deliveries, and we started pooling.” In fact, they ran out of testing supplies at one point during the study but were able to replenish their supply in about a day, he noted.

For the current study, all patients admitted to the hospital, including those admitted for observation, underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. Staff in the emergency department designated patients as low risk if they had no symptoms or other clinical evidence of COVID-19; those patients underwent pooled testing.

Patients with clinical evidence of COVID-19, such as respiratory symptoms or laboratory or radiographic findings consistent with infection, were considered high risk and were tested on an individual basis and thus excluded from the current analysis.

The pooled testing strategy required some patients to be held in the emergency department until there were three available for pooled testing. On several occasions when this was not practical, specimens from two patients were pooled.

Between April 17 and May 11, clinicians tested 530 patients via pooled testing using 179 cartridges (172 with swabs from three patients and 7 with swabs from two patients). There were four positive pooled tests, which necessitated the use of an additional 11 cartridges. Overall, the testing used 190 cartridges, which is 340 fewer than would have been used if all patients had been tested individually. 

Among the low-risk patients, the positive rate was 0.8% (4/530). No patients from pools that were negative tested positive later during their hospitalization or developed evidence of the infection.
 

Team effort, flexibility needed

Dr. Mastrianni said he expected their study to find that pooled testing saved testing resources, but he “was surprised by the complexity of the logistics in the hospital, and how it really required getting everybody to work together. …There were a lot of details, and it really took a lot of teamwork.”

The nursing supervisor in the emergency department was in charge of the batch and coordinated with the laboratory, he explained. There were many moving parts to manage, including monitoring how many patients were being admitted, what their conditions were, whether they were high or low risk, and where they would house those patients as the emergency department became increasingly busy. “It’s a lot for them, but they’ve adapted really well,” Dr. Mastrianni said.

Pooling tests seems to work best for three to five patients at a time; larger batches increase the chance of having a positive test, and thus identifying the sick individual(s) becomes more challenging and expensive, Dr. Shah said.

“It’s a fine line between having a pool large enough that you save on testing supplies and testing costs but not having the pool so large that you dramatically increase your likelihood of having a positive test,” Dr. Shah said.

Hospitals will likely need to be flexible and adapt as the local positivity rate changes and supply levels vary, according to the authors.

“Pooled testing is mainly dependent on the COVID-19 positive rate in the population of interest in addition to the sensitivity of the [reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)] method used for COVID-19 testing,” said Baha Abdalhamid, MD, PhD, of the department of pathology and microbiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Each laboratory and hospital needs to do their own validation testing because it is dependent on the positive rate of COVID-19,” added Dr. Abdalhamid, who was not involved in the current study.

It’s important for clinicians to “do a good history to find who’s high risk and who’s low risk,” Dr. Mastrianni said. Clinicians also need to remember that, although a patient may test negative initially, they may still have COVID-19, he warned. That test reflects a single point in time, and a patient could be infected and not yet be ill, so clinicians need to be alert to a change in the patient’s status.
 

Best for settings with low-risk individuals

“Pooled COVID-19 testing is a straightforward, cost-effective, and efficient approach,” Dr. Abdalhamid said. He and his colleagues found pooled testing could increase testing capability by 69% or more when the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection is 10% or lower.

He said the approach would be helpful in other settings “as long as the positive rate is equal to or less than 10%. Asymptomatic population or surveillance groups such as students, athletes, and military service members are [an] interesting population to test using pooling testing because we expect these populations to have low positive rates, which makes pooled testing ideal.” 
 

Benefit outweighs risk

“There is risk of missing specimens with low concentration of the virus,” Dr. Abdalhamid cautioned. “These specimens might be missed due to the dilution factor of pooling [false-negative specimens]. We did not have a single false-negative specimen in our proof-of-concept study. In addition, there are practical approaches to deal with false-negative pooled specimens.

“The benefit definitely outweighs the risk of false-negative specimens because false-negative results rarely occur, if any. In addition, there is significant saving of time, reagents, and supplies in [a] pooled specimens approach as well as expansion of the test for higher number of patients,” Dr. Abdalhamid continued. 

Dr. Mastrianni’s hospital currently has enough testing cartridges, but they are continuing to conduct pooled testing to conserve resources for the benefit of their own hospital and for the nation as a whole, he said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Abdalhamid and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Let us begin with a thought exercise. Close your eyes and picture the word, “hero.” What comes to mind? A relative, a teacher, a fictional character wielding a hammer or flying gracefully through the air?

© Maridav / iStockphoto.com

Several months ago, our country was introduced to a foe that brought us to our knees. Before that time, the idea of a hero had fluctuated with circumstance and had been guided by aging and maturity; however, since the moment COVID-19 struck, a new image has emerged. Not all heroes wear capes, but some wield stethoscopes.

Over these past months the phrase, “Health Care Heroes” has spread throughout our collective consciousness, highlighted everywhere from talk shows and news media to billboards and journals. Doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals are lauded for their strength, dedication, resilience, and compassion. Citizens line up to clap, honk horns, and shower praise in recognition of those who have risked their health, sacrificed their personal lives, and committed themselves to the greater good. Yet, what does it mean to be a hero, and what is the cost of hero worship?

The focus of medical training has gradually shifted to include the physical as well as mental well-being of future physicians, but the remnants of traditional doctrine linger. Hours of focused training through study and direct clinical interaction reinforce dedication to patient care. Rewards are given for time spent and compassion lent, and research is lauded, but family time is rarely applauded. We are encouraged to do our greatest, work our hardest, be the best, rise and defeat every test. Failure (or the perception thereof) is not an option.

According to Rikinkumar S. Patel, MD, MPH, and associates, physicians have nearly twice the burnout rate of other professionals (Behav Sci. [Basel]. 2018 Nov;8[11]:98). The dedication to our craft propels excellence as well as sacrifice. When COVID-19 entered our lives, many of my colleagues did not hesitate to heed to the call for action. They immersed themselves in the ICU, led triage units, and extended work hours in the service of the sick and dying. Several were years removed from emergency/intensive care, while others were allocated from their chosen residency programs and voluntarily thrust into an environment they had never before traversed.

These individuals are praised as “brave,” “dedicated,” “selfless.” A few even provided insight into their experiences through various publications highlighting their appreciation and gratitude toward such a treacherous, albeit, tremendous experience. Even though their words are an honest perspective of life through one of the worst health care crises in 100 years, in effect, they perpetuate the noble hero; the myth of the super doctor.

In a profession that has borne witness to multiple suicides over the past few months, why do we not encourage open dialogue of our victories as well as our defeats? Our wins as much as our losses? Why does an esteemed veteran physician feel guilt over declining to provide emergency services to patients whom they have long forgotten how to manage? What drives the guilt and the self-doubt? Are we ashamed of what others will think? Is it that the fear of not living up to our cherished medical oath outweighs our own boundaries and acknowledgment of our limitations?

A hero is an entity, a person encompassing a state of being, yet health care professionals are bestowed this title and this burden on a near-daily basis. Physicians are people. We love, we fear, we hesitate, we fight, we deem to overcome. We are perfectly imperfect. The more in tune we are to vulnerability, the more honest we can become with ourselves and one another.
 

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

Let us begin with a thought exercise. Close your eyes and picture the word, “hero.” What comes to mind? A relative, a teacher, a fictional character wielding a hammer or flying gracefully through the air?

© Maridav / iStockphoto.com

Several months ago, our country was introduced to a foe that brought us to our knees. Before that time, the idea of a hero had fluctuated with circumstance and had been guided by aging and maturity; however, since the moment COVID-19 struck, a new image has emerged. Not all heroes wear capes, but some wield stethoscopes.

Over these past months the phrase, “Health Care Heroes” has spread throughout our collective consciousness, highlighted everywhere from talk shows and news media to billboards and journals. Doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals are lauded for their strength, dedication, resilience, and compassion. Citizens line up to clap, honk horns, and shower praise in recognition of those who have risked their health, sacrificed their personal lives, and committed themselves to the greater good. Yet, what does it mean to be a hero, and what is the cost of hero worship?

The focus of medical training has gradually shifted to include the physical as well as mental well-being of future physicians, but the remnants of traditional doctrine linger. Hours of focused training through study and direct clinical interaction reinforce dedication to patient care. Rewards are given for time spent and compassion lent, and research is lauded, but family time is rarely applauded. We are encouraged to do our greatest, work our hardest, be the best, rise and defeat every test. Failure (or the perception thereof) is not an option.

According to Rikinkumar S. Patel, MD, MPH, and associates, physicians have nearly twice the burnout rate of other professionals (Behav Sci. [Basel]. 2018 Nov;8[11]:98). The dedication to our craft propels excellence as well as sacrifice. When COVID-19 entered our lives, many of my colleagues did not hesitate to heed to the call for action. They immersed themselves in the ICU, led triage units, and extended work hours in the service of the sick and dying. Several were years removed from emergency/intensive care, while others were allocated from their chosen residency programs and voluntarily thrust into an environment they had never before traversed.

These individuals are praised as “brave,” “dedicated,” “selfless.” A few even provided insight into their experiences through various publications highlighting their appreciation and gratitude toward such a treacherous, albeit, tremendous experience. Even though their words are an honest perspective of life through one of the worst health care crises in 100 years, in effect, they perpetuate the noble hero; the myth of the super doctor.

In a profession that has borne witness to multiple suicides over the past few months, why do we not encourage open dialogue of our victories as well as our defeats? Our wins as much as our losses? Why does an esteemed veteran physician feel guilt over declining to provide emergency services to patients whom they have long forgotten how to manage? What drives the guilt and the self-doubt? Are we ashamed of what others will think? Is it that the fear of not living up to our cherished medical oath outweighs our own boundaries and acknowledgment of our limitations?

A hero is an entity, a person encompassing a state of being, yet health care professionals are bestowed this title and this burden on a near-daily basis. Physicians are people. We love, we fear, we hesitate, we fight, we deem to overcome. We are perfectly imperfect. The more in tune we are to vulnerability, the more honest we can become with ourselves and one another.
 

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

Let us begin with a thought exercise. Close your eyes and picture the word, “hero.” What comes to mind? A relative, a teacher, a fictional character wielding a hammer or flying gracefully through the air?

© Maridav / iStockphoto.com

Several months ago, our country was introduced to a foe that brought us to our knees. Before that time, the idea of a hero had fluctuated with circumstance and had been guided by aging and maturity; however, since the moment COVID-19 struck, a new image has emerged. Not all heroes wear capes, but some wield stethoscopes.

Over these past months the phrase, “Health Care Heroes” has spread throughout our collective consciousness, highlighted everywhere from talk shows and news media to billboards and journals. Doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals are lauded for their strength, dedication, resilience, and compassion. Citizens line up to clap, honk horns, and shower praise in recognition of those who have risked their health, sacrificed their personal lives, and committed themselves to the greater good. Yet, what does it mean to be a hero, and what is the cost of hero worship?

The focus of medical training has gradually shifted to include the physical as well as mental well-being of future physicians, but the remnants of traditional doctrine linger. Hours of focused training through study and direct clinical interaction reinforce dedication to patient care. Rewards are given for time spent and compassion lent, and research is lauded, but family time is rarely applauded. We are encouraged to do our greatest, work our hardest, be the best, rise and defeat every test. Failure (or the perception thereof) is not an option.

According to Rikinkumar S. Patel, MD, MPH, and associates, physicians have nearly twice the burnout rate of other professionals (Behav Sci. [Basel]. 2018 Nov;8[11]:98). The dedication to our craft propels excellence as well as sacrifice. When COVID-19 entered our lives, many of my colleagues did not hesitate to heed to the call for action. They immersed themselves in the ICU, led triage units, and extended work hours in the service of the sick and dying. Several were years removed from emergency/intensive care, while others were allocated from their chosen residency programs and voluntarily thrust into an environment they had never before traversed.

These individuals are praised as “brave,” “dedicated,” “selfless.” A few even provided insight into their experiences through various publications highlighting their appreciation and gratitude toward such a treacherous, albeit, tremendous experience. Even though their words are an honest perspective of life through one of the worst health care crises in 100 years, in effect, they perpetuate the noble hero; the myth of the super doctor.

In a profession that has borne witness to multiple suicides over the past few months, why do we not encourage open dialogue of our victories as well as our defeats? Our wins as much as our losses? Why does an esteemed veteran physician feel guilt over declining to provide emergency services to patients whom they have long forgotten how to manage? What drives the guilt and the self-doubt? Are we ashamed of what others will think? Is it that the fear of not living up to our cherished medical oath outweighs our own boundaries and acknowledgment of our limitations?

A hero is an entity, a person encompassing a state of being, yet health care professionals are bestowed this title and this burden on a near-daily basis. Physicians are people. We love, we fear, we hesitate, we fight, we deem to overcome. We are perfectly imperfect. The more in tune we are to vulnerability, the more honest we can become with ourselves and one another.
 

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

In an international survey, most oncologists said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and steroids less often during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While neoadjuvant treatment recommendations were not strongly affected by the pandemic, about half of oncologists reported increased hesitancy over recommending frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and a vast majority said they would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often in the metastatic setting.

Most oncologists said they did not perform routine COVID-19 testing via reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) before treating cancer patients. In fact, only 3% said they performed COVID-19 RT-PCR testing routinely.

Yüksel Ürün, MD, of Ankara (Turkey) University, and colleagues reported these findings in JCO Global Oncology.

The goal of the survey was to “understand readiness measures taken by oncologists to protect patients and health care workers from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and how their clinical decision-making was influenced by the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The online survey was conducted among 343 oncologists from 28 countries. Responses were collected anonymously, a majority (71%) from university or academic centers, with 95% received between April 1 and April 29, 2020.

Use of telemedicine was common (80%) among respondents, as was use of surgical masks (90%) and personal protective equipment in general.

Only 33% of respondents described using N95 masks. However, the proportion of oncologists who had access to N95 masks while caring for patients known to have COVID-19, especially while doing invasive procedures such as intubation, bronchoscopy, and any airway-related manipulations, was not captured by the survey.
 

COVID testing and cancer treatment

Most respondents (58%) said they did not perform routine COVID-19 RT-PCR testing prior to administering systemic cancer treatment, with 39% stating they performed RT-PCR tests in selected patients, and 3% saying they performed such testing in all patients.

The survey indicated that hormonal treatments, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and bone-modifying agents were considered relatively safe, but cytotoxic chemotherapy and immune therapies were not.

Nearly all oncologists said the pandemic would cause them to make no change to their recommendations regarding hormone therapy, and nearly 80% said they would make no changes regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitors or bone-modifying agents.

However, more than 90% of respondents said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy less often, about 70% said they would recommend corticosteroids less often, and around 50% said they would recommend anti–programmed death-1/PD-ligand 1 or anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies less often.

The pandemic made most respondents more reluctant to recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. About 80% and 70% of respondents, respectively, would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often.

However, first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease, as well as adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, were less affected. About 30% of respondents said they would recommend neoadjuvant therapy less often, and 50%-55% would recommend adjuvant therapy or frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease less often.

Most respondents (78%) said they would use granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) more frequently during the pandemic.

The factors most likely to affect oncologists’ treatment decisions were patient age (81%) and concomitant disease (92%). Additionally, 80% of respondents’ treatment decisions were influenced by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher, or the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Interpretation and implications

“These results highlight that, even in the early phases of COVID-19 – during which there was considerable uncertainty – basic core principles were guideposts for oncologists,” observed Aly-Khan Lalani, MD, of Juravinski Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who was not involved in this study.

“For example, [oncologists were] prioritizing strategies for treatments with the largest expected impact and carefully tailoring treatment according to patient comorbidities and performance status,” Dr. Lalani said.

Another oncologist who was not involved in the study expressed concern over reductions in adjuvant therapy supported by half of oncologists surveyed.

“Although benefits may be marginal in some cases, these are curative settings and especially warrant careful individual-level risk/benefit discussions,” said Kartik Sehgal, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

His concern extended as well to the small proportion (3%) of oncologists testing for COVID-19 in all patients. “Systematic testing is the need of the hour,” Dr. Sehgal said.

In their discussion of the findings, Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted a lack of consensus on monoclonal antibody and immunotherapy safety among surveyed oncologists. The steroids needed to manage severe immune-mediated toxicity with immune checkpoint inhibitors has led to some prescribing reluctance during the pandemic.

Immunosuppressive properties of immune checkpoint inhibitors also raise concern that they can increase COVID-19 severity. Studies are few, and findings to date are inconsistent with respect to the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors on COVID-19 clinical course. However, a recently presented study suggested that immune checkpoint inhibitors do not increase the risk of death among cancer patients with COVID-19 (AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01).

Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted that greater COVID-19 severity has been shown in patients with performance status greater than 1, hematologic malignancies, lung cancer, stage IV metastatic disease, chemotherapy within the prior 3 months, cancer treatment in the last 14 days, and the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nonmetastatic cancer has not been shown to affect COVID-19 severity, however.

Dr. Ürün and colleagues also underscored the need for research evidence to balance potential reductions in neutropenic complications with G-CSF (and therefore, reduced hospitalizations) with a theoretical risk of G-CSF–mediated pulmonary injury through its stimulation of an excessive immune response.

Finally, the authors urged oncologists to evaluate each proposed therapy’s risk/benefit ratio on an individual patient basis, and the team tasked the oncology community with gathering comprehensive, rigorous data.

There was no funding source declared for this study. Dr. Ürün and colleagues disclosed various relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, which included receiving research funding. Dr. Sehgal and Dr. Lalani reported no relevant conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Ürün Y et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Aug;6:1248-57.

In an international survey, most oncologists said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and steroids less often during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While neoadjuvant treatment recommendations were not strongly affected by the pandemic, about half of oncologists reported increased hesitancy over recommending frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and a vast majority said they would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often in the metastatic setting.

Most oncologists said they did not perform routine COVID-19 testing via reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) before treating cancer patients. In fact, only 3% said they performed COVID-19 RT-PCR testing routinely.

Yüksel Ürün, MD, of Ankara (Turkey) University, and colleagues reported these findings in JCO Global Oncology.

The goal of the survey was to “understand readiness measures taken by oncologists to protect patients and health care workers from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and how their clinical decision-making was influenced by the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The online survey was conducted among 343 oncologists from 28 countries. Responses were collected anonymously, a majority (71%) from university or academic centers, with 95% received between April 1 and April 29, 2020.

Use of telemedicine was common (80%) among respondents, as was use of surgical masks (90%) and personal protective equipment in general.

Only 33% of respondents described using N95 masks. However, the proportion of oncologists who had access to N95 masks while caring for patients known to have COVID-19, especially while doing invasive procedures such as intubation, bronchoscopy, and any airway-related manipulations, was not captured by the survey.
 

COVID testing and cancer treatment

Most respondents (58%) said they did not perform routine COVID-19 RT-PCR testing prior to administering systemic cancer treatment, with 39% stating they performed RT-PCR tests in selected patients, and 3% saying they performed such testing in all patients.

The survey indicated that hormonal treatments, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and bone-modifying agents were considered relatively safe, but cytotoxic chemotherapy and immune therapies were not.

Nearly all oncologists said the pandemic would cause them to make no change to their recommendations regarding hormone therapy, and nearly 80% said they would make no changes regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitors or bone-modifying agents.

However, more than 90% of respondents said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy less often, about 70% said they would recommend corticosteroids less often, and around 50% said they would recommend anti–programmed death-1/PD-ligand 1 or anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies less often.

The pandemic made most respondents more reluctant to recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. About 80% and 70% of respondents, respectively, would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often.

However, first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease, as well as adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, were less affected. About 30% of respondents said they would recommend neoadjuvant therapy less often, and 50%-55% would recommend adjuvant therapy or frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease less often.

Most respondents (78%) said they would use granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) more frequently during the pandemic.

The factors most likely to affect oncologists’ treatment decisions were patient age (81%) and concomitant disease (92%). Additionally, 80% of respondents’ treatment decisions were influenced by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher, or the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Interpretation and implications

“These results highlight that, even in the early phases of COVID-19 – during which there was considerable uncertainty – basic core principles were guideposts for oncologists,” observed Aly-Khan Lalani, MD, of Juravinski Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who was not involved in this study.

“For example, [oncologists were] prioritizing strategies for treatments with the largest expected impact and carefully tailoring treatment according to patient comorbidities and performance status,” Dr. Lalani said.

Another oncologist who was not involved in the study expressed concern over reductions in adjuvant therapy supported by half of oncologists surveyed.

“Although benefits may be marginal in some cases, these are curative settings and especially warrant careful individual-level risk/benefit discussions,” said Kartik Sehgal, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

His concern extended as well to the small proportion (3%) of oncologists testing for COVID-19 in all patients. “Systematic testing is the need of the hour,” Dr. Sehgal said.

In their discussion of the findings, Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted a lack of consensus on monoclonal antibody and immunotherapy safety among surveyed oncologists. The steroids needed to manage severe immune-mediated toxicity with immune checkpoint inhibitors has led to some prescribing reluctance during the pandemic.

Immunosuppressive properties of immune checkpoint inhibitors also raise concern that they can increase COVID-19 severity. Studies are few, and findings to date are inconsistent with respect to the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors on COVID-19 clinical course. However, a recently presented study suggested that immune checkpoint inhibitors do not increase the risk of death among cancer patients with COVID-19 (AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01).

Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted that greater COVID-19 severity has been shown in patients with performance status greater than 1, hematologic malignancies, lung cancer, stage IV metastatic disease, chemotherapy within the prior 3 months, cancer treatment in the last 14 days, and the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nonmetastatic cancer has not been shown to affect COVID-19 severity, however.

Dr. Ürün and colleagues also underscored the need for research evidence to balance potential reductions in neutropenic complications with G-CSF (and therefore, reduced hospitalizations) with a theoretical risk of G-CSF–mediated pulmonary injury through its stimulation of an excessive immune response.

Finally, the authors urged oncologists to evaluate each proposed therapy’s risk/benefit ratio on an individual patient basis, and the team tasked the oncology community with gathering comprehensive, rigorous data.

There was no funding source declared for this study. Dr. Ürün and colleagues disclosed various relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, which included receiving research funding. Dr. Sehgal and Dr. Lalani reported no relevant conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Ürün Y et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Aug;6:1248-57.

In an international survey, most oncologists said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and steroids less often during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While neoadjuvant treatment recommendations were not strongly affected by the pandemic, about half of oncologists reported increased hesitancy over recommending frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and a vast majority said they would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often in the metastatic setting.

Most oncologists said they did not perform routine COVID-19 testing via reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) before treating cancer patients. In fact, only 3% said they performed COVID-19 RT-PCR testing routinely.

Yüksel Ürün, MD, of Ankara (Turkey) University, and colleagues reported these findings in JCO Global Oncology.

The goal of the survey was to “understand readiness measures taken by oncologists to protect patients and health care workers from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and how their clinical decision-making was influenced by the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The online survey was conducted among 343 oncologists from 28 countries. Responses were collected anonymously, a majority (71%) from university or academic centers, with 95% received between April 1 and April 29, 2020.

Use of telemedicine was common (80%) among respondents, as was use of surgical masks (90%) and personal protective equipment in general.

Only 33% of respondents described using N95 masks. However, the proportion of oncologists who had access to N95 masks while caring for patients known to have COVID-19, especially while doing invasive procedures such as intubation, bronchoscopy, and any airway-related manipulations, was not captured by the survey.
 

COVID testing and cancer treatment

Most respondents (58%) said they did not perform routine COVID-19 RT-PCR testing prior to administering systemic cancer treatment, with 39% stating they performed RT-PCR tests in selected patients, and 3% saying they performed such testing in all patients.

The survey indicated that hormonal treatments, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and bone-modifying agents were considered relatively safe, but cytotoxic chemotherapy and immune therapies were not.

Nearly all oncologists said the pandemic would cause them to make no change to their recommendations regarding hormone therapy, and nearly 80% said they would make no changes regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitors or bone-modifying agents.

However, more than 90% of respondents said they would recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy less often, about 70% said they would recommend corticosteroids less often, and around 50% said they would recommend anti–programmed death-1/PD-ligand 1 or anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies less often.

The pandemic made most respondents more reluctant to recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. About 80% and 70% of respondents, respectively, would recommend second- or third-line chemotherapy less often.

However, first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease, as well as adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, were less affected. About 30% of respondents said they would recommend neoadjuvant therapy less often, and 50%-55% would recommend adjuvant therapy or frontline chemotherapy for metastatic disease less often.

Most respondents (78%) said they would use granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) more frequently during the pandemic.

The factors most likely to affect oncologists’ treatment decisions were patient age (81%) and concomitant disease (92%). Additionally, 80% of respondents’ treatment decisions were influenced by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher, or the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Interpretation and implications

“These results highlight that, even in the early phases of COVID-19 – during which there was considerable uncertainty – basic core principles were guideposts for oncologists,” observed Aly-Khan Lalani, MD, of Juravinski Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who was not involved in this study.

“For example, [oncologists were] prioritizing strategies for treatments with the largest expected impact and carefully tailoring treatment according to patient comorbidities and performance status,” Dr. Lalani said.

Another oncologist who was not involved in the study expressed concern over reductions in adjuvant therapy supported by half of oncologists surveyed.

“Although benefits may be marginal in some cases, these are curative settings and especially warrant careful individual-level risk/benefit discussions,” said Kartik Sehgal, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

His concern extended as well to the small proportion (3%) of oncologists testing for COVID-19 in all patients. “Systematic testing is the need of the hour,” Dr. Sehgal said.

In their discussion of the findings, Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted a lack of consensus on monoclonal antibody and immunotherapy safety among surveyed oncologists. The steroids needed to manage severe immune-mediated toxicity with immune checkpoint inhibitors has led to some prescribing reluctance during the pandemic.

Immunosuppressive properties of immune checkpoint inhibitors also raise concern that they can increase COVID-19 severity. Studies are few, and findings to date are inconsistent with respect to the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors on COVID-19 clinical course. However, a recently presented study suggested that immune checkpoint inhibitors do not increase the risk of death among cancer patients with COVID-19 (AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01).

Dr. Ürün and colleagues noted that greater COVID-19 severity has been shown in patients with performance status greater than 1, hematologic malignancies, lung cancer, stage IV metastatic disease, chemotherapy within the prior 3 months, cancer treatment in the last 14 days, and the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nonmetastatic cancer has not been shown to affect COVID-19 severity, however.

Dr. Ürün and colleagues also underscored the need for research evidence to balance potential reductions in neutropenic complications with G-CSF (and therefore, reduced hospitalizations) with a theoretical risk of G-CSF–mediated pulmonary injury through its stimulation of an excessive immune response.

Finally, the authors urged oncologists to evaluate each proposed therapy’s risk/benefit ratio on an individual patient basis, and the team tasked the oncology community with gathering comprehensive, rigorous data.

There was no funding source declared for this study. Dr. Ürün and colleagues disclosed various relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, which included receiving research funding. Dr. Sehgal and Dr. Lalani reported no relevant conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Ürün Y et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Aug;6:1248-57.

Every antepartum record, whether it is on paper or EMR, has a space asking whether the patient feels fetal movement at the visit. Every provider inherently knows that fetal movement is important and worth asking about at each visit. Yet the education for patients about fetal movement and when to alert a provider to changes is not currently standardized in the United States. There is no practice bulletin or guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and, therefore, there is a wide variation in clinical practice. An Australian study found that 97% of women were asked about fetal movement, but only 62% reported formal education regarding fetal movement. More concerning, only 40% were advised to call immediately if concerned about fetal movement change. A quarter were told to call only if baby moved fewer than 10 times in an hour.¹

We have a standardized approach to most aspects of prenatal care. We know what to do if the patient has contractions, or protein in their urine, or an increased blood pressure. Our management and education regarding fetal movement must be standardized as well. In this article I will go through the incorrect education that often is given and the data that do not support this. Evidence in other countries indicates that appropriate, thoughtful education can reduce the stillbirth rate. We need a similar care plan or model for fetal movement education in the United States.
 

Myth one: Kick counts

When education is done, kick counts are far and away what providers and nurses advise in the clinic and hospital triage when women present with complaint of decreased fetal movement. The standard approach to this is advising the patient to perform a kick count several times per day to check in on the baby and call if less than 10 kicks per hour. This is not bad advice as it may help create awareness for the mom about what is “normal” for her baby and may help her to “check in” on the baby when she is occupied at work or with older children. However, advising that a kick count should be done to reassure a patient about a concerning change in fetal movement is not supported in the literature. A meta-analysis in the February 2020 issue of the Green Journal found that advised kick count monitoring did not significantly reduce stillbirth risk.² Research shows that most moms will get 10 kicks normally within an hour, but there are no data showing what percentage of moms with perceived decreased fetal movement also will get a “passing” result despite their concern. For example, take a patient who normally feels 50 movements in an hour and is not reassured by 10 movements in an hour, but because she is told that 10 movements is okay, she tries not to worry about the concerning change. Many mothers in the stillbirth community report “passing kick counts” in the days leading up to the diagnosis. We need to move away from kick count education to a much simpler plan. We must tell patients if they are worried about a concerning change in fetal movement, they should call their provider.

Myth 2: Fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy

There is a very common myth that fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy, especially once labor has started. A study in the Journal of Physiology continuously monitored term fetuses when mom was both awake and asleep. The study also looked at the effect on fetal heart rate and fetal activity based on different maternal positions. The study found the fetuses spent around 90% of the day with active movements and with reactive nonstress tests (NSTs).³ A 2019 study looking at fetal movement at term and preterm in third-trimester patients illustrated that fetal movement does not decrease in frequency or strength at term. It found that only 6% of patients noted decreased strength and 14% decreased frequency of movements at term. Furthermore, 59% reported an increase in strength, and nearly 39% reported an increase in frequency of fetal movements at term.⁴ We must educate patients that a change in frequency or strength of movements is not normal or expected, and they must call if concerned about a change.

Myth 3: Try juice, ice water, or food before coming in for evaluation

A common set of advice when a patient calls with a complaint of decreased fetal movement is to suggest a meal or something sugary, although there is little or no evidence to support this. A randomized controlled trial found maternal perception of increased fetal movement was similar among the two groups. Giving something sugary at NST also was not shown in this study to improve reactivity.⁵ Another randomized, double placebo blind study was done to answer the question of whether glucose via IV helped improve fetal movements and decreased the need for admission for induction or further monitoring. In this study, no difference in outcome is found.⁶

When a patient calls with decreased fetal movement, advice should be to come and be evaluated, not recommendation of measures like ice water, orange juice, or sugary meal because it is not supported by the literature. This incorrect message also may further the false impression that a baby who is not moving is most likely sleeping or is simply in need of sugar, not that the baby may be at risk for impending stillbirth. The Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have fetal movement protocol that both discourage this advice and encourage immediate evaluation of patients with complaint of concerning fetal movement change.^7,8

Myth 4: An increase in fetal movement is not of concern

I used to believe that increased fetal movement is never of concern. However, the STARS study illustrated that a concerning increase in fetal movement often is noted just before the diagnosis of stillbirth. A single episode of excessively vigorous activity which often is described as frantic or crazy is associated with an odds ratio for stillbirth of 4.3. In the study, 30% of cases reported this, compared with 7% of controls.⁹ In our practice, we manage mothers who call with this concern the same way as a decreased fetal movement complaint, and bring the mother in immediately for evaluation.

Myth 5: Patients all know that a concerning change in fetal movement is a risk factor for stillbirth

Decreased fetal movement has been associated with an increased OR for stillbirth of 4.51.¹⁰ However, patients often do not know of this association. A study in the United States of providers and stillbirth families showed fear of anxiety kept providers from talking about stillbirth and that it still happens. Because of this patients were completely surprised by the diagnosis.¹¹ We tell patients that stillbirth still happens because research by Dr Suzanne Pullen found that 77% of families said they never worried their baby could die outside of the first trimester. Our patients have received this information without increased anxiety and are very appreciative and reassured about the education and protocol (based on the U.K. Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2) that we have implemented in our practice.

Fact: Fetal movement education guidelines exist and are easy to implement

The practice I am a partner at has been using a formalized method for educating patients about fetal movement over the past year. As mentioned earlier the U.K. and Australia have formal fetal movement education and management guidelines.7,⁸ Both protocols encourage formal education around 20-24 weeks and education for the patient to call immediately with concerns; the patient should be evaluated within 2 hours of the complaint. The formal education we provide is quite simple. The Star Legacy Foundation (United States) and Still Aware (Australia) have created a simple card to educate patients.

Conclusions

When I think about the patients I have cared for who have presented with a stillborn baby, I think often that they usually presented for a complaint other than decreased fetal movement such as labor check or routine prenatal visit. When asked when they last felt fetal movement they will often say days before. This does not need to happen. Protocols in Norway for fetal movement education have shown that patients call sooner with decreased fetal movement when they have received a formal education.¹⁴

Not all stillbirth can be prevented but proper education about fetal movement and not perpetuating dangerous myths about fetal movement, may keep presentations like this from happening. I hope we may soon have a formal protocol for fetal movement education, but until then, I hope some will take these educational tips to heart.
 

Dr. Heather Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, NY. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Oct;52(5):445-9.

2. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):453-62.

3. J Physiol. 2017 Feb 15;595(4):1213-21.

4. PLOS One. 2019 Jun 12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217583.

5. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013 Jun;26(9):915-9.

6. J Perinatol. 2016 Aug;36(8):598-600.

7. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Aug;58(4):463-8.

8. Reduced fetal movements: Green top #57, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

9. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1555-6.

10. BMJ Open. 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020031.

11. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2012. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-137.

12. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0602-4.

13. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.03.014.

14. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2009. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-32.

Every antepartum record, whether it is on paper or EMR, has a space asking whether the patient feels fetal movement at the visit. Every provider inherently knows that fetal movement is important and worth asking about at each visit. Yet the education for patients about fetal movement and when to alert a provider to changes is not currently standardized in the United States. There is no practice bulletin or guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and, therefore, there is a wide variation in clinical practice. An Australian study found that 97% of women were asked about fetal movement, but only 62% reported formal education regarding fetal movement. More concerning, only 40% were advised to call immediately if concerned about fetal movement change. A quarter were told to call only if baby moved fewer than 10 times in an hour.¹

We have a standardized approach to most aspects of prenatal care. We know what to do if the patient has contractions, or protein in their urine, or an increased blood pressure. Our management and education regarding fetal movement must be standardized as well. In this article I will go through the incorrect education that often is given and the data that do not support this. Evidence in other countries indicates that appropriate, thoughtful education can reduce the stillbirth rate. We need a similar care plan or model for fetal movement education in the United States.
 

Myth one: Kick counts

When education is done, kick counts are far and away what providers and nurses advise in the clinic and hospital triage when women present with complaint of decreased fetal movement. The standard approach to this is advising the patient to perform a kick count several times per day to check in on the baby and call if less than 10 kicks per hour. This is not bad advice as it may help create awareness for the mom about what is “normal” for her baby and may help her to “check in” on the baby when she is occupied at work or with older children. However, advising that a kick count should be done to reassure a patient about a concerning change in fetal movement is not supported in the literature. A meta-analysis in the February 2020 issue of the Green Journal found that advised kick count monitoring did not significantly reduce stillbirth risk.² Research shows that most moms will get 10 kicks normally within an hour, but there are no data showing what percentage of moms with perceived decreased fetal movement also will get a “passing” result despite their concern. For example, take a patient who normally feels 50 movements in an hour and is not reassured by 10 movements in an hour, but because she is told that 10 movements is okay, she tries not to worry about the concerning change. Many mothers in the stillbirth community report “passing kick counts” in the days leading up to the diagnosis. We need to move away from kick count education to a much simpler plan. We must tell patients if they are worried about a concerning change in fetal movement, they should call their provider.

Myth 2: Fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy

There is a very common myth that fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy, especially once labor has started. A study in the Journal of Physiology continuously monitored term fetuses when mom was both awake and asleep. The study also looked at the effect on fetal heart rate and fetal activity based on different maternal positions. The study found the fetuses spent around 90% of the day with active movements and with reactive nonstress tests (NSTs).³ A 2019 study looking at fetal movement at term and preterm in third-trimester patients illustrated that fetal movement does not decrease in frequency or strength at term. It found that only 6% of patients noted decreased strength and 14% decreased frequency of movements at term. Furthermore, 59% reported an increase in strength, and nearly 39% reported an increase in frequency of fetal movements at term.⁴ We must educate patients that a change in frequency or strength of movements is not normal or expected, and they must call if concerned about a change.

Myth 3: Try juice, ice water, or food before coming in for evaluation

A common set of advice when a patient calls with a complaint of decreased fetal movement is to suggest a meal or something sugary, although there is little or no evidence to support this. A randomized controlled trial found maternal perception of increased fetal movement was similar among the two groups. Giving something sugary at NST also was not shown in this study to improve reactivity.⁵ Another randomized, double placebo blind study was done to answer the question of whether glucose via IV helped improve fetal movements and decreased the need for admission for induction or further monitoring. In this study, no difference in outcome is found.⁶

When a patient calls with decreased fetal movement, advice should be to come and be evaluated, not recommendation of measures like ice water, orange juice, or sugary meal because it is not supported by the literature. This incorrect message also may further the false impression that a baby who is not moving is most likely sleeping or is simply in need of sugar, not that the baby may be at risk for impending stillbirth. The Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have fetal movement protocol that both discourage this advice and encourage immediate evaluation of patients with complaint of concerning fetal movement change.^7,8

Myth 4: An increase in fetal movement is not of concern

I used to believe that increased fetal movement is never of concern. However, the STARS study illustrated that a concerning increase in fetal movement often is noted just before the diagnosis of stillbirth. A single episode of excessively vigorous activity which often is described as frantic or crazy is associated with an odds ratio for stillbirth of 4.3. In the study, 30% of cases reported this, compared with 7% of controls.⁹ In our practice, we manage mothers who call with this concern the same way as a decreased fetal movement complaint, and bring the mother in immediately for evaluation.

Myth 5: Patients all know that a concerning change in fetal movement is a risk factor for stillbirth

Decreased fetal movement has been associated with an increased OR for stillbirth of 4.51.¹⁰ However, patients often do not know of this association. A study in the United States of providers and stillbirth families showed fear of anxiety kept providers from talking about stillbirth and that it still happens. Because of this patients were completely surprised by the diagnosis.¹¹ We tell patients that stillbirth still happens because research by Dr Suzanne Pullen found that 77% of families said they never worried their baby could die outside of the first trimester. Our patients have received this information without increased anxiety and are very appreciative and reassured about the education and protocol (based on the U.K. Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2) that we have implemented in our practice.

Fact: Fetal movement education guidelines exist and are easy to implement

The practice I am a partner at has been using a formalized method for educating patients about fetal movement over the past year. As mentioned earlier the U.K. and Australia have formal fetal movement education and management guidelines.7,⁸ Both protocols encourage formal education around 20-24 weeks and education for the patient to call immediately with concerns; the patient should be evaluated within 2 hours of the complaint. The formal education we provide is quite simple. The Star Legacy Foundation (United States) and Still Aware (Australia) have created a simple card to educate patients.

Conclusions

When I think about the patients I have cared for who have presented with a stillborn baby, I think often that they usually presented for a complaint other than decreased fetal movement such as labor check or routine prenatal visit. When asked when they last felt fetal movement they will often say days before. This does not need to happen. Protocols in Norway for fetal movement education have shown that patients call sooner with decreased fetal movement when they have received a formal education.¹⁴

Not all stillbirth can be prevented but proper education about fetal movement and not perpetuating dangerous myths about fetal movement, may keep presentations like this from happening. I hope we may soon have a formal protocol for fetal movement education, but until then, I hope some will take these educational tips to heart.
 

Dr. Heather Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, NY. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Oct;52(5):445-9.

2. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):453-62.

3. J Physiol. 2017 Feb 15;595(4):1213-21.

4. PLOS One. 2019 Jun 12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217583.

5. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013 Jun;26(9):915-9.

6. J Perinatol. 2016 Aug;36(8):598-600.

7. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Aug;58(4):463-8.

8. Reduced fetal movements: Green top #57, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

9. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1555-6.

10. BMJ Open. 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020031.

11. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2012. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-137.

12. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0602-4.

13. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.03.014.

14. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2009. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-32.

Every antepartum record, whether it is on paper or EMR, has a space asking whether the patient feels fetal movement at the visit. Every provider inherently knows that fetal movement is important and worth asking about at each visit. Yet the education for patients about fetal movement and when to alert a provider to changes is not currently standardized in the United States. There is no practice bulletin or guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and, therefore, there is a wide variation in clinical practice. An Australian study found that 97% of women were asked about fetal movement, but only 62% reported formal education regarding fetal movement. More concerning, only 40% were advised to call immediately if concerned about fetal movement change. A quarter were told to call only if baby moved fewer than 10 times in an hour.¹

We have a standardized approach to most aspects of prenatal care. We know what to do if the patient has contractions, or protein in their urine, or an increased blood pressure. Our management and education regarding fetal movement must be standardized as well. In this article I will go through the incorrect education that often is given and the data that do not support this. Evidence in other countries indicates that appropriate, thoughtful education can reduce the stillbirth rate. We need a similar care plan or model for fetal movement education in the United States.
 

Myth one: Kick counts

When education is done, kick counts are far and away what providers and nurses advise in the clinic and hospital triage when women present with complaint of decreased fetal movement. The standard approach to this is advising the patient to perform a kick count several times per day to check in on the baby and call if less than 10 kicks per hour. This is not bad advice as it may help create awareness for the mom about what is “normal” for her baby and may help her to “check in” on the baby when she is occupied at work or with older children. However, advising that a kick count should be done to reassure a patient about a concerning change in fetal movement is not supported in the literature. A meta-analysis in the February 2020 issue of the Green Journal found that advised kick count monitoring did not significantly reduce stillbirth risk.² Research shows that most moms will get 10 kicks normally within an hour, but there are no data showing what percentage of moms with perceived decreased fetal movement also will get a “passing” result despite their concern. For example, take a patient who normally feels 50 movements in an hour and is not reassured by 10 movements in an hour, but because she is told that 10 movements is okay, she tries not to worry about the concerning change. Many mothers in the stillbirth community report “passing kick counts” in the days leading up to the diagnosis. We need to move away from kick count education to a much simpler plan. We must tell patients if they are worried about a concerning change in fetal movement, they should call their provider.

Myth 2: Fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy

There is a very common myth that fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy, especially once labor has started. A study in the Journal of Physiology continuously monitored term fetuses when mom was both awake and asleep. The study also looked at the effect on fetal heart rate and fetal activity based on different maternal positions. The study found the fetuses spent around 90% of the day with active movements and with reactive nonstress tests (NSTs).³ A 2019 study looking at fetal movement at term and preterm in third-trimester patients illustrated that fetal movement does not decrease in frequency or strength at term. It found that only 6% of patients noted decreased strength and 14% decreased frequency of movements at term. Furthermore, 59% reported an increase in strength, and nearly 39% reported an increase in frequency of fetal movements at term.⁴ We must educate patients that a change in frequency or strength of movements is not normal or expected, and they must call if concerned about a change.

Myth 3: Try juice, ice water, or food before coming in for evaluation

A common set of advice when a patient calls with a complaint of decreased fetal movement is to suggest a meal or something sugary, although there is little or no evidence to support this. A randomized controlled trial found maternal perception of increased fetal movement was similar among the two groups. Giving something sugary at NST also was not shown in this study to improve reactivity.⁵ Another randomized, double placebo blind study was done to answer the question of whether glucose via IV helped improve fetal movements and decreased the need for admission for induction or further monitoring. In this study, no difference in outcome is found.⁶

When a patient calls with decreased fetal movement, advice should be to come and be evaluated, not recommendation of measures like ice water, orange juice, or sugary meal because it is not supported by the literature. This incorrect message also may further the false impression that a baby who is not moving is most likely sleeping or is simply in need of sugar, not that the baby may be at risk for impending stillbirth. The Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have fetal movement protocol that both discourage this advice and encourage immediate evaluation of patients with complaint of concerning fetal movement change.^7,8

Myth 4: An increase in fetal movement is not of concern

I used to believe that increased fetal movement is never of concern. However, the STARS study illustrated that a concerning increase in fetal movement often is noted just before the diagnosis of stillbirth. A single episode of excessively vigorous activity which often is described as frantic or crazy is associated with an odds ratio for stillbirth of 4.3. In the study, 30% of cases reported this, compared with 7% of controls.⁹ In our practice, we manage mothers who call with this concern the same way as a decreased fetal movement complaint, and bring the mother in immediately for evaluation.

Myth 5: Patients all know that a concerning change in fetal movement is a risk factor for stillbirth

Decreased fetal movement has been associated with an increased OR for stillbirth of 4.51.¹⁰ However, patients often do not know of this association. A study in the United States of providers and stillbirth families showed fear of anxiety kept providers from talking about stillbirth and that it still happens. Because of this patients were completely surprised by the diagnosis.¹¹ We tell patients that stillbirth still happens because research by Dr Suzanne Pullen found that 77% of families said they never worried their baby could die outside of the first trimester. Our patients have received this information without increased anxiety and are very appreciative and reassured about the education and protocol (based on the U.K. Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2) that we have implemented in our practice.

Fact: Fetal movement education guidelines exist and are easy to implement

The practice I am a partner at has been using a formalized method for educating patients about fetal movement over the past year. As mentioned earlier the U.K. and Australia have formal fetal movement education and management guidelines.7,⁸ Both protocols encourage formal education around 20-24 weeks and education for the patient to call immediately with concerns; the patient should be evaluated within 2 hours of the complaint. The formal education we provide is quite simple. The Star Legacy Foundation (United States) and Still Aware (Australia) have created a simple card to educate patients.

Conclusions

When I think about the patients I have cared for who have presented with a stillborn baby, I think often that they usually presented for a complaint other than decreased fetal movement such as labor check or routine prenatal visit. When asked when they last felt fetal movement they will often say days before. This does not need to happen. Protocols in Norway for fetal movement education have shown that patients call sooner with decreased fetal movement when they have received a formal education.¹⁴

Not all stillbirth can be prevented but proper education about fetal movement and not perpetuating dangerous myths about fetal movement, may keep presentations like this from happening. I hope we may soon have a formal protocol for fetal movement education, but until then, I hope some will take these educational tips to heart.
 

Dr. Heather Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, NY. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Oct;52(5):445-9.

2. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):453-62.

3. J Physiol. 2017 Feb 15;595(4):1213-21.

4. PLOS One. 2019 Jun 12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217583.

5. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013 Jun;26(9):915-9.

6. J Perinatol. 2016 Aug;36(8):598-600.

7. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Aug;58(4):463-8.

8. Reduced fetal movements: Green top #57, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

9. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1555-6.

10. BMJ Open. 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020031.

11. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2012. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-137.

12. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0602-4.

13. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.03.014.

14. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2009. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-32.

Accumulating observational data suggest that metformin use in patients with type 2 diabetes might reduce the risk for death from COVID-19, but the randomized trials needed to prove this are unlikely to be carried out, according to experts.

The latest results, which are not yet peer reviewed, were published online July 31. The study was conducted by Andrew B. Crouse, PhD, of the Hugh Kaul Precision Medicine Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.

The researchers found that among more than 600 patients with diabetes and COVID-19, use of metformin was associated with a nearly 70% reduction in mortality after adjustment for multiple confounders.

Data from four previous studies that also show a reduction in mortality among metformin users compared to nonusers were summarized in a “mini review” by André J. Scheen, MD, PhD, published Aug. 1 in Diabetes and Metabolism.

Dr. Scheen, of the division of diabetes, nutrition, and metabolic disorders and the division of clinical pharmacology at Liège (Belgium) University, discussed possible mechanisms behind this observation.

“Because metformin exerts various effects beyond its glucose-lowering action, among which are anti-inflammatory effects, it may be speculated that this biguanide might positively influence the prognosis of patients with [type 2 diabetes] hospitalized for COVID-19,” he said.

“However, given the potential confounders inherently found in observational studies, caution is required before drawing any firm conclusions in the absence of randomized controlled trials,” Dr. Scheen wrote.

Indeed, when asked to comment, endocrinologist Kasia Lipska, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview: “Metformin users tend to do better in many different settings with respect to many different outcomes. To me, it is still unclear whether metformin is truly a miracle drug or whether it is simply used more often among people who are healthier and who do not have contraindications to its use.”

She added, “I don’t think we have enough data to suggest metformin use for COVID-19 mitigation at this point.”

Alabama authors say confounding effects ‘unlikely’

In the retrospective analysis of electronic health records from their institution, Dr. Crouse and colleagues reviewed data from 604 patients who were confirmed to have tested positive for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and June 22, 2020. Of those individuals, 40% had diabetes.

Death occurred in 11% (n = 67); the odds ratio (OR) for death among those with, vs. without, diabetes was 3.62 (P < .0001).

Individuals with diabetes accounted for >60% of all deaths. In multiple logistic regression, age 50-70 vs. <50, male sex, and diabetes emerged as independent predictors of death.

Of the 42 patients with diabetes who died, 8 (19%) had used metformin, and 34 (81%) had not*, a significant difference (OR, 0.38; P = .0221). Insulin use, on the other hand, had no effect on mortality (P = .5728).

“In fact, with 11% [being] the mortality of metformin users, [this] was comparable to that of the general COVID-19-positive population and dramatically lower than the 23% mortality observed in subjects with diabetes and not on metformin,” the authors said.

The survival benefit observed with metformin remained after exclusion of patients with classic metformin contraindications, such as chronic kidney disease and heart failure (OR, 0.17; P = .0231).

“This makes any potential confounding effects from skewing metformin users toward healthier subjects without these additional comorbidities very unlikely,” Dr. Crouse and colleagues contended.

After further analysis that controlled for other covariates (age, sex, obesity status, and hypertension), age, sex, and metformin use remained independent predictors of mortality.

For metformin, the odds ratio was 0.33 (P = .0210).

But, Dr. Lipska pointed out, “Observational studies can take into account confounders that are measured. However, unmeasured confounders may still affect the conclusions of these studies ... Propensity score matching to account for the likelihood of use of metformin could be used to better account for differences between metformin users and nonusers.”

If metformin does reduce COVID-19 deaths, multiple mechanisms likely

In his article, Dr. Scheen noted that several mechanisms have been proposed for the possible beneficial effect of metformin on COVID-19 outcomes, including direct improvements in glucose control, body weight, and insulin resistance; reduction in inflammation; inhibition of virus penetration via phosphorylation of ACE2; inhibition of an immune hyperactivation pathway; and neutrophil reduction. All remain theoretical, he emphasized.

He noted that some authors have raised concerns about possible harms from the use of metformin by patients with type 2 diabetes who are hospitalized for COVID-19, particularly because of the potential risk for lactic acidosis in cases of multiple organ failure.

In totality, four studies suggest 25% death reduction with metformin

Taken together, the four observational studies that Dr. Scheen reviewed showed that metformin had a positive effect, with an overall 25% reduction in death (P < .00001), albeit with relatively high heterogeneity (I² = 61%).

The largest of these, from the United States, included 6,256 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and involved propensity matching. A significant reduction in mortality with metformin use was seen in women but not men (odds ratio, 0.759).

The French Coronavirus-SARS-CoV-2 and Diabetes Outcomes (CORONADO) study of 1,317 patients with diabetes and confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to 53 French hospitals also showed a significant survival benefit for metformin, although the study wasn’t designed to address that issue.

In that study, the odds ratio for death on day 7 in prior metformin users compared to nonusers was 0.59. This finding lost significance but remained a trend after full adjustments (0.80).

Two smaller observational studies produced similar trends toward survival benefit with metformin.

Nonetheless, Dr. Scheen cautioned: “Firm conclusions about the impact of metformin therapy can only be drawn from double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and such trials are almost impossible in the context of COVID-19.”

He added: “Because metformin is out of patent and very inexpensive, no pharmaceutical company is likely to be interested in planning a study to demonstrate the benefits of metformin on COVID-19-related clinical outcomes.”

Dr. Lipska agreed: “RCTs are unlikely to be conducted to settle these issues. In their absence, metformin use should be based on its safety and effectiveness profile.”

Dr. Scheen concluded, however, that “there are at least no negative safety indications, so there is no reason to stop metformin therapy during COVID-19 infection except in cases of severe gastrointestinal symptoms, hypoxia and/or multiple organ failure.”

Dr. Lipska has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and works under contract for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop publicly reported quality measures. Dr. Scheen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

*A previous version reversed these two outcomes in error. 

Accumulating observational data suggest that metformin use in patients with type 2 diabetes might reduce the risk for death from COVID-19, but the randomized trials needed to prove this are unlikely to be carried out, according to experts.

The latest results, which are not yet peer reviewed, were published online July 31. The study was conducted by Andrew B. Crouse, PhD, of the Hugh Kaul Precision Medicine Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.

The researchers found that among more than 600 patients with diabetes and COVID-19, use of metformin was associated with a nearly 70% reduction in mortality after adjustment for multiple confounders.

Data from four previous studies that also show a reduction in mortality among metformin users compared to nonusers were summarized in a “mini review” by André J. Scheen, MD, PhD, published Aug. 1 in Diabetes and Metabolism.

Dr. Scheen, of the division of diabetes, nutrition, and metabolic disorders and the division of clinical pharmacology at Liège (Belgium) University, discussed possible mechanisms behind this observation.

“Because metformin exerts various effects beyond its glucose-lowering action, among which are anti-inflammatory effects, it may be speculated that this biguanide might positively influence the prognosis of patients with [type 2 diabetes] hospitalized for COVID-19,” he said.

“However, given the potential confounders inherently found in observational studies, caution is required before drawing any firm conclusions in the absence of randomized controlled trials,” Dr. Scheen wrote.

Indeed, when asked to comment, endocrinologist Kasia Lipska, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview: “Metformin users tend to do better in many different settings with respect to many different outcomes. To me, it is still unclear whether metformin is truly a miracle drug or whether it is simply used more often among people who are healthier and who do not have contraindications to its use.”

She added, “I don’t think we have enough data to suggest metformin use for COVID-19 mitigation at this point.”

Alabama authors say confounding effects ‘unlikely’

In the retrospective analysis of electronic health records from their institution, Dr. Crouse and colleagues reviewed data from 604 patients who were confirmed to have tested positive for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and June 22, 2020. Of those individuals, 40% had diabetes.

Death occurred in 11% (n = 67); the odds ratio (OR) for death among those with, vs. without, diabetes was 3.62 (P < .0001).

Individuals with diabetes accounted for >60% of all deaths. In multiple logistic regression, age 50-70 vs. <50, male sex, and diabetes emerged as independent predictors of death.

Of the 42 patients with diabetes who died, 8 (19%) had used metformin, and 34 (81%) had not*, a significant difference (OR, 0.38; P = .0221). Insulin use, on the other hand, had no effect on mortality (P = .5728).

“In fact, with 11% [being] the mortality of metformin users, [this] was comparable to that of the general COVID-19-positive population and dramatically lower than the 23% mortality observed in subjects with diabetes and not on metformin,” the authors said.

The survival benefit observed with metformin remained after exclusion of patients with classic metformin contraindications, such as chronic kidney disease and heart failure (OR, 0.17; P = .0231).

“This makes any potential confounding effects from skewing metformin users toward healthier subjects without these additional comorbidities very unlikely,” Dr. Crouse and colleagues contended.

After further analysis that controlled for other covariates (age, sex, obesity status, and hypertension), age, sex, and metformin use remained independent predictors of mortality.

For metformin, the odds ratio was 0.33 (P = .0210).

But, Dr. Lipska pointed out, “Observational studies can take into account confounders that are measured. However, unmeasured confounders may still affect the conclusions of these studies ... Propensity score matching to account for the likelihood of use of metformin could be used to better account for differences between metformin users and nonusers.”

If metformin does reduce COVID-19 deaths, multiple mechanisms likely

In his article, Dr. Scheen noted that several mechanisms have been proposed for the possible beneficial effect of metformin on COVID-19 outcomes, including direct improvements in glucose control, body weight, and insulin resistance; reduction in inflammation; inhibition of virus penetration via phosphorylation of ACE2; inhibition of an immune hyperactivation pathway; and neutrophil reduction. All remain theoretical, he emphasized.

He noted that some authors have raised concerns about possible harms from the use of metformin by patients with type 2 diabetes who are hospitalized for COVID-19, particularly because of the potential risk for lactic acidosis in cases of multiple organ failure.

In totality, four studies suggest 25% death reduction with metformin

Taken together, the four observational studies that Dr. Scheen reviewed showed that metformin had a positive effect, with an overall 25% reduction in death (P < .00001), albeit with relatively high heterogeneity (I² = 61%).

The largest of these, from the United States, included 6,256 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and involved propensity matching. A significant reduction in mortality with metformin use was seen in women but not men (odds ratio, 0.759).

The French Coronavirus-SARS-CoV-2 and Diabetes Outcomes (CORONADO) study of 1,317 patients with diabetes and confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to 53 French hospitals also showed a significant survival benefit for metformin, although the study wasn’t designed to address that issue.

In that study, the odds ratio for death on day 7 in prior metformin users compared to nonusers was 0.59. This finding lost significance but remained a trend after full adjustments (0.80).

Two smaller observational studies produced similar trends toward survival benefit with metformin.

Nonetheless, Dr. Scheen cautioned: “Firm conclusions about the impact of metformin therapy can only be drawn from double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and such trials are almost impossible in the context of COVID-19.”

He added: “Because metformin is out of patent and very inexpensive, no pharmaceutical company is likely to be interested in planning a study to demonstrate the benefits of metformin on COVID-19-related clinical outcomes.”

Dr. Lipska agreed: “RCTs are unlikely to be conducted to settle these issues. In their absence, metformin use should be based on its safety and effectiveness profile.”

Dr. Scheen concluded, however, that “there are at least no negative safety indications, so there is no reason to stop metformin therapy during COVID-19 infection except in cases of severe gastrointestinal symptoms, hypoxia and/or multiple organ failure.”

Dr. Lipska has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and works under contract for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop publicly reported quality measures. Dr. Scheen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

*A previous version reversed these two outcomes in error. 

Accumulating observational data suggest that metformin use in patients with type 2 diabetes might reduce the risk for death from COVID-19, but the randomized trials needed to prove this are unlikely to be carried out, according to experts.

The latest results, which are not yet peer reviewed, were published online July 31. The study was conducted by Andrew B. Crouse, PhD, of the Hugh Kaul Precision Medicine Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.

The researchers found that among more than 600 patients with diabetes and COVID-19, use of metformin was associated with a nearly 70% reduction in mortality after adjustment for multiple confounders.

Data from four previous studies that also show a reduction in mortality among metformin users compared to nonusers were summarized in a “mini review” by André J. Scheen, MD, PhD, published Aug. 1 in Diabetes and Metabolism.

Dr. Scheen, of the division of diabetes, nutrition, and metabolic disorders and the division of clinical pharmacology at Liège (Belgium) University, discussed possible mechanisms behind this observation.

“Because metformin exerts various effects beyond its glucose-lowering action, among which are anti-inflammatory effects, it may be speculated that this biguanide might positively influence the prognosis of patients with [type 2 diabetes] hospitalized for COVID-19,” he said.

“However, given the potential confounders inherently found in observational studies, caution is required before drawing any firm conclusions in the absence of randomized controlled trials,” Dr. Scheen wrote.

Indeed, when asked to comment, endocrinologist Kasia Lipska, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview: “Metformin users tend to do better in many different settings with respect to many different outcomes. To me, it is still unclear whether metformin is truly a miracle drug or whether it is simply used more often among people who are healthier and who do not have contraindications to its use.”

She added, “I don’t think we have enough data to suggest metformin use for COVID-19 mitigation at this point.”

Alabama authors say confounding effects ‘unlikely’

In the retrospective analysis of electronic health records from their institution, Dr. Crouse and colleagues reviewed data from 604 patients who were confirmed to have tested positive for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and June 22, 2020. Of those individuals, 40% had diabetes.

Death occurred in 11% (n = 67); the odds ratio (OR) for death among those with, vs. without, diabetes was 3.62 (P < .0001).

Individuals with diabetes accounted for >60% of all deaths. In multiple logistic regression, age 50-70 vs. <50, male sex, and diabetes emerged as independent predictors of death.

Of the 42 patients with diabetes who died, 8 (19%) had used metformin, and 34 (81%) had not*, a significant difference (OR, 0.38; P = .0221). Insulin use, on the other hand, had no effect on mortality (P = .5728).

“In fact, with 11% [being] the mortality of metformin users, [this] was comparable to that of the general COVID-19-positive population and dramatically lower than the 23% mortality observed in subjects with diabetes and not on metformin,” the authors said.

The survival benefit observed with metformin remained after exclusion of patients with classic metformin contraindications, such as chronic kidney disease and heart failure (OR, 0.17; P = .0231).

“This makes any potential confounding effects from skewing metformin users toward healthier subjects without these additional comorbidities very unlikely,” Dr. Crouse and colleagues contended.

After further analysis that controlled for other covariates (age, sex, obesity status, and hypertension), age, sex, and metformin use remained independent predictors of mortality.

For metformin, the odds ratio was 0.33 (P = .0210).

But, Dr. Lipska pointed out, “Observational studies can take into account confounders that are measured. However, unmeasured confounders may still affect the conclusions of these studies ... Propensity score matching to account for the likelihood of use of metformin could be used to better account for differences between metformin users and nonusers.”

If metformin does reduce COVID-19 deaths, multiple mechanisms likely

In his article, Dr. Scheen noted that several mechanisms have been proposed for the possible beneficial effect of metformin on COVID-19 outcomes, including direct improvements in glucose control, body weight, and insulin resistance; reduction in inflammation; inhibition of virus penetration via phosphorylation of ACE2; inhibition of an immune hyperactivation pathway; and neutrophil reduction. All remain theoretical, he emphasized.

He noted that some authors have raised concerns about possible harms from the use of metformin by patients with type 2 diabetes who are hospitalized for COVID-19, particularly because of the potential risk for lactic acidosis in cases of multiple organ failure.

In totality, four studies suggest 25% death reduction with metformin

Taken together, the four observational studies that Dr. Scheen reviewed showed that metformin had a positive effect, with an overall 25% reduction in death (P < .00001), albeit with relatively high heterogeneity (I² = 61%).

The largest of these, from the United States, included 6,256 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and involved propensity matching. A significant reduction in mortality with metformin use was seen in women but not men (odds ratio, 0.759).

The French Coronavirus-SARS-CoV-2 and Diabetes Outcomes (CORONADO) study of 1,317 patients with diabetes and confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to 53 French hospitals also showed a significant survival benefit for metformin, although the study wasn’t designed to address that issue.

In that study, the odds ratio for death on day 7 in prior metformin users compared to nonusers was 0.59. This finding lost significance but remained a trend after full adjustments (0.80).

Two smaller observational studies produced similar trends toward survival benefit with metformin.

Nonetheless, Dr. Scheen cautioned: “Firm conclusions about the impact of metformin therapy can only be drawn from double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and such trials are almost impossible in the context of COVID-19.”

He added: “Because metformin is out of patent and very inexpensive, no pharmaceutical company is likely to be interested in planning a study to demonstrate the benefits of metformin on COVID-19-related clinical outcomes.”

Dr. Lipska agreed: “RCTs are unlikely to be conducted to settle these issues. In their absence, metformin use should be based on its safety and effectiveness profile.”

Dr. Scheen concluded, however, that “there are at least no negative safety indications, so there is no reason to stop metformin therapy during COVID-19 infection except in cases of severe gastrointestinal symptoms, hypoxia and/or multiple organ failure.”

Dr. Lipska has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and works under contract for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop publicly reported quality measures. Dr. Scheen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

*A previous version reversed these two outcomes in error. 

As mask mandates have increased, some people are looking for a way around the rules by asking doctors for medical excuses to opt out of wearing one.

filadendron/E+

In the last 2 months, at least 10 patients have asked Constantine George, MD, for a written medical exemption so they won’t have to wear a mask in public. Dr. George, the chief medical officer of Vedius, an app for a travelers’ concierge medical service in Las Vegas, turned them all down.

Elena Christofides, MD, an endocrinologist in Columbus, Ohio, has also refused patients’ requests for exemptions.

“It’s very rare for someone to need an exemption,” says Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association and a lung specialist at ChristianaCare Health System in Newark, Del.

The opposition is sometimes strong. Recently, a video of Lenka Koloma of Laguna Niguel, Calif., who founded the antimask Freedom to Breathe Agency, went viral. She was in a California supermarket, maskless, telling an employee she was breaking the law by requiring patrons to wear masks.

“People need oxygen,” she said. “That alone is a medical condition.” Her webpage has a “Face Mask Exempt Card” that cites the Americans with Disabilities Act and posts a Department of Justice ADA violation reporting number. The DOJ issued a statement calling the cards fraudulent.

Figuring out if a patient’s request to opt out of wearing a mask is legitimate is a ‘’new frontier” for doctors, says Mical Raz, MD, a professor in public policy and health at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and a hospitalist at the university medical center.
 

Should some people skip masks?

Experts say there are very few medical reasons for people to skip masks. “If you look at the research, patients with COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder], those with reactive airway, even those can breathe through a mask,” Dr. George said. Requests for exemptions due to medical reasons are usually without basis. “Obviously, if someone is incapacitated, for example, with mental health issues, that’s case by case.”

Dr. Christofides said one of her patients cited anxiety and the other cited headaches as reasons not to wear a mask. “I told the one who asked for anxiety [reasons] that she could wear ones that were less tight.” The patient with headaches told Dr. Christofides that she had a buildup of carbon dioxide in the mask because of industrial exposure. Baloney, Dr. Christofides told her.

Dr. Rizzo says one rare example of someone who can’t wear a mask might be a patient with an advanced lung condition so severe, they need extra oxygen. “These are the extreme patients where any change in oxygen and carbon dioxide could make a difference,” he said. But “that’s also the population that shouldn’t be going out in the first place.”

Dr. Raz cowrote a commentary about mask exemptions, saying doctors are faced with difficult decisions and must keep a delicate balance between public health and individual disability needs. “Inappropriate medical exemptions may inadvertently hasten viral spread and threaten public health,” she wrote.

In an interview, she says that some people do have a hard time tolerating a mask. “Probably the most common reasons are mental health issues, such as anxiety, panic and PTSD, and children with sensory processing disorders (making them oversensitive to their environment). I think there are very few pulmonary reasons.”
 

CDC, professional organization guidelines

The CDC says people should wear masks in public and when around people who don’t live in the same household. Beyond that, it simply says masks should not be worn by children under age 2, “or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.”

In mid-July, four professional organizations released a statement in response to the CDC recommendation for facial coverings. Jointly issued by the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society and the COPD Foundation, it states in part that people with normal lungs and “even many individuals with underlying chronic lung disease should be able to wear a non-N95 facial covering without affecting their oxygen or carbon dioxide levels.”

It acknowledges that some people will seek an exemption and doctors must weigh the patient’s concerns against the need to stop the spread of the virus. “In some instances, physician reassurance regarding the safety of the facial coverings may be all that is needed,” it states.
 

Addressing the excuses

Here are some of the common medical reasons people give for not being able to tolerate a mask:

Claustrophobia or anxiety. Dr. Raz and others suggests a “desensitizing” period, wearing the mask for longer and longer periods of time to get used to it. Parents could suggest kids wear a mask when doing something they like, such as watching television, so they equate it with something pleasant. Switching to a different kind of mask or one that fits better could also help.

Masks cause Legionnaires’ disease. Not true, experts say. Legionnaires’ is a severe form of pneumonia, the result of inhaling tiny water droplets with legionella bacteria.

It’s difficult to read lips. People can buy masks with a clear window that makes their mouth and lips visible.

Trouble breathing. Brief periods of mask use won’t have a bad effect on oxygen levels for most people.

“There is not an inherent right to be out in a pandemic with an unmasked face,” Dr. Raz says. But “you are entitled to an accommodation.” That might be using curbside pickup for food and medication. That requires much less time wearing a mask than entering a store would.

There are no “boilerplate” cards or letters to excuse people provided by the four organizations that addressed the issue, Dr. Rizzo said. If he were to write a letter asking for an exemption, he would personalize it for an individual patient’s medical condition. As to whether a state would honor it, he cannot say. The states have a patchwork of recommendations, making it difficult to say.

Dr. Rizzo tells lung disease patients who are able to go out that wearing a mask for 15-20 minutes to do an errand won’t harm their oxygen levels. And he reminds them that having an exemption, in the form of a doctor’s letter, may bring more problems. “Even with an exemption, someone may confront them” for their lack of a face covering. People with COPD have a higher risk of getting a severe illness from COVID-19, according to the CDC.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As mask mandates have increased, some people are looking for a way around the rules by asking doctors for medical excuses to opt out of wearing one.

filadendron/E+

In the last 2 months, at least 10 patients have asked Constantine George, MD, for a written medical exemption so they won’t have to wear a mask in public. Dr. George, the chief medical officer of Vedius, an app for a travelers’ concierge medical service in Las Vegas, turned them all down.

Elena Christofides, MD, an endocrinologist in Columbus, Ohio, has also refused patients’ requests for exemptions.

“It’s very rare for someone to need an exemption,” says Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association and a lung specialist at ChristianaCare Health System in Newark, Del.

The opposition is sometimes strong. Recently, a video of Lenka Koloma of Laguna Niguel, Calif., who founded the antimask Freedom to Breathe Agency, went viral. She was in a California supermarket, maskless, telling an employee she was breaking the law by requiring patrons to wear masks.

“People need oxygen,” she said. “That alone is a medical condition.” Her webpage has a “Face Mask Exempt Card” that cites the Americans with Disabilities Act and posts a Department of Justice ADA violation reporting number. The DOJ issued a statement calling the cards fraudulent.

Figuring out if a patient’s request to opt out of wearing a mask is legitimate is a ‘’new frontier” for doctors, says Mical Raz, MD, a professor in public policy and health at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and a hospitalist at the university medical center.
 

Should some people skip masks?

Experts say there are very few medical reasons for people to skip masks. “If you look at the research, patients with COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder], those with reactive airway, even those can breathe through a mask,” Dr. George said. Requests for exemptions due to medical reasons are usually without basis. “Obviously, if someone is incapacitated, for example, with mental health issues, that’s case by case.”

Dr. Christofides said one of her patients cited anxiety and the other cited headaches as reasons not to wear a mask. “I told the one who asked for anxiety [reasons] that she could wear ones that were less tight.” The patient with headaches told Dr. Christofides that she had a buildup of carbon dioxide in the mask because of industrial exposure. Baloney, Dr. Christofides told her.

Dr. Rizzo says one rare example of someone who can’t wear a mask might be a patient with an advanced lung condition so severe, they need extra oxygen. “These are the extreme patients where any change in oxygen and carbon dioxide could make a difference,” he said. But “that’s also the population that shouldn’t be going out in the first place.”

Dr. Raz cowrote a commentary about mask exemptions, saying doctors are faced with difficult decisions and must keep a delicate balance between public health and individual disability needs. “Inappropriate medical exemptions may inadvertently hasten viral spread and threaten public health,” she wrote.

In an interview, she says that some people do have a hard time tolerating a mask. “Probably the most common reasons are mental health issues, such as anxiety, panic and PTSD, and children with sensory processing disorders (making them oversensitive to their environment). I think there are very few pulmonary reasons.”
 

CDC, professional organization guidelines

The CDC says people should wear masks in public and when around people who don’t live in the same household. Beyond that, it simply says masks should not be worn by children under age 2, “or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.”

In mid-July, four professional organizations released a statement in response to the CDC recommendation for facial coverings. Jointly issued by the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society and the COPD Foundation, it states in part that people with normal lungs and “even many individuals with underlying chronic lung disease should be able to wear a non-N95 facial covering without affecting their oxygen or carbon dioxide levels.”

It acknowledges that some people will seek an exemption and doctors must weigh the patient’s concerns against the need to stop the spread of the virus. “In some instances, physician reassurance regarding the safety of the facial coverings may be all that is needed,” it states.
 

Addressing the excuses

Here are some of the common medical reasons people give for not being able to tolerate a mask:

Claustrophobia or anxiety. Dr. Raz and others suggests a “desensitizing” period, wearing the mask for longer and longer periods of time to get used to it. Parents could suggest kids wear a mask when doing something they like, such as watching television, so they equate it with something pleasant. Switching to a different kind of mask or one that fits better could also help.

Masks cause Legionnaires’ disease. Not true, experts say. Legionnaires’ is a severe form of pneumonia, the result of inhaling tiny water droplets with legionella bacteria.

It’s difficult to read lips. People can buy masks with a clear window that makes their mouth and lips visible.

Trouble breathing. Brief periods of mask use won’t have a bad effect on oxygen levels for most people.

“There is not an inherent right to be out in a pandemic with an unmasked face,” Dr. Raz says. But “you are entitled to an accommodation.” That might be using curbside pickup for food and medication. That requires much less time wearing a mask than entering a store would.

There are no “boilerplate” cards or letters to excuse people provided by the four organizations that addressed the issue, Dr. Rizzo said. If he were to write a letter asking for an exemption, he would personalize it for an individual patient’s medical condition. As to whether a state would honor it, he cannot say. The states have a patchwork of recommendations, making it difficult to say.

Dr. Rizzo tells lung disease patients who are able to go out that wearing a mask for 15-20 minutes to do an errand won’t harm their oxygen levels. And he reminds them that having an exemption, in the form of a doctor’s letter, may bring more problems. “Even with an exemption, someone may confront them” for their lack of a face covering. People with COPD have a higher risk of getting a severe illness from COVID-19, according to the CDC.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As mask mandates have increased, some people are looking for a way around the rules by asking doctors for medical excuses to opt out of wearing one.

filadendron/E+

In the last 2 months, at least 10 patients have asked Constantine George, MD, for a written medical exemption so they won’t have to wear a mask in public. Dr. George, the chief medical officer of Vedius, an app for a travelers’ concierge medical service in Las Vegas, turned them all down.

Elena Christofides, MD, an endocrinologist in Columbus, Ohio, has also refused patients’ requests for exemptions.

“It’s very rare for someone to need an exemption,” says Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association and a lung specialist at ChristianaCare Health System in Newark, Del.

The opposition is sometimes strong. Recently, a video of Lenka Koloma of Laguna Niguel, Calif., who founded the antimask Freedom to Breathe Agency, went viral. She was in a California supermarket, maskless, telling an employee she was breaking the law by requiring patrons to wear masks.

“People need oxygen,” she said. “That alone is a medical condition.” Her webpage has a “Face Mask Exempt Card” that cites the Americans with Disabilities Act and posts a Department of Justice ADA violation reporting number. The DOJ issued a statement calling the cards fraudulent.

Figuring out if a patient’s request to opt out of wearing a mask is legitimate is a ‘’new frontier” for doctors, says Mical Raz, MD, a professor in public policy and health at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and a hospitalist at the university medical center.
 

Should some people skip masks?

Experts say there are very few medical reasons for people to skip masks. “If you look at the research, patients with COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder], those with reactive airway, even those can breathe through a mask,” Dr. George said. Requests for exemptions due to medical reasons are usually without basis. “Obviously, if someone is incapacitated, for example, with mental health issues, that’s case by case.”

Dr. Christofides said one of her patients cited anxiety and the other cited headaches as reasons not to wear a mask. “I told the one who asked for anxiety [reasons] that she could wear ones that were less tight.” The patient with headaches told Dr. Christofides that she had a buildup of carbon dioxide in the mask because of industrial exposure. Baloney, Dr. Christofides told her.

Dr. Rizzo says one rare example of someone who can’t wear a mask might be a patient with an advanced lung condition so severe, they need extra oxygen. “These are the extreme patients where any change in oxygen and carbon dioxide could make a difference,” he said. But “that’s also the population that shouldn’t be going out in the first place.”

Dr. Raz cowrote a commentary about mask exemptions, saying doctors are faced with difficult decisions and must keep a delicate balance between public health and individual disability needs. “Inappropriate medical exemptions may inadvertently hasten viral spread and threaten public health,” she wrote.

In an interview, she says that some people do have a hard time tolerating a mask. “Probably the most common reasons are mental health issues, such as anxiety, panic and PTSD, and children with sensory processing disorders (making them oversensitive to their environment). I think there are very few pulmonary reasons.”
 

CDC, professional organization guidelines

The CDC says people should wear masks in public and when around people who don’t live in the same household. Beyond that, it simply says masks should not be worn by children under age 2, “or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.”

In mid-July, four professional organizations released a statement in response to the CDC recommendation for facial coverings. Jointly issued by the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society and the COPD Foundation, it states in part that people with normal lungs and “even many individuals with underlying chronic lung disease should be able to wear a non-N95 facial covering without affecting their oxygen or carbon dioxide levels.”

It acknowledges that some people will seek an exemption and doctors must weigh the patient’s concerns against the need to stop the spread of the virus. “In some instances, physician reassurance regarding the safety of the facial coverings may be all that is needed,” it states.
 

Addressing the excuses

Here are some of the common medical reasons people give for not being able to tolerate a mask:

Claustrophobia or anxiety. Dr. Raz and others suggests a “desensitizing” period, wearing the mask for longer and longer periods of time to get used to it. Parents could suggest kids wear a mask when doing something they like, such as watching television, so they equate it with something pleasant. Switching to a different kind of mask or one that fits better could also help.

Masks cause Legionnaires’ disease. Not true, experts say. Legionnaires’ is a severe form of pneumonia, the result of inhaling tiny water droplets with legionella bacteria.

It’s difficult to read lips. People can buy masks with a clear window that makes their mouth and lips visible.

Trouble breathing. Brief periods of mask use won’t have a bad effect on oxygen levels for most people.

“There is not an inherent right to be out in a pandemic with an unmasked face,” Dr. Raz says. But “you are entitled to an accommodation.” That might be using curbside pickup for food and medication. That requires much less time wearing a mask than entering a store would.

There are no “boilerplate” cards or letters to excuse people provided by the four organizations that addressed the issue, Dr. Rizzo said. If he were to write a letter asking for an exemption, he would personalize it for an individual patient’s medical condition. As to whether a state would honor it, he cannot say. The states have a patchwork of recommendations, making it difficult to say.

Dr. Rizzo tells lung disease patients who are able to go out that wearing a mask for 15-20 minutes to do an errand won’t harm their oxygen levels. And he reminds them that having an exemption, in the form of a doctor’s letter, may bring more problems. “Even with an exemption, someone may confront them” for their lack of a face covering. People with COPD have a higher risk of getting a severe illness from COVID-19, according to the CDC.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.