Ob.Gyn. News

Hazard pay for frontline health care workers – an idea that has been championed by President Donald J. Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, among others – is included in a just-released COVID-19 relief package assembled by Democrats in the House of Representatives.

The $3 trillion HEROES Act requests a reported $200 billion for a Heroes Fund that would award hazard pay to essential workers, including those in the health field, according to a report in the Washington Post.

But it is far from a done deal. “The Democrats’ spending bill is a Pelosi-led pipe dream written in private,” said House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) in a Fox News interview posted May 12 on Facebook.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell condemned the package. “This is exactly the wrong approach,” he said in a prepared statement that instead laid out a variety of liability protections, which he said should be the first priority.

“We are not going to let health care heroes emerge from this crisis facing a tidal wave of medical malpractice lawsuits so that trial lawyers can line their pockets,” said Sen. McConnell, adding that his plan would “raise the liability threshold for COVID-related malpractice lawsuits.”

Ingrida Lusis, vice president of government affairs and health policy at the American Nurses Association, said in an interview that the ANA had lobbied for hazard pay and was told it would be in the next relief package.

“Though there is an inherent risk in the nursing profession, we think that this is really critical to ensuring that we have a workforce to meet the intense demands of this pandemic,” said Ms. Lusis.

“If health care workers are not treated and compensated appropriately for what they’re going through right now, then we may not have a next generation that will want to enter the field,” she said.

Various nursing organizations, nurses’ unions, and health care unions, such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service Employees International Union, have advocated for hazard pay.

Physicians’ organizations have not been vocal on the issue, however. The American Medical Association, for instance, pushed for hazard pay for residents but has not made any further public statements. An AMA spokesman said that the group was monitoring the situation but declined further comment.

Multiple online petitions seeking hazard pay for health care workers have been circulated, including one seeking the same $600 bump for essential workers that was given out as part of unemployment benefits in the first COVID-19 relief package. More than 1.2 million had signed the petition as of May 12.
 

‘Heroes fund’

The president first suggested hazard pay for health care workers on March 30 Fox News broadcast. “These are really brave people,” he said, adding that the administration was considering different ways of boosting pay, primarily through hospitals.

“We are asking the hospitals to do it and to consider something, including bonuses,” said Trump. “If anybody’s entitled to it, they are.”

On April 7, Sen. Schumer proposed a “Heroes Fund.” It would give public, private, and tribal frontline employees – including doctors, nurses, first responders, and transit, grocery, and postal workers – a $13 per hour raise up to $25,000 in additional pay through Dec. 31 for workers earning up to $200,000 and $5,000 in additional pay for those earning more than $200,000. It would also provide a $15,000 signing bonus to those who agree to take on such a position.

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) introduced a bill in mid-April, the Coronavirus Frontline Workers Fair Pay Act (HR 6709), that would provide similar pay increases. Health care workers would receive an additional $13 per hour. It would be retroactive to Jan. 31, 2020, and would be available through the end of 2020.

Molly Kinder of the Brookings Institution, a self-described nonpartisan Washington policy institute, estimates that Sen. Schumer’s proposal would represent the equivalent of double-time pay for the average low-wage worker, a 50% pay increase for a mail carrier, a 20% boost for a pharmacist, and less than a 15% increase for a surgeon, as determined from median 2018 wages.

Before the House Democrats unveiled their bill, Isabel Soto of the center-right group American Action Forum estimated that a $13 per hour wage increase could cost $398.9 billion just from the end of March to the end of September. A great proportion of that amount – $264 billion – would go to some 10 million health care workers, Ms. Soto calculated.
 

Some already offering pay boost

A few states and hospital systems are already offering hazard pay.

On April 12, Massachusetts agreed to give about 6,500 AFSCME union members who work at state human services facilities and group homes a $5 or a $10 per hour pay increase, depending on duties. It was to stay in effect until at least May 30.

Maine Governor Janet Mills (D) also agreed to increase pay by $3-$5 an hour for AFSCME workers in state correctional and mental health facilities beginning March 29.

In New York City, the biggest hospital network, Northwell Health, in late April gave 45,000 workers – including nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists, environmental services workers, housekeepers, and people in outpatient and corporate roles – a lump sum bonus payment of up to $2,500 and 1 week of paid time off. The money came out of the system’s general fund.

“As an organization, we want to continue to support, motivate and inspire our team members,” said Northwell President and CEO Michael Dowling in a statement at the time.

On April 2, New York–Presbyterian Hospital’s chair of the department of surgery, Craig Smith, MD, announced that the facility was “providing a $1,250 bonus for everyone who has worked in or supported the COVID-19 front lines, for at least 1 week.”

Advocate Aurora, with 15 hospitals and 32,000 employees in Wisconsin, said in early April that it was giving increases of $6.25-$15.00 an hour at least through the end of May.

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

Hazard pay for frontline health care workers – an idea that has been championed by President Donald J. Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, among others – is included in a just-released COVID-19 relief package assembled by Democrats in the House of Representatives.

The $3 trillion HEROES Act requests a reported $200 billion for a Heroes Fund that would award hazard pay to essential workers, including those in the health field, according to a report in the Washington Post.

But it is far from a done deal. “The Democrats’ spending bill is a Pelosi-led pipe dream written in private,” said House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) in a Fox News interview posted May 12 on Facebook.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell condemned the package. “This is exactly the wrong approach,” he said in a prepared statement that instead laid out a variety of liability protections, which he said should be the first priority.

“We are not going to let health care heroes emerge from this crisis facing a tidal wave of medical malpractice lawsuits so that trial lawyers can line their pockets,” said Sen. McConnell, adding that his plan would “raise the liability threshold for COVID-related malpractice lawsuits.”

Ingrida Lusis, vice president of government affairs and health policy at the American Nurses Association, said in an interview that the ANA had lobbied for hazard pay and was told it would be in the next relief package.

“Though there is an inherent risk in the nursing profession, we think that this is really critical to ensuring that we have a workforce to meet the intense demands of this pandemic,” said Ms. Lusis.

“If health care workers are not treated and compensated appropriately for what they’re going through right now, then we may not have a next generation that will want to enter the field,” she said.

Various nursing organizations, nurses’ unions, and health care unions, such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service Employees International Union, have advocated for hazard pay.

Physicians’ organizations have not been vocal on the issue, however. The American Medical Association, for instance, pushed for hazard pay for residents but has not made any further public statements. An AMA spokesman said that the group was monitoring the situation but declined further comment.

Multiple online petitions seeking hazard pay for health care workers have been circulated, including one seeking the same $600 bump for essential workers that was given out as part of unemployment benefits in the first COVID-19 relief package. More than 1.2 million had signed the petition as of May 12.
 

‘Heroes fund’

The president first suggested hazard pay for health care workers on March 30 Fox News broadcast. “These are really brave people,” he said, adding that the administration was considering different ways of boosting pay, primarily through hospitals.

“We are asking the hospitals to do it and to consider something, including bonuses,” said Trump. “If anybody’s entitled to it, they are.”

On April 7, Sen. Schumer proposed a “Heroes Fund.” It would give public, private, and tribal frontline employees – including doctors, nurses, first responders, and transit, grocery, and postal workers – a $13 per hour raise up to $25,000 in additional pay through Dec. 31 for workers earning up to $200,000 and $5,000 in additional pay for those earning more than $200,000. It would also provide a $15,000 signing bonus to those who agree to take on such a position.

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) introduced a bill in mid-April, the Coronavirus Frontline Workers Fair Pay Act (HR 6709), that would provide similar pay increases. Health care workers would receive an additional $13 per hour. It would be retroactive to Jan. 31, 2020, and would be available through the end of 2020.

Molly Kinder of the Brookings Institution, a self-described nonpartisan Washington policy institute, estimates that Sen. Schumer’s proposal would represent the equivalent of double-time pay for the average low-wage worker, a 50% pay increase for a mail carrier, a 20% boost for a pharmacist, and less than a 15% increase for a surgeon, as determined from median 2018 wages.

Before the House Democrats unveiled their bill, Isabel Soto of the center-right group American Action Forum estimated that a $13 per hour wage increase could cost $398.9 billion just from the end of March to the end of September. A great proportion of that amount – $264 billion – would go to some 10 million health care workers, Ms. Soto calculated.
 

Some already offering pay boost

A few states and hospital systems are already offering hazard pay.

On April 12, Massachusetts agreed to give about 6,500 AFSCME union members who work at state human services facilities and group homes a $5 or a $10 per hour pay increase, depending on duties. It was to stay in effect until at least May 30.

Maine Governor Janet Mills (D) also agreed to increase pay by $3-$5 an hour for AFSCME workers in state correctional and mental health facilities beginning March 29.

In New York City, the biggest hospital network, Northwell Health, in late April gave 45,000 workers – including nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists, environmental services workers, housekeepers, and people in outpatient and corporate roles – a lump sum bonus payment of up to $2,500 and 1 week of paid time off. The money came out of the system’s general fund.

“As an organization, we want to continue to support, motivate and inspire our team members,” said Northwell President and CEO Michael Dowling in a statement at the time.

On April 2, New York–Presbyterian Hospital’s chair of the department of surgery, Craig Smith, MD, announced that the facility was “providing a $1,250 bonus for everyone who has worked in or supported the COVID-19 front lines, for at least 1 week.”

Advocate Aurora, with 15 hospitals and 32,000 employees in Wisconsin, said in early April that it was giving increases of $6.25-$15.00 an hour at least through the end of May.

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

Hazard pay for frontline health care workers – an idea that has been championed by President Donald J. Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, among others – is included in a just-released COVID-19 relief package assembled by Democrats in the House of Representatives.

The $3 trillion HEROES Act requests a reported $200 billion for a Heroes Fund that would award hazard pay to essential workers, including those in the health field, according to a report in the Washington Post.

But it is far from a done deal. “The Democrats’ spending bill is a Pelosi-led pipe dream written in private,” said House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) in a Fox News interview posted May 12 on Facebook.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell condemned the package. “This is exactly the wrong approach,” he said in a prepared statement that instead laid out a variety of liability protections, which he said should be the first priority.

“We are not going to let health care heroes emerge from this crisis facing a tidal wave of medical malpractice lawsuits so that trial lawyers can line their pockets,” said Sen. McConnell, adding that his plan would “raise the liability threshold for COVID-related malpractice lawsuits.”

Ingrida Lusis, vice president of government affairs and health policy at the American Nurses Association, said in an interview that the ANA had lobbied for hazard pay and was told it would be in the next relief package.

“Though there is an inherent risk in the nursing profession, we think that this is really critical to ensuring that we have a workforce to meet the intense demands of this pandemic,” said Ms. Lusis.

“If health care workers are not treated and compensated appropriately for what they’re going through right now, then we may not have a next generation that will want to enter the field,” she said.

Various nursing organizations, nurses’ unions, and health care unions, such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service Employees International Union, have advocated for hazard pay.

Physicians’ organizations have not been vocal on the issue, however. The American Medical Association, for instance, pushed for hazard pay for residents but has not made any further public statements. An AMA spokesman said that the group was monitoring the situation but declined further comment.

Multiple online petitions seeking hazard pay for health care workers have been circulated, including one seeking the same $600 bump for essential workers that was given out as part of unemployment benefits in the first COVID-19 relief package. More than 1.2 million had signed the petition as of May 12.
 

‘Heroes fund’

The president first suggested hazard pay for health care workers on March 30 Fox News broadcast. “These are really brave people,” he said, adding that the administration was considering different ways of boosting pay, primarily through hospitals.

“We are asking the hospitals to do it and to consider something, including bonuses,” said Trump. “If anybody’s entitled to it, they are.”

On April 7, Sen. Schumer proposed a “Heroes Fund.” It would give public, private, and tribal frontline employees – including doctors, nurses, first responders, and transit, grocery, and postal workers – a $13 per hour raise up to $25,000 in additional pay through Dec. 31 for workers earning up to $200,000 and $5,000 in additional pay for those earning more than $200,000. It would also provide a $15,000 signing bonus to those who agree to take on such a position.

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) introduced a bill in mid-April, the Coronavirus Frontline Workers Fair Pay Act (HR 6709), that would provide similar pay increases. Health care workers would receive an additional $13 per hour. It would be retroactive to Jan. 31, 2020, and would be available through the end of 2020.

Molly Kinder of the Brookings Institution, a self-described nonpartisan Washington policy institute, estimates that Sen. Schumer’s proposal would represent the equivalent of double-time pay for the average low-wage worker, a 50% pay increase for a mail carrier, a 20% boost for a pharmacist, and less than a 15% increase for a surgeon, as determined from median 2018 wages.

Before the House Democrats unveiled their bill, Isabel Soto of the center-right group American Action Forum estimated that a $13 per hour wage increase could cost $398.9 billion just from the end of March to the end of September. A great proportion of that amount – $264 billion – would go to some 10 million health care workers, Ms. Soto calculated.
 

Some already offering pay boost

A few states and hospital systems are already offering hazard pay.

On April 12, Massachusetts agreed to give about 6,500 AFSCME union members who work at state human services facilities and group homes a $5 or a $10 per hour pay increase, depending on duties. It was to stay in effect until at least May 30.

Maine Governor Janet Mills (D) also agreed to increase pay by $3-$5 an hour for AFSCME workers in state correctional and mental health facilities beginning March 29.

In New York City, the biggest hospital network, Northwell Health, in late April gave 45,000 workers – including nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists, environmental services workers, housekeepers, and people in outpatient and corporate roles – a lump sum bonus payment of up to $2,500 and 1 week of paid time off. The money came out of the system’s general fund.

“As an organization, we want to continue to support, motivate and inspire our team members,” said Northwell President and CEO Michael Dowling in a statement at the time.

On April 2, New York–Presbyterian Hospital’s chair of the department of surgery, Craig Smith, MD, announced that the facility was “providing a $1,250 bonus for everyone who has worked in or supported the COVID-19 front lines, for at least 1 week.”

Advocate Aurora, with 15 hospitals and 32,000 employees in Wisconsin, said in early April that it was giving increases of $6.25-$15.00 an hour at least through the end of May.

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

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recently issued guidelines on the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

These guidelines were developed using a rigorous evidence-based approach, the GRADE framework, which involved identifying the important questions that need to be addressed ahead of time and, later, integrating the best available evidence into the recommendations.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization is useful for understanding any recommendations related to COVID-19 testing. Under usual FDA approval, a manufacturer has to submit data on the performance of a test in human subjects. Under the Emergency Use Authorization for development and approval of SARS-CoV-2 testing, approval is based on “acceptable analytical accuracy,” meaning that a test is assessed using manufactured reagents. The approved test is not tested in real-world clinical situations prior to FDA approval, and the test’s sensitivity and specificity are not well described.

IDSA formulated 15 recommendations, of which the most relevant to primary care clinicians are described and discussed below. The complete set of recommendations can be viewed on the IDSA website:

Recommendation 1

The IDSA panel recommends a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test in symptomatic individuals in the community suspected of having COVID-19, even when the clinical suspicion is low (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). The panel placed a high value on accurate assessment of COVID-19 with the intent of minimizing overdiagnosis of COVID-19 using clinical diagnosis alone. Without testing, the rate of overdiagnosis ranges from 62% to 98%.

If patients are misdiagnosed as having COVID-19, they may spend unnecessary time in quarantine and then may stop taking appropriate safety precautions to protect themselves from infection.

Recommendation 2

The IDSA panel suggests collecting nasopharyngeal, or mid-turbinate or nasal swabs, rather than oropharyngeal swabs or saliva alone for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing in symptomatic individuals with upper respiratory tract infection or influenza-like illness suspected of having COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence).

The rationale for this recommendation is that comparative data showed a much lower sensitivity for oral sampling, compared with nasopharyngeal, mid-turbinate, or nasal sampling.

The average sensitivity of oral swabs is 56%, compared with nasopharyngeal at 97%, mid-turbinate at 100%, and nasal sampling at 95%. Given these test characteristics, there are far less false-negative tests with nasopharyngeal, mid-turbinate, and nasal swabs. Fewer false negatives means fewer instances of incorrectly telling COVID-19–positive patients that they do not have the illness. An exciting new area of testing that is being evaluated is saliva, which appears to have a sensitivity of 85%.

Recommendation 3

The IDSA panel suggests that nasal and mid-turbinate swab specimens may be collected for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing by either patients or health care providers in symptomatic individuals with upper respiratory tract infection or influenza-like illness suspected of having COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence).

This recommendation is particularly exciting because patient self-collection provides the potential for health care personnel to avoid exposure to infection, as can occur when health care personnel are swabbing a patient; this is ow testing has been done at most testing centers.

While the data are limited, it appears that patient self-collection of nasal or mid-turbinate swabs results in similar detection rates as occurs with health care personnel–collected nasopharyngeal swabs.

Recommendation 6

The IDSA panel suggests repeating viral RNA testing when the initial test is negative (versus performing a single test) in symptomatic individuals with an intermediate or high clinical suspicion of COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence).

Since none of the tests are perfect and any can have false negatives, the panel places a high value on detecting infection when present. If there is a low clinical likelihood of disease, the panel recommends not retesting. When the clinical likelihood of COVID-19 is moderate to high, in the event that the initial test is negative, the panel recommends retesting for COVID-19 1-2 days after the initial test.

Recommendation 8

The IDSA panel suggests SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing in asymptomatic individuals who are either known or suspected to have been exposed to COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence).

For this recommendation, a known contact is defined as someone who has had direct contact with a confirmed case.

A suspected exposure occurs when someone is working or living in a congregate setting such as long-term care, a correctional facility, or a cruise ship in which there is an outbreak. The time frame during which to do post-exposure testing is five to seven days after the exposure.

Recommendation 10

The IDSA panel recommends direct SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing in asymptomatic individuals with no known contact with COVID-19 who are being hospitalized in areas with a high prevalence of COVID-19 in the community (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence).

The idea is to do rapid testing to identify individuals entering the hospital either for other illnesses or for procedures, in order to be able to institute appropriate precautions and decrease the likelihood of nosocomial transmission and/or transmission to health care personnel. It is worth noting that the recommendations do not address testing in areas with a low or intermediate prevalence of COVID-19. In the absence of an official guideline-based-recommendation, the decision about testing needs to made by the local hospital system.

Recommendations 11, 12, and 13

The IDSA panel recommends SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing in immunocompromised asymptomatic individuals who are being admitted to the hospital and in asymptomatic individuals prior to receiving immunosuppressive therapy regardless of exposure to COVID-19. It is also recommended to test asymptomatic individuals planning to undergo major surgery.

The rationale for this recommendation is that patients who are to receive chemotherapy, other immunosuppressive procedures, or surgery are at high risk if they have COVID-19 and may be better off delaying the procedure.

Some additional issues were addressed, though not in the form of additional recommendations. It was clarified that some individuals remain nucleic acid positive after their symptoms resolve, and sometimes even after seroconversion. It is not clear if those individuals remain infectious to others. The recommendations did not address serologic testing for public health surveillance.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

SOURCE: Hanson KE et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on the diagnosis of COVID-19.




 

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recently issued guidelines on the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

These guidelines were developed using a rigorous evidence-based approach, the GRADE framework, which involved identifying the important questions that need to be addressed ahead of time and, later, integrating the best available evidence into the recommendations.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization is useful for understanding any recommendations related to COVID-19 testing. Under usual FDA approval, a manufacturer has to submit data on the performance of a test in human subjects. Under the Emergency Use Authorization for development and approval of SARS-CoV-2 testing, approval is based on “acceptable analytical accuracy,” meaning that a test is assessed using manufactured reagents. The approved test is not tested in real-world clinical situations prior to FDA approval, and the test’s sensitivity and specificity are not well described.

IDSA formulated 15 recommendations, of which the most relevant to primary care clinicians are described and discussed below. The complete set of recommendations can be viewed on the IDSA website:

Recommendation 1

The IDSA panel recommends a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test in symptomatic individuals in the community suspected of having COVID-19, even when the clinical suspicion is low (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). The panel placed a high value on accurate assessment of COVID-19 with the intent of minimizing overdiagnosis of COVID-19 using clinical diagnosis alone. Without testing, the rate of overdiagnosis ranges from 62% to 98%.

If patients are misdiagnosed as having COVID-19, they may spend unnecessary time in quarantine and then may stop taking appropriate safety precautions to protect themselves from infection.

Recommendation 2

The IDSA panel suggests collecting nasopharyngeal, or mid-turbinate or nasal swabs, rather than oropharyngeal swabs or saliva alone for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing in symptomatic individuals with upper respiratory tract infection or influenza-like illness suspected of having COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence).

The rationale for this recommendation is that comparative data showed a much lower sensitivity for oral sampling, compared with nasopharyngeal, mid-turbinate, or nasal sampling.

The average sensitivity of oral swabs is 56%, compared with nasopharyngeal at 97%, mid-turbinate at 100%, and nasal sampling at 95%. Given these test characteristics, there are far less false-negative tests with nasopharyngeal, mid-turbinate, and nasal swabs. Fewer false negatives means fewer instances of incorrectly telling COVID-19–positive patients that they do not have the illness. An exciting new area of testing that is being evaluated is saliva, which appears to have a sensitivity of 85%.

Recommendation 3

The IDSA panel suggests that nasal and mid-turbinate swab specimens may be collected for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing by either patients or health care providers in symptomatic individuals with upper respiratory tract infection or influenza-like illness suspected of having COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence).

This recommendation is particularly exciting because patient self-collection provides the potential for health care personnel to avoid exposure to infection, as can occur when health care personnel are swabbing a patient; this is ow testing has been done at most testing centers.

While the data are limited, it appears that patient self-collection of nasal or mid-turbinate swabs results in similar detection rates as occurs with health care personnel–collected nasopharyngeal swabs.

Recommendation 6

The IDSA panel suggests repeating viral RNA testing when the initial test is negative (versus performing a single test) in symptomatic individuals with an intermediate or high clinical suspicion of COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence).

Since none of the tests are perfect and any can have false negatives, the panel places a high value on detecting infection when present. If there is a low clinical likelihood of disease, the panel recommends not retesting. When the clinical likelihood of COVID-19 is moderate to high, in the event that the initial test is negative, the panel recommends retesting for COVID-19 1-2 days after the initial test.

Recommendation 8

The IDSA panel suggests SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing in asymptomatic individuals who are either known or suspected to have been exposed to COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence).

For this recommendation, a known contact is defined as someone who has had direct contact with a confirmed case.

A suspected exposure occurs when someone is working or living in a congregate setting such as long-term care, a correctional facility, or a cruise ship in which there is an outbreak. The time frame during which to do post-exposure testing is five to seven days after the exposure.

Recommendation 10

The IDSA panel recommends direct SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing in asymptomatic individuals with no known contact with COVID-19 who are being hospitalized in areas with a high prevalence of COVID-19 in the community (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence).

The idea is to do rapid testing to identify individuals entering the hospital either for other illnesses or for procedures, in order to be able to institute appropriate precautions and decrease the likelihood of nosocomial transmission and/or transmission to health care personnel. It is worth noting that the recommendations do not address testing in areas with a low or intermediate prevalence of COVID-19. In the absence of an official guideline-based-recommendation, the decision about testing needs to made by the local hospital system.

Recommendations 11, 12, and 13

The IDSA panel recommends SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing in immunocompromised asymptomatic individuals who are being admitted to the hospital and in asymptomatic individuals prior to receiving immunosuppressive therapy regardless of exposure to COVID-19. It is also recommended to test asymptomatic individuals planning to undergo major surgery.

The rationale for this recommendation is that patients who are to receive chemotherapy, other immunosuppressive procedures, or surgery are at high risk if they have COVID-19 and may be better off delaying the procedure.

Some additional issues were addressed, though not in the form of additional recommendations. It was clarified that some individuals remain nucleic acid positive after their symptoms resolve, and sometimes even after seroconversion. It is not clear if those individuals remain infectious to others. The recommendations did not address serologic testing for public health surveillance.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

SOURCE: Hanson KE et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on the diagnosis of COVID-19.




 

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recently issued guidelines on the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

These guidelines were developed using a rigorous evidence-based approach, the GRADE framework, which involved identifying the important questions that need to be addressed ahead of time and, later, integrating the best available evidence into the recommendations.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization is useful for understanding any recommendations related to COVID-19 testing. Under usual FDA approval, a manufacturer has to submit data on the performance of a test in human subjects. Under the Emergency Use Authorization for development and approval of SARS-CoV-2 testing, approval is based on “acceptable analytical accuracy,” meaning that a test is assessed using manufactured reagents. The approved test is not tested in real-world clinical situations prior to FDA approval, and the test’s sensitivity and specificity are not well described.

IDSA formulated 15 recommendations, of which the most relevant to primary care clinicians are described and discussed below. The complete set of recommendations can be viewed on the IDSA website:

Recommendation 1

The IDSA panel recommends a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test in symptomatic individuals in the community suspected of having COVID-19, even when the clinical suspicion is low (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). The panel placed a high value on accurate assessment of COVID-19 with the intent of minimizing overdiagnosis of COVID-19 using clinical diagnosis alone. Without testing, the rate of overdiagnosis ranges from 62% to 98%.

If patients are misdiagnosed as having COVID-19, they may spend unnecessary time in quarantine and then may stop taking appropriate safety precautions to protect themselves from infection.

Recommendation 2

The IDSA panel suggests collecting nasopharyngeal, or mid-turbinate or nasal swabs, rather than oropharyngeal swabs or saliva alone for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing in symptomatic individuals with upper respiratory tract infection or influenza-like illness suspected of having COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence).

The rationale for this recommendation is that comparative data showed a much lower sensitivity for oral sampling, compared with nasopharyngeal, mid-turbinate, or nasal sampling.

The average sensitivity of oral swabs is 56%, compared with nasopharyngeal at 97%, mid-turbinate at 100%, and nasal sampling at 95%. Given these test characteristics, there are far less false-negative tests with nasopharyngeal, mid-turbinate, and nasal swabs. Fewer false negatives means fewer instances of incorrectly telling COVID-19–positive patients that they do not have the illness. An exciting new area of testing that is being evaluated is saliva, which appears to have a sensitivity of 85%.

Recommendation 3

The IDSA panel suggests that nasal and mid-turbinate swab specimens may be collected for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing by either patients or health care providers in symptomatic individuals with upper respiratory tract infection or influenza-like illness suspected of having COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence).

This recommendation is particularly exciting because patient self-collection provides the potential for health care personnel to avoid exposure to infection, as can occur when health care personnel are swabbing a patient; this is ow testing has been done at most testing centers.

While the data are limited, it appears that patient self-collection of nasal or mid-turbinate swabs results in similar detection rates as occurs with health care personnel–collected nasopharyngeal swabs.

Recommendation 6

The IDSA panel suggests repeating viral RNA testing when the initial test is negative (versus performing a single test) in symptomatic individuals with an intermediate or high clinical suspicion of COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence).

Since none of the tests are perfect and any can have false negatives, the panel places a high value on detecting infection when present. If there is a low clinical likelihood of disease, the panel recommends not retesting. When the clinical likelihood of COVID-19 is moderate to high, in the event that the initial test is negative, the panel recommends retesting for COVID-19 1-2 days after the initial test.

Recommendation 8

The IDSA panel suggests SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing in asymptomatic individuals who are either known or suspected to have been exposed to COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence).

For this recommendation, a known contact is defined as someone who has had direct contact with a confirmed case.

A suspected exposure occurs when someone is working or living in a congregate setting such as long-term care, a correctional facility, or a cruise ship in which there is an outbreak. The time frame during which to do post-exposure testing is five to seven days after the exposure.

Recommendation 10

The IDSA panel recommends direct SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing in asymptomatic individuals with no known contact with COVID-19 who are being hospitalized in areas with a high prevalence of COVID-19 in the community (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence).

The idea is to do rapid testing to identify individuals entering the hospital either for other illnesses or for procedures, in order to be able to institute appropriate precautions and decrease the likelihood of nosocomial transmission and/or transmission to health care personnel. It is worth noting that the recommendations do not address testing in areas with a low or intermediate prevalence of COVID-19. In the absence of an official guideline-based-recommendation, the decision about testing needs to made by the local hospital system.

Recommendations 11, 12, and 13

The IDSA panel recommends SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing in immunocompromised asymptomatic individuals who are being admitted to the hospital and in asymptomatic individuals prior to receiving immunosuppressive therapy regardless of exposure to COVID-19. It is also recommended to test asymptomatic individuals planning to undergo major surgery.

The rationale for this recommendation is that patients who are to receive chemotherapy, other immunosuppressive procedures, or surgery are at high risk if they have COVID-19 and may be better off delaying the procedure.

Some additional issues were addressed, though not in the form of additional recommendations. It was clarified that some individuals remain nucleic acid positive after their symptoms resolve, and sometimes even after seroconversion. It is not clear if those individuals remain infectious to others. The recommendations did not address serologic testing for public health surveillance.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

SOURCE: Hanson KE et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on the diagnosis of COVID-19.




 

The COVID-19 pandemic is fraught with unexpected twists, among them a dramatic plunge in emergency department patient volumes, according to an expert panel on unanticipated consequences of pandemic care hosted by the presidents of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Emergency Physicians.*

“At the peak of exposure to COVID-19 illness or infection, ED volumes in my system, which are really not much different from others across the country, were cut in half, if not more. And those changes happened across virtually every form of ED presentation, from the highest acuity to the lowest. We’re now beyond our highest level of exposure to COVID-19 clinically symptomatic patients in western Pennsylvania, but that recovery in volume hasn’t occurred yet, although there are some embers,” explained Donald M. Yealy, MD, professor and chair of the department of emergency medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

He and other panelists also addressed some of the other unanticipated developments in the COVID-19 pandemic, including a recently recognized childhood manifestation called for now COVID-associated pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome, an anticipated massive second wave of non-COVID patients expected to present late to EDs and primary care clinics after having avoided needed medical care out of fear of infection, and the pandemic’s negative impact upon medical education.
 

Who’s not showing up in the ED

Dr. Yealy said that across the country, the number of patients arriving in EDs with acute ST-elevation MI, stroke, trauma, and other highest-acuity presentations is down substantially. But the volume of patients with more routine, bread-and-butter conditions typically seen in EDs is down even more.

“You might say, if I was designing from the insurance side, this is exactly what I’d hope for. I’ve heard that some people on the insurance-only side of the business really are experiencing a pretty good deal right now: They’re collecting premiums and not having to pay out on the ED or hospital side,” he said.
 

Tweaking the public health message on seeking medical care

“One of the unanticipated casualties of the pandemic are the patients who don’t have it. It will take a whole lot of work and coordinated effort to re-engage with those patients,” predicted SCCM President Lewis J. Kaplan, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Evie G. Marcolini, MD, described what she believes is necessary now: “We need to have a big focus on getting the word out to the public that acute MI, stroke, and other acute injuries are still a time-sensitive problem and they warrant at least a call to their physician or consideration of coming in to the ED.

“I think when we started out, we were telling people, ‘Don’t come in.’ Now we’re trying to dial it back a little bit and say, ‘Listen, there are things you really do need to come in for. And we will keep you safe,’” said Dr. Marcolini, an emergency medicine and neurocritical care specialist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Hanover, N.H.

“It is safe,” Dr. Yealy agreed. “The safest place in the world to be right now is the ED. Everybody’s cordoned off. There’s way more PPE [personal protective equipment]. There’s a level of precision now that should have existed but never did in our previous influenza seasons. So we have something very unique to offer, and we can put people’s minds at rest.”

He spoke of a coming “tsunami of untreated illness.”

“My concern is there is a significant subset of people who are not only eschewing ED care but staying away from their primary care provider. My fear is that we’re not as well aware of this,” he said. “Together with our primary care partners, we have to figure out ways to reach the people who are ignoring illnesses and injuries that they’re making long-term decisions about without realizing it. We have to find a way to reach those people and say it’s okay to reach for care.”

SCCM Immediate Past President Heatherlee Bailey, MD, also sees a problematic looming wave.

“I’m quite concerned about the coming second wave of non-COVID patients who’ve sat home with their worsening renal failure that’s gone from 2 to 5 because they’ve been taking a lot of NSAIDs, or the individual who’s had several TIAs that self-resolved, and we’ve missed an opportunity to prevent some significant disease. At some point they’re going to come back, and we need to figure out how to get these individuals hooked up with care, either through the ED or with their primary care provider, to prevent these potential bad outcomes,” said Dr. Bailey of the Durham (N.C.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
 

Interim guidance for pediatricians on an alarming new syndrome

Edward E. Conway Jr., MD, recalled that early in the U.S. pandemic, pediatricians felt a sense of relief that children appeared to be spared from severe COVID-19 disease. But, in just the past few weeks, a new syndrome has emerged. New York City has recorded more than 100 cases of what’s provisionally being called COVID-associated pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Dr. Conway and others are working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a case definition for the syndrome, first reported by pediatricians in Italy and the United Kingdom.

“We’re trying to get the word out to general pediatricians as to the common signs and symptoms that should prompt parents to bring their children in for medical care,” according to Dr. Conway, chief of pediatric critical care medicine and vice-chair of pediatrics at Jacobi Medical Center in New York.

Ninety percent of affected children have abdominal symptoms early on, including abdominal pain, diarrhea, emesis, or enteritis upon imaging. A nondescript rash, headache, conjunctivitis, and irritability are common, cough much less so – under 25%.

“The thought is that if any one of these is associated with a fever lasting more than 4 days, we suggest these children be brought in and seen by a pediatrician. We don’t have a formal guideline – we’re working on that – but basically the current recommendation is to screen them initially with a CBC with differential, a chem 10, and liver function tests, but also to look for inflammatory markers that we see in our COVID patients. We’ve been quite surprised: These patients have C-reactive proteins of about 240 mg/L on average, ferritin is quite high at around 1,200 ng/mL, and d-dimers of 2,300 ng/mL. We’ve also found very high brain natriuretic peptides and troponins in these patients,” according to Dr. Conway.

Analogies have been made between this COVID-19 pediatric syndrome and Kawasaki disease. Dr. Conway is unconvinced.

“This is quite different from Kawasaki in that these children are usually thrombocytopenic and usually present with DIC [disseminated intravascular coagulation], and the d-dimers are extraordinarily high, compared to what we’re used to seeing in pediatric patients,” he said.

Symptomatic children with laboratory red flags should be hospitalized. Most of the affected New York City children have recovered after 5 or 6 days in the pediatric ICU with empiric treatment using intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), corticosteroids, and/or interleukin-6 inhibitors. However, five recent deaths are now under study.

Dr. Yealy commented that this new pediatric syndrome is “really interesting,” but to date, it affects only a very small percentage of children, and children overall have been much less affected by the pandemic than are adults.

“The populations being disproportionately impacted are the elderly, the elderly, the elderly, and then other vulnerable populations, particularly congregants and the poor,” he said. “At my site, three-quarters of the patients coming in are either patients at assisted-living facilities or work at one of those congregant facilities.”
 

The pandemic’s impact on medical education

In many hospitals, grand rounds are being done virtually via videoconferencing, often with attendant challenges in asking and answering questions. Hospital patient volumes are diminished. Medical students aren’t coming in to do clinical rotations. Medical students and residents can’t travel to interview for future residencies or jobs.

“It’s affecting education across all of the components of medicine. It’s hard to say how long this pandemic is going to last. We’re all trying to be innovative in using online tools, but I believe it’s going to have a long-lasting effect on our education system,” Dr. Marcolini predicted.

Remote interface while working from home has become frustrating, especially during peak Internet use hours.

“It’s staggering how slow my home system has become in comparison to what’s wired at work. Now many times when you try to get into your work system from home, you time out while you’re waiting for the next piece of information to come across,” Dr. Kaplan commented.

All panel participants reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

bjancin@mdedge.com

*Correction, 5/15/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the American College of Emergency Physicians.)

 

The COVID-19 pandemic is fraught with unexpected twists, among them a dramatic plunge in emergency department patient volumes, according to an expert panel on unanticipated consequences of pandemic care hosted by the presidents of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Emergency Physicians.*

“At the peak of exposure to COVID-19 illness or infection, ED volumes in my system, which are really not much different from others across the country, were cut in half, if not more. And those changes happened across virtually every form of ED presentation, from the highest acuity to the lowest. We’re now beyond our highest level of exposure to COVID-19 clinically symptomatic patients in western Pennsylvania, but that recovery in volume hasn’t occurred yet, although there are some embers,” explained Donald M. Yealy, MD, professor and chair of the department of emergency medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

He and other panelists also addressed some of the other unanticipated developments in the COVID-19 pandemic, including a recently recognized childhood manifestation called for now COVID-associated pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome, an anticipated massive second wave of non-COVID patients expected to present late to EDs and primary care clinics after having avoided needed medical care out of fear of infection, and the pandemic’s negative impact upon medical education.
 

Who’s not showing up in the ED

Dr. Yealy said that across the country, the number of patients arriving in EDs with acute ST-elevation MI, stroke, trauma, and other highest-acuity presentations is down substantially. But the volume of patients with more routine, bread-and-butter conditions typically seen in EDs is down even more.

“You might say, if I was designing from the insurance side, this is exactly what I’d hope for. I’ve heard that some people on the insurance-only side of the business really are experiencing a pretty good deal right now: They’re collecting premiums and not having to pay out on the ED or hospital side,” he said.
 

Tweaking the public health message on seeking medical care

“One of the unanticipated casualties of the pandemic are the patients who don’t have it. It will take a whole lot of work and coordinated effort to re-engage with those patients,” predicted SCCM President Lewis J. Kaplan, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Evie G. Marcolini, MD, described what she believes is necessary now: “We need to have a big focus on getting the word out to the public that acute MI, stroke, and other acute injuries are still a time-sensitive problem and they warrant at least a call to their physician or consideration of coming in to the ED.

“I think when we started out, we were telling people, ‘Don’t come in.’ Now we’re trying to dial it back a little bit and say, ‘Listen, there are things you really do need to come in for. And we will keep you safe,’” said Dr. Marcolini, an emergency medicine and neurocritical care specialist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Hanover, N.H.

“It is safe,” Dr. Yealy agreed. “The safest place in the world to be right now is the ED. Everybody’s cordoned off. There’s way more PPE [personal protective equipment]. There’s a level of precision now that should have existed but never did in our previous influenza seasons. So we have something very unique to offer, and we can put people’s minds at rest.”

He spoke of a coming “tsunami of untreated illness.”

“My concern is there is a significant subset of people who are not only eschewing ED care but staying away from their primary care provider. My fear is that we’re not as well aware of this,” he said. “Together with our primary care partners, we have to figure out ways to reach the people who are ignoring illnesses and injuries that they’re making long-term decisions about without realizing it. We have to find a way to reach those people and say it’s okay to reach for care.”

SCCM Immediate Past President Heatherlee Bailey, MD, also sees a problematic looming wave.

“I’m quite concerned about the coming second wave of non-COVID patients who’ve sat home with their worsening renal failure that’s gone from 2 to 5 because they’ve been taking a lot of NSAIDs, or the individual who’s had several TIAs that self-resolved, and we’ve missed an opportunity to prevent some significant disease. At some point they’re going to come back, and we need to figure out how to get these individuals hooked up with care, either through the ED or with their primary care provider, to prevent these potential bad outcomes,” said Dr. Bailey of the Durham (N.C.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
 

Interim guidance for pediatricians on an alarming new syndrome

Edward E. Conway Jr., MD, recalled that early in the U.S. pandemic, pediatricians felt a sense of relief that children appeared to be spared from severe COVID-19 disease. But, in just the past few weeks, a new syndrome has emerged. New York City has recorded more than 100 cases of what’s provisionally being called COVID-associated pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Dr. Conway and others are working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a case definition for the syndrome, first reported by pediatricians in Italy and the United Kingdom.

“We’re trying to get the word out to general pediatricians as to the common signs and symptoms that should prompt parents to bring their children in for medical care,” according to Dr. Conway, chief of pediatric critical care medicine and vice-chair of pediatrics at Jacobi Medical Center in New York.

Ninety percent of affected children have abdominal symptoms early on, including abdominal pain, diarrhea, emesis, or enteritis upon imaging. A nondescript rash, headache, conjunctivitis, and irritability are common, cough much less so – under 25%.

“The thought is that if any one of these is associated with a fever lasting more than 4 days, we suggest these children be brought in and seen by a pediatrician. We don’t have a formal guideline – we’re working on that – but basically the current recommendation is to screen them initially with a CBC with differential, a chem 10, and liver function tests, but also to look for inflammatory markers that we see in our COVID patients. We’ve been quite surprised: These patients have C-reactive proteins of about 240 mg/L on average, ferritin is quite high at around 1,200 ng/mL, and d-dimers of 2,300 ng/mL. We’ve also found very high brain natriuretic peptides and troponins in these patients,” according to Dr. Conway.

Analogies have been made between this COVID-19 pediatric syndrome and Kawasaki disease. Dr. Conway is unconvinced.

“This is quite different from Kawasaki in that these children are usually thrombocytopenic and usually present with DIC [disseminated intravascular coagulation], and the d-dimers are extraordinarily high, compared to what we’re used to seeing in pediatric patients,” he said.

Symptomatic children with laboratory red flags should be hospitalized. Most of the affected New York City children have recovered after 5 or 6 days in the pediatric ICU with empiric treatment using intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), corticosteroids, and/or interleukin-6 inhibitors. However, five recent deaths are now under study.

Dr. Yealy commented that this new pediatric syndrome is “really interesting,” but to date, it affects only a very small percentage of children, and children overall have been much less affected by the pandemic than are adults.

“The populations being disproportionately impacted are the elderly, the elderly, the elderly, and then other vulnerable populations, particularly congregants and the poor,” he said. “At my site, three-quarters of the patients coming in are either patients at assisted-living facilities or work at one of those congregant facilities.”
 

The pandemic’s impact on medical education

In many hospitals, grand rounds are being done virtually via videoconferencing, often with attendant challenges in asking and answering questions. Hospital patient volumes are diminished. Medical students aren’t coming in to do clinical rotations. Medical students and residents can’t travel to interview for future residencies or jobs.

“It’s affecting education across all of the components of medicine. It’s hard to say how long this pandemic is going to last. We’re all trying to be innovative in using online tools, but I believe it’s going to have a long-lasting effect on our education system,” Dr. Marcolini predicted.

Remote interface while working from home has become frustrating, especially during peak Internet use hours.

“It’s staggering how slow my home system has become in comparison to what’s wired at work. Now many times when you try to get into your work system from home, you time out while you’re waiting for the next piece of information to come across,” Dr. Kaplan commented.

All panel participants reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

bjancin@mdedge.com

*Correction, 5/15/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the American College of Emergency Physicians.)

 

The COVID-19 pandemic is fraught with unexpected twists, among them a dramatic plunge in emergency department patient volumes, according to an expert panel on unanticipated consequences of pandemic care hosted by the presidents of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Emergency Physicians.*

“At the peak of exposure to COVID-19 illness or infection, ED volumes in my system, which are really not much different from others across the country, were cut in half, if not more. And those changes happened across virtually every form of ED presentation, from the highest acuity to the lowest. We’re now beyond our highest level of exposure to COVID-19 clinically symptomatic patients in western Pennsylvania, but that recovery in volume hasn’t occurred yet, although there are some embers,” explained Donald M. Yealy, MD, professor and chair of the department of emergency medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

He and other panelists also addressed some of the other unanticipated developments in the COVID-19 pandemic, including a recently recognized childhood manifestation called for now COVID-associated pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome, an anticipated massive second wave of non-COVID patients expected to present late to EDs and primary care clinics after having avoided needed medical care out of fear of infection, and the pandemic’s negative impact upon medical education.
 

Who’s not showing up in the ED

Dr. Yealy said that across the country, the number of patients arriving in EDs with acute ST-elevation MI, stroke, trauma, and other highest-acuity presentations is down substantially. But the volume of patients with more routine, bread-and-butter conditions typically seen in EDs is down even more.

“You might say, if I was designing from the insurance side, this is exactly what I’d hope for. I’ve heard that some people on the insurance-only side of the business really are experiencing a pretty good deal right now: They’re collecting premiums and not having to pay out on the ED or hospital side,” he said.
 

Tweaking the public health message on seeking medical care

“One of the unanticipated casualties of the pandemic are the patients who don’t have it. It will take a whole lot of work and coordinated effort to re-engage with those patients,” predicted SCCM President Lewis J. Kaplan, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Evie G. Marcolini, MD, described what she believes is necessary now: “We need to have a big focus on getting the word out to the public that acute MI, stroke, and other acute injuries are still a time-sensitive problem and they warrant at least a call to their physician or consideration of coming in to the ED.

“I think when we started out, we were telling people, ‘Don’t come in.’ Now we’re trying to dial it back a little bit and say, ‘Listen, there are things you really do need to come in for. And we will keep you safe,’” said Dr. Marcolini, an emergency medicine and neurocritical care specialist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Hanover, N.H.

“It is safe,” Dr. Yealy agreed. “The safest place in the world to be right now is the ED. Everybody’s cordoned off. There’s way more PPE [personal protective equipment]. There’s a level of precision now that should have existed but never did in our previous influenza seasons. So we have something very unique to offer, and we can put people’s minds at rest.”

He spoke of a coming “tsunami of untreated illness.”

“My concern is there is a significant subset of people who are not only eschewing ED care but staying away from their primary care provider. My fear is that we’re not as well aware of this,” he said. “Together with our primary care partners, we have to figure out ways to reach the people who are ignoring illnesses and injuries that they’re making long-term decisions about without realizing it. We have to find a way to reach those people and say it’s okay to reach for care.”

SCCM Immediate Past President Heatherlee Bailey, MD, also sees a problematic looming wave.

“I’m quite concerned about the coming second wave of non-COVID patients who’ve sat home with their worsening renal failure that’s gone from 2 to 5 because they’ve been taking a lot of NSAIDs, or the individual who’s had several TIAs that self-resolved, and we’ve missed an opportunity to prevent some significant disease. At some point they’re going to come back, and we need to figure out how to get these individuals hooked up with care, either through the ED or with their primary care provider, to prevent these potential bad outcomes,” said Dr. Bailey of the Durham (N.C.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
 

Interim guidance for pediatricians on an alarming new syndrome

Edward E. Conway Jr., MD, recalled that early in the U.S. pandemic, pediatricians felt a sense of relief that children appeared to be spared from severe COVID-19 disease. But, in just the past few weeks, a new syndrome has emerged. New York City has recorded more than 100 cases of what’s provisionally being called COVID-associated pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Dr. Conway and others are working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a case definition for the syndrome, first reported by pediatricians in Italy and the United Kingdom.

“We’re trying to get the word out to general pediatricians as to the common signs and symptoms that should prompt parents to bring their children in for medical care,” according to Dr. Conway, chief of pediatric critical care medicine and vice-chair of pediatrics at Jacobi Medical Center in New York.

Ninety percent of affected children have abdominal symptoms early on, including abdominal pain, diarrhea, emesis, or enteritis upon imaging. A nondescript rash, headache, conjunctivitis, and irritability are common, cough much less so – under 25%.

“The thought is that if any one of these is associated with a fever lasting more than 4 days, we suggest these children be brought in and seen by a pediatrician. We don’t have a formal guideline – we’re working on that – but basically the current recommendation is to screen them initially with a CBC with differential, a chem 10, and liver function tests, but also to look for inflammatory markers that we see in our COVID patients. We’ve been quite surprised: These patients have C-reactive proteins of about 240 mg/L on average, ferritin is quite high at around 1,200 ng/mL, and d-dimers of 2,300 ng/mL. We’ve also found very high brain natriuretic peptides and troponins in these patients,” according to Dr. Conway.

Analogies have been made between this COVID-19 pediatric syndrome and Kawasaki disease. Dr. Conway is unconvinced.

“This is quite different from Kawasaki in that these children are usually thrombocytopenic and usually present with DIC [disseminated intravascular coagulation], and the d-dimers are extraordinarily high, compared to what we’re used to seeing in pediatric patients,” he said.

Symptomatic children with laboratory red flags should be hospitalized. Most of the affected New York City children have recovered after 5 or 6 days in the pediatric ICU with empiric treatment using intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), corticosteroids, and/or interleukin-6 inhibitors. However, five recent deaths are now under study.

Dr. Yealy commented that this new pediatric syndrome is “really interesting,” but to date, it affects only a very small percentage of children, and children overall have been much less affected by the pandemic than are adults.

“The populations being disproportionately impacted are the elderly, the elderly, the elderly, and then other vulnerable populations, particularly congregants and the poor,” he said. “At my site, three-quarters of the patients coming in are either patients at assisted-living facilities or work at one of those congregant facilities.”
 

The pandemic’s impact on medical education

In many hospitals, grand rounds are being done virtually via videoconferencing, often with attendant challenges in asking and answering questions. Hospital patient volumes are diminished. Medical students aren’t coming in to do clinical rotations. Medical students and residents can’t travel to interview for future residencies or jobs.

“It’s affecting education across all of the components of medicine. It’s hard to say how long this pandemic is going to last. We’re all trying to be innovative in using online tools, but I believe it’s going to have a long-lasting effect on our education system,” Dr. Marcolini predicted.

Remote interface while working from home has become frustrating, especially during peak Internet use hours.

“It’s staggering how slow my home system has become in comparison to what’s wired at work. Now many times when you try to get into your work system from home, you time out while you’re waiting for the next piece of information to come across,” Dr. Kaplan commented.

All panel participants reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

bjancin@mdedge.com

*Correction, 5/15/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the American College of Emergency Physicians.)

 

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

The number of COVID-19 deaths cannot be directly compared to the number of seasonal influenza deaths because they are calculated differently, researchers say in a report released today.

Whereas COVID-19 death rates are determined from actual counts of people who have died, seasonal influenza death rates are estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) using population modeling algorithms, explains Jeremy Samuel Faust, MD, with Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Division of Health Policy and Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts.

The CDC estimates that between 24,000 and 62,000 people died from influenza during the 2019-2020 season (through April 4). At the time of the analysis (as of April 28), COVID-19 deaths had reached 65,000 in the United States.

Some government officials and others have said the numbers seem similar and have used the comparison as an argument for reopening certain areas.

But making that comparison “is extremely dangerous,” Faust told Medscape Medical News.

“COVID-19 is far more dangerous and is wreaking far more havoc than seasonal influenza ever has,” he said.

Faust coauthored the perspective article, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, with Carlos del Rio, MD, Division of Infectious Diseases at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The message and methodology of Faust’s and del Rio’s article are on target, according to Jonathan L. Temte, MD, PhD, who has been working in influenza surveillance for almost 25 years.

Current flu data draw on limited information from primary care practices and hospitals, said Dr. Temte, associate dean for public health and community engagement at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison. The estimates help bridge the gaps, he said, but the system is inherently vulnerable to error.

“Comparing them – as so many people in this country have done – to try to diminish the impact of SARS-CoV2 is not fair,” he said.
 

Estimated versus actual influenza deaths

The authors illustrate the difference in the way rates of death from influenza are calculated: “Between 2013-2014 and 2018-2019, the reported yearly estimated influenza deaths ranged from 23,000 to 61,000. Over that same time period, however, the number of counted influenza deaths was between 3,448 and 15,620 yearly.”

“It’s apparent [the CDC has] been overestimating,” Faust said. “If you publish a number on the higher end of the estimate, people might take your public health messages more seriously, such as, it’s important to get your yearly flu shot.”

He added that until influenza death rates started to be compared with COVID-19 rates, “there was never really a downside” to reporting estimates.

Dr. Temte said he doesn’t regard overestimating flu deaths as intentional but rather the result of a longstanding “bias against the elderly in this country” that the estimates are meant to account for.

For example, he says, reporting influenza deaths is mandatory when such deaths involve persons younger than 18 years but not when they involve adults.

Also, traditionally, influenza has been seen “as a cause of death in people with multiple comorbidities that was just part and parcel of wintertime,” Dr. Temte said.

“The likelihood of being tested for influenza goes down greatly when you’re older,” he said. “This is slowly changing.”

The CDC acknowledges on its website that it “does not know the exact number of people who have been sick and affected by influenza because influenza is not a reportable disease in most areas of the US.”

It adds that the burden is estimated through the US Influenza Surveillance System, which covers approximately 8.5% of the US population.
 

Comparing recorded deaths

It’s more accurate and meaningful to compare actual numbers of deaths for the diseases, Dr. Faust and Dr. del Rio say in their article.

When the authors made that comparison, they drew a stark contrast.

There were 15,455 recorded COVID-19 deaths in the week that ended April 21. The week before, the number of recorded deaths was 14,478, they found. (Those were the two most recent weeks before they submitted their article for publication.)

In comparison, counted deaths ranged from 351 to 1,626 during the peak week of the seven influenza seasons between 2013-2014 and 2019-2020. The average counted deaths for the peak week of the seven seasons was 752.4 (95% confidence interval, 558.8-946.1).

“These statistics on counted deaths suggest that the number of COVID-19 deaths for the week ending April 21 was 9.5-fold to 44.1-fold greater than the peak week of counted influenza deaths during the past seven influenza seasons in the US, with a 20.5-fold mean increase (95% CI, 16.3-27.7),” the authors write.

However, Natasha Chida, MD, MSPH, an infectious disease physician and assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, said in an interview that the actual number of deaths doesn’t tell the complete flu story either. That count would miss people who later died from secondary complications associated with influenza, she said.

“There’s just no way to reliably count influenza deaths,” she said. “I think if we required it as a reported illness, that would be the ideal situation, but there’s so much flu every year that that probably would not be practical.”

She said she agrees that rates of influenza deaths and rates of COVID-19 deaths cannot be fairly compared.

What the authors don’t touch on, she said, is that flu season lasts 4 to 6 months a year, and just 3 months into the coronavirus pandemic, US deaths due to COVID-19 are already higher than those for seasonal influenza.

“Even if we look at it in the way that people who think we can compare flu and coronavirus do, it’s still not going to work out in their favor from a numbers standpoint,” she said.

The article clarifies the differences for “people who don’t live in the flu world,” she said.

“It is not accurate to compare the two for the reasons the authors described and also because they are very different diseases,” she added.
 

Real-life validation

Dr. Faust said in an interview that real-life experiences add external validity to their analysis.

Differences in the way deaths are calculated does not reflect frontline clinical conditions during the COVID-19 crisis, with hospitals stretched past their limits, ventilator shortages, and bodies stacking up in some overwhelmed facilities, the authors say.

Dr. Temte said the external validation of the numbers also rings true in light of his own experience.

He said that, in the past 2 months, he has known two people who have had family members who died of COVID-19.

Conversely, “I would have to search long and hard to come up with people I have known or have been one degree of separation from” who have died from influenza, Dr. Temte said.

The authors, Dr. Temte, and Dr. Chida report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of COVID-19 deaths cannot be directly compared to the number of seasonal influenza deaths because they are calculated differently, researchers say in a report released today.

Whereas COVID-19 death rates are determined from actual counts of people who have died, seasonal influenza death rates are estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) using population modeling algorithms, explains Jeremy Samuel Faust, MD, with Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Division of Health Policy and Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts.

The CDC estimates that between 24,000 and 62,000 people died from influenza during the 2019-2020 season (through April 4). At the time of the analysis (as of April 28), COVID-19 deaths had reached 65,000 in the United States.

Some government officials and others have said the numbers seem similar and have used the comparison as an argument for reopening certain areas.

But making that comparison “is extremely dangerous,” Faust told Medscape Medical News.

“COVID-19 is far more dangerous and is wreaking far more havoc than seasonal influenza ever has,” he said.

Faust coauthored the perspective article, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, with Carlos del Rio, MD, Division of Infectious Diseases at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The message and methodology of Faust’s and del Rio’s article are on target, according to Jonathan L. Temte, MD, PhD, who has been working in influenza surveillance for almost 25 years.

Current flu data draw on limited information from primary care practices and hospitals, said Dr. Temte, associate dean for public health and community engagement at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison. The estimates help bridge the gaps, he said, but the system is inherently vulnerable to error.

“Comparing them – as so many people in this country have done – to try to diminish the impact of SARS-CoV2 is not fair,” he said.
 

Estimated versus actual influenza deaths

The authors illustrate the difference in the way rates of death from influenza are calculated: “Between 2013-2014 and 2018-2019, the reported yearly estimated influenza deaths ranged from 23,000 to 61,000. Over that same time period, however, the number of counted influenza deaths was between 3,448 and 15,620 yearly.”

“It’s apparent [the CDC has] been overestimating,” Faust said. “If you publish a number on the higher end of the estimate, people might take your public health messages more seriously, such as, it’s important to get your yearly flu shot.”

He added that until influenza death rates started to be compared with COVID-19 rates, “there was never really a downside” to reporting estimates.

Dr. Temte said he doesn’t regard overestimating flu deaths as intentional but rather the result of a longstanding “bias against the elderly in this country” that the estimates are meant to account for.

For example, he says, reporting influenza deaths is mandatory when such deaths involve persons younger than 18 years but not when they involve adults.

Also, traditionally, influenza has been seen “as a cause of death in people with multiple comorbidities that was just part and parcel of wintertime,” Dr. Temte said.

“The likelihood of being tested for influenza goes down greatly when you’re older,” he said. “This is slowly changing.”

The CDC acknowledges on its website that it “does not know the exact number of people who have been sick and affected by influenza because influenza is not a reportable disease in most areas of the US.”

It adds that the burden is estimated through the US Influenza Surveillance System, which covers approximately 8.5% of the US population.
 

Comparing recorded deaths

It’s more accurate and meaningful to compare actual numbers of deaths for the diseases, Dr. Faust and Dr. del Rio say in their article.

When the authors made that comparison, they drew a stark contrast.

There were 15,455 recorded COVID-19 deaths in the week that ended April 21. The week before, the number of recorded deaths was 14,478, they found. (Those were the two most recent weeks before they submitted their article for publication.)

In comparison, counted deaths ranged from 351 to 1,626 during the peak week of the seven influenza seasons between 2013-2014 and 2019-2020. The average counted deaths for the peak week of the seven seasons was 752.4 (95% confidence interval, 558.8-946.1).

“These statistics on counted deaths suggest that the number of COVID-19 deaths for the week ending April 21 was 9.5-fold to 44.1-fold greater than the peak week of counted influenza deaths during the past seven influenza seasons in the US, with a 20.5-fold mean increase (95% CI, 16.3-27.7),” the authors write.

However, Natasha Chida, MD, MSPH, an infectious disease physician and assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, said in an interview that the actual number of deaths doesn’t tell the complete flu story either. That count would miss people who later died from secondary complications associated with influenza, she said.

“There’s just no way to reliably count influenza deaths,” she said. “I think if we required it as a reported illness, that would be the ideal situation, but there’s so much flu every year that that probably would not be practical.”

She said she agrees that rates of influenza deaths and rates of COVID-19 deaths cannot be fairly compared.

What the authors don’t touch on, she said, is that flu season lasts 4 to 6 months a year, and just 3 months into the coronavirus pandemic, US deaths due to COVID-19 are already higher than those for seasonal influenza.

“Even if we look at it in the way that people who think we can compare flu and coronavirus do, it’s still not going to work out in their favor from a numbers standpoint,” she said.

The article clarifies the differences for “people who don’t live in the flu world,” she said.

“It is not accurate to compare the two for the reasons the authors described and also because they are very different diseases,” she added.
 

Real-life validation

Dr. Faust said in an interview that real-life experiences add external validity to their analysis.

Differences in the way deaths are calculated does not reflect frontline clinical conditions during the COVID-19 crisis, with hospitals stretched past their limits, ventilator shortages, and bodies stacking up in some overwhelmed facilities, the authors say.

Dr. Temte said the external validation of the numbers also rings true in light of his own experience.

He said that, in the past 2 months, he has known two people who have had family members who died of COVID-19.

Conversely, “I would have to search long and hard to come up with people I have known or have been one degree of separation from” who have died from influenza, Dr. Temte said.

The authors, Dr. Temte, and Dr. Chida report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of COVID-19 deaths cannot be directly compared to the number of seasonal influenza deaths because they are calculated differently, researchers say in a report released today.

Whereas COVID-19 death rates are determined from actual counts of people who have died, seasonal influenza death rates are estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) using population modeling algorithms, explains Jeremy Samuel Faust, MD, with Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Division of Health Policy and Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts.

The CDC estimates that between 24,000 and 62,000 people died from influenza during the 2019-2020 season (through April 4). At the time of the analysis (as of April 28), COVID-19 deaths had reached 65,000 in the United States.

Some government officials and others have said the numbers seem similar and have used the comparison as an argument for reopening certain areas.

But making that comparison “is extremely dangerous,” Faust told Medscape Medical News.

“COVID-19 is far more dangerous and is wreaking far more havoc than seasonal influenza ever has,” he said.

Faust coauthored the perspective article, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, with Carlos del Rio, MD, Division of Infectious Diseases at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The message and methodology of Faust’s and del Rio’s article are on target, according to Jonathan L. Temte, MD, PhD, who has been working in influenza surveillance for almost 25 years.

Current flu data draw on limited information from primary care practices and hospitals, said Dr. Temte, associate dean for public health and community engagement at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison. The estimates help bridge the gaps, he said, but the system is inherently vulnerable to error.

“Comparing them – as so many people in this country have done – to try to diminish the impact of SARS-CoV2 is not fair,” he said.
 

Estimated versus actual influenza deaths

The authors illustrate the difference in the way rates of death from influenza are calculated: “Between 2013-2014 and 2018-2019, the reported yearly estimated influenza deaths ranged from 23,000 to 61,000. Over that same time period, however, the number of counted influenza deaths was between 3,448 and 15,620 yearly.”

“It’s apparent [the CDC has] been overestimating,” Faust said. “If you publish a number on the higher end of the estimate, people might take your public health messages more seriously, such as, it’s important to get your yearly flu shot.”

He added that until influenza death rates started to be compared with COVID-19 rates, “there was never really a downside” to reporting estimates.

Dr. Temte said he doesn’t regard overestimating flu deaths as intentional but rather the result of a longstanding “bias against the elderly in this country” that the estimates are meant to account for.

For example, he says, reporting influenza deaths is mandatory when such deaths involve persons younger than 18 years but not when they involve adults.

Also, traditionally, influenza has been seen “as a cause of death in people with multiple comorbidities that was just part and parcel of wintertime,” Dr. Temte said.

“The likelihood of being tested for influenza goes down greatly when you’re older,” he said. “This is slowly changing.”

The CDC acknowledges on its website that it “does not know the exact number of people who have been sick and affected by influenza because influenza is not a reportable disease in most areas of the US.”

It adds that the burden is estimated through the US Influenza Surveillance System, which covers approximately 8.5% of the US population.
 

Comparing recorded deaths

It’s more accurate and meaningful to compare actual numbers of deaths for the diseases, Dr. Faust and Dr. del Rio say in their article.

When the authors made that comparison, they drew a stark contrast.

There were 15,455 recorded COVID-19 deaths in the week that ended April 21. The week before, the number of recorded deaths was 14,478, they found. (Those were the two most recent weeks before they submitted their article for publication.)

In comparison, counted deaths ranged from 351 to 1,626 during the peak week of the seven influenza seasons between 2013-2014 and 2019-2020. The average counted deaths for the peak week of the seven seasons was 752.4 (95% confidence interval, 558.8-946.1).

“These statistics on counted deaths suggest that the number of COVID-19 deaths for the week ending April 21 was 9.5-fold to 44.1-fold greater than the peak week of counted influenza deaths during the past seven influenza seasons in the US, with a 20.5-fold mean increase (95% CI, 16.3-27.7),” the authors write.

However, Natasha Chida, MD, MSPH, an infectious disease physician and assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, said in an interview that the actual number of deaths doesn’t tell the complete flu story either. That count would miss people who later died from secondary complications associated with influenza, she said.

“There’s just no way to reliably count influenza deaths,” she said. “I think if we required it as a reported illness, that would be the ideal situation, but there’s so much flu every year that that probably would not be practical.”

She said she agrees that rates of influenza deaths and rates of COVID-19 deaths cannot be fairly compared.

What the authors don’t touch on, she said, is that flu season lasts 4 to 6 months a year, and just 3 months into the coronavirus pandemic, US deaths due to COVID-19 are already higher than those for seasonal influenza.

“Even if we look at it in the way that people who think we can compare flu and coronavirus do, it’s still not going to work out in their favor from a numbers standpoint,” she said.

The article clarifies the differences for “people who don’t live in the flu world,” she said.

“It is not accurate to compare the two for the reasons the authors described and also because they are very different diseases,” she added.
 

Real-life validation

Dr. Faust said in an interview that real-life experiences add external validity to their analysis.

Differences in the way deaths are calculated does not reflect frontline clinical conditions during the COVID-19 crisis, with hospitals stretched past their limits, ventilator shortages, and bodies stacking up in some overwhelmed facilities, the authors say.

Dr. Temte said the external validation of the numbers also rings true in light of his own experience.

He said that, in the past 2 months, he has known two people who have had family members who died of COVID-19.

Conversely, “I would have to search long and hard to come up with people I have known or have been one degree of separation from” who have died from influenza, Dr. Temte said.

The authors, Dr. Temte, and Dr. Chida report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the din of the negative pressure machine, I shouted goodbye to my patient and zipped my way out of one of the little plastic enclosures in our ED and carefully shed my gloves, gown, and face shield, leaving on my precious mask. I discarded the rest with disgust and a bit of fear. I thought, “This is a whole new world, and I hate it.”

I feel as if I am constantly battling the fear of dying from COVID-19 but am doing the best I can, given the circumstances at hand. I have the proper equipment and use it well. My work still brings meaning: I serve those in need without hesitation. The problem is that deep feeling of connection with patients, which is such an important part of this work, feels like fraying threads moving further apart because of the havoc this virus has wrought. A few weeks ago, the intricate fabric of what it is to be human connected me to patients through the basics: touch, facial expressions, a physical proximity, and openhearted, honest dialogue. Much of that’s gone, and while I can carry on, I will surely burn out if I can’t figure out how to get at least some of that connection back.

Overwhelmed by the amount of information I need to process daily, I had not been thinking about the interpersonal side of the pandemic for the first weeks. I felt it leaving the ED that morning and later that day, and I felt it again with Ms. Z, who was not even suspected of having COVID. She is a 62-year-old I interviewed with the help of a translator phone. At the end of our encounter, she said “But doctor, will you make my tumor go away?” From across the room, I said, “I will try.” I saw her eyes dampen as I made a hasty exit, following protocol to limit time in the room of all patients.

Typically, leaving a patient’s room, I would feel a fullness associated with a sense of meaning. How did I feel after that? In that moment, mostly ashamed at my lack of compassion during my time with Ms. Z. Then, with further reflection, tense from all things COVID-19! Having an amped-up sympathetic nervous system is understandable, but it’s not where we want to be for our compassion to flow.

We connect best when our parasympathetic nervous system is predominant. So much of the stimuli we need to activate that part of the nervous system is gone. There is a virtuous cycle, much of it unconscious, where something positive leads to more positivity, which is crucial to meaningful patient encounters. We read each other’s facial expressions, hear the tone of voice, and as we pick up subtle cues from our patient, our nervous system is further engaged and our hearts opened.

The specter of COVID-19 has us battling a negative spiral of stress and fear. For the most part, I try to keep that from consuming me, but it clearly saps my energy during encounters. In the same way we need to marshal our resources to battle both the stress and the disease itself, we need to actively engage pro-social elements of providing care to maintain our compassion. Clearly, I needed a more concerted effort to kick start this virtuous cycle of compassion.

My next patient was Ms. J., a 55-year-old with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who came in the night before with shortness of breath. Her slight frame shook from coughing as I entered the room. I did not think she had COVID-19, but we were ruling it out.

We reviewed how she felt since admission, and I performed a hasty exam and stepped back across the room. She coughed again and said, “I feel so weak, and the world feels so crazy; tell it to me straight.” Then looking in my eyes, “I am going to make it, doc?”

I took my cue from her; I walked back to the bedside, placed a gloved hand on her shoulder and with the other, I took her hand. I bent forward just a little. Making eye contact and attempting a comforting tone of voice, I said, “Everyone is a little scared, including me. We need each other more than ever these days. We will do our best for you. That means thoughtful medical care and a whole lot of love! And, truly, I don’t think you are dying; this is just one of your COPD flares.”

“God bless you!” she said, squeezing my hand as a tear rolled down her cheek.

“Bless you, too. We all need blessing with this madness going on,” I replied. Despite the mask, I am sure she saw the smile in my eyes. “Thanks for being the beautiful person you are and opening up to me. That’s the way we will make it through this. I will see you tomorrow.” Backing away, hands together in prayer, I gave a little bow and left the room.

With Ms. J.’s help, I began to figure it out. To tackle the stress of COVID, we need to be very direct – almost to the point of exaggeration – to make sure our words and actions convey what we need to express. William James, the father of psychology, believed that if you force a smile, your emotions would follow. The neural pathways could work backward in that way. He said, “If you want a quality, act as if you have it.” The modern translation would be, “Fake it ’til you make it.’ ” You may be feeling stressed, but with a deep breath and a moment’s reflection on the suffering of that patient you are about to see, you can turn the tide on anxiety and give those under your care what they need.

These are unprecedented times; anxiety abounds. While we can aspire to positivity, there are times when we simply can’t muster showing it. Alternatively, as I experienced with Ms. J., honesty and vulnerability can open the door to meaningful connection. This can be quite powerful when we, as physicians, open up to our patients.

People are yearning for deep connection, and we should attempt to deliver it with:

• Touch (as we can) to convey connection.
• Body language that adds emphasis to our message and our emotions that may go above and beyond what we are used to.
• Tone of voice that enhances our words.
• Talk that emphasizes the big stuff, such as love, fear, connection and community

With gloves, masks, distance, and fear between and us and our patients, we need to actively engage our pro-social tools to turn the negative spiral of fear into the virtuous cycle of positive emotions that promotes healing of our patients and emotional engagement for those providing their care.
 

Dr. Hass was trained in family medicine at University of California, San Francisco, after receiving his medical degree from the McGill University faculty of medicine, Montreal. He works as a hospitalist with Sutter Health in Oakland, Calif. He is an adviser on health and health care for the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley and clinical faculty at UCSF School of Medicine. This article appeared initially at The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

Over the din of the negative pressure machine, I shouted goodbye to my patient and zipped my way out of one of the little plastic enclosures in our ED and carefully shed my gloves, gown, and face shield, leaving on my precious mask. I discarded the rest with disgust and a bit of fear. I thought, “This is a whole new world, and I hate it.”

I feel as if I am constantly battling the fear of dying from COVID-19 but am doing the best I can, given the circumstances at hand. I have the proper equipment and use it well. My work still brings meaning: I serve those in need without hesitation. The problem is that deep feeling of connection with patients, which is such an important part of this work, feels like fraying threads moving further apart because of the havoc this virus has wrought. A few weeks ago, the intricate fabric of what it is to be human connected me to patients through the basics: touch, facial expressions, a physical proximity, and openhearted, honest dialogue. Much of that’s gone, and while I can carry on, I will surely burn out if I can’t figure out how to get at least some of that connection back.

Overwhelmed by the amount of information I need to process daily, I had not been thinking about the interpersonal side of the pandemic for the first weeks. I felt it leaving the ED that morning and later that day, and I felt it again with Ms. Z, who was not even suspected of having COVID. She is a 62-year-old I interviewed with the help of a translator phone. At the end of our encounter, she said “But doctor, will you make my tumor go away?” From across the room, I said, “I will try.” I saw her eyes dampen as I made a hasty exit, following protocol to limit time in the room of all patients.

Typically, leaving a patient’s room, I would feel a fullness associated with a sense of meaning. How did I feel after that? In that moment, mostly ashamed at my lack of compassion during my time with Ms. Z. Then, with further reflection, tense from all things COVID-19! Having an amped-up sympathetic nervous system is understandable, but it’s not where we want to be for our compassion to flow.

We connect best when our parasympathetic nervous system is predominant. So much of the stimuli we need to activate that part of the nervous system is gone. There is a virtuous cycle, much of it unconscious, where something positive leads to more positivity, which is crucial to meaningful patient encounters. We read each other’s facial expressions, hear the tone of voice, and as we pick up subtle cues from our patient, our nervous system is further engaged and our hearts opened.

The specter of COVID-19 has us battling a negative spiral of stress and fear. For the most part, I try to keep that from consuming me, but it clearly saps my energy during encounters. In the same way we need to marshal our resources to battle both the stress and the disease itself, we need to actively engage pro-social elements of providing care to maintain our compassion. Clearly, I needed a more concerted effort to kick start this virtuous cycle of compassion.

My next patient was Ms. J., a 55-year-old with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who came in the night before with shortness of breath. Her slight frame shook from coughing as I entered the room. I did not think she had COVID-19, but we were ruling it out.

We reviewed how she felt since admission, and I performed a hasty exam and stepped back across the room. She coughed again and said, “I feel so weak, and the world feels so crazy; tell it to me straight.” Then looking in my eyes, “I am going to make it, doc?”

I took my cue from her; I walked back to the bedside, placed a gloved hand on her shoulder and with the other, I took her hand. I bent forward just a little. Making eye contact and attempting a comforting tone of voice, I said, “Everyone is a little scared, including me. We need each other more than ever these days. We will do our best for you. That means thoughtful medical care and a whole lot of love! And, truly, I don’t think you are dying; this is just one of your COPD flares.”

“God bless you!” she said, squeezing my hand as a tear rolled down her cheek.

“Bless you, too. We all need blessing with this madness going on,” I replied. Despite the mask, I am sure she saw the smile in my eyes. “Thanks for being the beautiful person you are and opening up to me. That’s the way we will make it through this. I will see you tomorrow.” Backing away, hands together in prayer, I gave a little bow and left the room.

With Ms. J.’s help, I began to figure it out. To tackle the stress of COVID, we need to be very direct – almost to the point of exaggeration – to make sure our words and actions convey what we need to express. William James, the father of psychology, believed that if you force a smile, your emotions would follow. The neural pathways could work backward in that way. He said, “If you want a quality, act as if you have it.” The modern translation would be, “Fake it ’til you make it.’ ” You may be feeling stressed, but with a deep breath and a moment’s reflection on the suffering of that patient you are about to see, you can turn the tide on anxiety and give those under your care what they need.

These are unprecedented times; anxiety abounds. While we can aspire to positivity, there are times when we simply can’t muster showing it. Alternatively, as I experienced with Ms. J., honesty and vulnerability can open the door to meaningful connection. This can be quite powerful when we, as physicians, open up to our patients.

People are yearning for deep connection, and we should attempt to deliver it with:

• Touch (as we can) to convey connection.
• Body language that adds emphasis to our message and our emotions that may go above and beyond what we are used to.
• Tone of voice that enhances our words.
• Talk that emphasizes the big stuff, such as love, fear, connection and community

With gloves, masks, distance, and fear between and us and our patients, we need to actively engage our pro-social tools to turn the negative spiral of fear into the virtuous cycle of positive emotions that promotes healing of our patients and emotional engagement for those providing their care.
 

Dr. Hass was trained in family medicine at University of California, San Francisco, after receiving his medical degree from the McGill University faculty of medicine, Montreal. He works as a hospitalist with Sutter Health in Oakland, Calif. He is an adviser on health and health care for the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley and clinical faculty at UCSF School of Medicine. This article appeared initially at The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

Over the din of the negative pressure machine, I shouted goodbye to my patient and zipped my way out of one of the little plastic enclosures in our ED and carefully shed my gloves, gown, and face shield, leaving on my precious mask. I discarded the rest with disgust and a bit of fear. I thought, “This is a whole new world, and I hate it.”

I feel as if I am constantly battling the fear of dying from COVID-19 but am doing the best I can, given the circumstances at hand. I have the proper equipment and use it well. My work still brings meaning: I serve those in need without hesitation. The problem is that deep feeling of connection with patients, which is such an important part of this work, feels like fraying threads moving further apart because of the havoc this virus has wrought. A few weeks ago, the intricate fabric of what it is to be human connected me to patients through the basics: touch, facial expressions, a physical proximity, and openhearted, honest dialogue. Much of that’s gone, and while I can carry on, I will surely burn out if I can’t figure out how to get at least some of that connection back.

Overwhelmed by the amount of information I need to process daily, I had not been thinking about the interpersonal side of the pandemic for the first weeks. I felt it leaving the ED that morning and later that day, and I felt it again with Ms. Z, who was not even suspected of having COVID. She is a 62-year-old I interviewed with the help of a translator phone. At the end of our encounter, she said “But doctor, will you make my tumor go away?” From across the room, I said, “I will try.” I saw her eyes dampen as I made a hasty exit, following protocol to limit time in the room of all patients.

Typically, leaving a patient’s room, I would feel a fullness associated with a sense of meaning. How did I feel after that? In that moment, mostly ashamed at my lack of compassion during my time with Ms. Z. Then, with further reflection, tense from all things COVID-19! Having an amped-up sympathetic nervous system is understandable, but it’s not where we want to be for our compassion to flow.

We connect best when our parasympathetic nervous system is predominant. So much of the stimuli we need to activate that part of the nervous system is gone. There is a virtuous cycle, much of it unconscious, where something positive leads to more positivity, which is crucial to meaningful patient encounters. We read each other’s facial expressions, hear the tone of voice, and as we pick up subtle cues from our patient, our nervous system is further engaged and our hearts opened.

The specter of COVID-19 has us battling a negative spiral of stress and fear. For the most part, I try to keep that from consuming me, but it clearly saps my energy during encounters. In the same way we need to marshal our resources to battle both the stress and the disease itself, we need to actively engage pro-social elements of providing care to maintain our compassion. Clearly, I needed a more concerted effort to kick start this virtuous cycle of compassion.

My next patient was Ms. J., a 55-year-old with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who came in the night before with shortness of breath. Her slight frame shook from coughing as I entered the room. I did not think she had COVID-19, but we were ruling it out.

We reviewed how she felt since admission, and I performed a hasty exam and stepped back across the room. She coughed again and said, “I feel so weak, and the world feels so crazy; tell it to me straight.” Then looking in my eyes, “I am going to make it, doc?”

I took my cue from her; I walked back to the bedside, placed a gloved hand on her shoulder and with the other, I took her hand. I bent forward just a little. Making eye contact and attempting a comforting tone of voice, I said, “Everyone is a little scared, including me. We need each other more than ever these days. We will do our best for you. That means thoughtful medical care and a whole lot of love! And, truly, I don’t think you are dying; this is just one of your COPD flares.”

“God bless you!” she said, squeezing my hand as a tear rolled down her cheek.

“Bless you, too. We all need blessing with this madness going on,” I replied. Despite the mask, I am sure she saw the smile in my eyes. “Thanks for being the beautiful person you are and opening up to me. That’s the way we will make it through this. I will see you tomorrow.” Backing away, hands together in prayer, I gave a little bow and left the room.

With Ms. J.’s help, I began to figure it out. To tackle the stress of COVID, we need to be very direct – almost to the point of exaggeration – to make sure our words and actions convey what we need to express. William James, the father of psychology, believed that if you force a smile, your emotions would follow. The neural pathways could work backward in that way. He said, “If you want a quality, act as if you have it.” The modern translation would be, “Fake it ’til you make it.’ ” You may be feeling stressed, but with a deep breath and a moment’s reflection on the suffering of that patient you are about to see, you can turn the tide on anxiety and give those under your care what they need.

These are unprecedented times; anxiety abounds. While we can aspire to positivity, there are times when we simply can’t muster showing it. Alternatively, as I experienced with Ms. J., honesty and vulnerability can open the door to meaningful connection. This can be quite powerful when we, as physicians, open up to our patients.

People are yearning for deep connection, and we should attempt to deliver it with:

• Touch (as we can) to convey connection.
• Body language that adds emphasis to our message and our emotions that may go above and beyond what we are used to.
• Tone of voice that enhances our words.
• Talk that emphasizes the big stuff, such as love, fear, connection and community

With gloves, masks, distance, and fear between and us and our patients, we need to actively engage our pro-social tools to turn the negative spiral of fear into the virtuous cycle of positive emotions that promotes healing of our patients and emotional engagement for those providing their care.
 

Dr. Hass was trained in family medicine at University of California, San Francisco, after receiving his medical degree from the McGill University faculty of medicine, Montreal. He works as a hospitalist with Sutter Health in Oakland, Calif. He is an adviser on health and health care for the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley and clinical faculty at UCSF School of Medicine. This article appeared initially at The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

Women with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation could see their survival extended by over a year by maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca).

The new overall survival (OS) data come from the SOLO2 study and were described as “a significant advance” in a cancer “that has a historically poor prognosis” by Richard Schilsky, MD, senior vice president and chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The results were highlighted at a presscast prior to being presented during the virtual scientific program of the 2020 ASCO annual meeting (abstract 6002).

The SOLO2 study randomly assigned almost 300 women with relapsed BRCA-related ovarian cancer that was responding to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance therapy with either olaparib or placebo.

Earlier results from this study showed that olaparib was associated with an investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) of 19.1 months, versus just 5.5 months with placebo, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

New data from this trial, presented by Andrés Poveda, MD, Initia Oncology, Hospital Quironsalud, in Valencia, Spain, show that olaparib improved median OS by 12.9 months compared to placebo (51.7 months with olaparib vs. 38.8 months with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .054).

At 5 years’ follow-up, 42.1% of women taking olaparib were alive, versus 33.2% taking placebo.

In an ASCO press release, Poveda described the improvement in median OS with olaparib as “impressive” and that it offers a “substantial benefit to our patients.

“This study helps usher in a new era of personalized medicine for women with this difficult-to-treat cancer,” he added.

Poveda told reporters that this study is “the first randomized phase 3 trial to provide overall survival data for maintenance PARP inhibitors.

“The finding that 22% of patient in the olaparib group received the study treatment for more than 5 years is unprecedented in the setting of relapsed ovarian cancer,” he added.

The new OS data were welcomed by Konstantin Zakashansky, MD, director of gynecologic oncology at Mount Sinai West, New York, who was not involved in the study.

“PARP inhibitor trials have revolutionized therapy for ovarian cancer in the front line, as well as in the recurrent setting, [with] all of the recently presented trials showing significant improvement in progression free survival,” he said.

“Overall survival data, however, which is considered the most clinically relevant endpoint in oncology trials and remains the ‘gold standard’ because of its relevance and objectivity, have been limited,” he continued.

Zakashansky recalled that when the earlier PFS data from SOLO2 were presented, “questions were raised regarding the clinical uncertainty of the benefit associated with olaparib maintenance, primarily whether the PFS benefit...would translate to a long-term overall survival benefit.”

For him, the current results “answer that question” and offer the “largest improvement in overall survival of any recurrent ovarian cancer patient trial reported to date.”

Schilsky added that the new data confirm that olaparib “should be the standard maintenance therapy for patients with BRCA-related relapsed ovarian cancer responding to platinum-based chemotherapy.”

The drug is already approved for this indication, but the new data showing a significant survival benefit are “comforting” and “good news,” he said.
 

Adverse events with olaparib

Treatment-emergent adverse events seen in the study were “consistent with the known tolerability profile of olaparib,” Poveda commented.

The most common events of any grade were nausea, fatigue/asthenia, and anemia. The most common event of grade ≥3 was anemia.

Adverse events leading to dose interruptions occurred in 50% of patients who received olaparib and 19% of patients who took placebo. Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 28% and 3%, respectively.

Treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was reported in 17% of patients given olaparib and 3% of those in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Poveda reports a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro and receiving expenses from PharmaMar. Many coauthors also report relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation could see their survival extended by over a year by maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca).

The new overall survival (OS) data come from the SOLO2 study and were described as “a significant advance” in a cancer “that has a historically poor prognosis” by Richard Schilsky, MD, senior vice president and chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The results were highlighted at a presscast prior to being presented during the virtual scientific program of the 2020 ASCO annual meeting (abstract 6002).

The SOLO2 study randomly assigned almost 300 women with relapsed BRCA-related ovarian cancer that was responding to platinum-based chemotherapy to maintenance therapy with either olaparib or placebo.

Earlier results from this study showed that olaparib was associated with an investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) of 19.1 months, versus just 5.5 months with placebo, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

New data from this trial, presented by Andrés Poveda, MD, Initia Oncology, Hospital Quironsalud, in Valencia, Spain, show that olaparib improved median OS by 12.9 months compared to placebo (51.7 months with olaparib vs. 38.8 months with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .054).

At 5 years’ follow-up, 42.1% of women taking olaparib were alive, versus 33.2% taking placebo.

In an ASCO press release, Poveda described the improvement in median OS with olaparib as “impressive” and that it offers a “substantial benefit to our patients.

“This study helps usher in a new era of personalized medicine for women with this difficult-to-treat cancer,” he added.

Poveda told reporters that this study is “the first randomized phase 3 trial to provide overall survival data for maintenance PARP inhibitors.

“The finding that 22% of patient in the olaparib group received the study treatment for more than 5 years is unprecedented in the setting of relapsed ovarian cancer,” he added.

The new OS data were welcomed by Konstantin Zakashansky, MD, director of gynecologic oncology at Mount Sinai West, New York, who was not involved in the study.

“PARP inhibitor trials have revolutionized therapy for ovarian cancer in the front line, as well as in the recurrent setting, [with] all of the recently presented trials showing significant improvement in progression free survival,” he said.

“Overall survival data, however, which is considered the most clinically relevant endpoint in oncology trials and remains the ‘gold standard’ because of its relevance and objectivity, have been limited,” he continued.

Zakashansky recalled that when the earlier PFS data from SOLO2 were presented, “questions were raised regarding the clinical uncertainty of the benefit associated with olaparib maintenance, primarily whether the PFS benefit...would translate to a long-term overall survival benefit.”

For him, the current results “answer that question” and offer the “largest improvement in overall survival of any recurrent ovarian cancer patient trial reported to date.”

Schilsky added that the new data confirm that olaparib “should be the standard maintenance therapy for patients with BRCA-related relapsed ovarian cancer responding to platinum-based chemotherapy.”

The drug is already approved for this indication, but the new data showing a significant survival benefit are “comforting” and “good news,” he said.
 

Adverse events with olaparib

Treatment-emergent adverse events seen in the study were “consistent with the known tolerability profile of olaparib,” Poveda commented.

The most common events of any grade were nausea, fatigue/asthenia, and anemia. The most common event of grade ≥3 was anemia.

Adverse events leading to dose interruptions occurred in 50% of patients who received olaparib and 19% of patients who took placebo. Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 28% and 3%, respectively.

Treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was reported in 17% of patients given olaparib and 3% of those in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Poveda reports a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Roche, and Tesaro and receiving expenses from PharmaMar. Many coauthors also report relationships with pharmaceutical companies.