Ob.Gyn. News

The Food and Drug Administration has approved safety labeling changes to all sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors used to treat high blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The new changes affect canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin, and were made because surgery may put patients being treated with SGLT2 inhibitors at a higher risk of ketoacidosis. Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin should be discontinued 3 days before scheduled surgery, and ertugliflozin should be stopped at least 4 days before, the agency noted in a press release. Blood glucose should be monitored after drug discontinuation and appropriately managed before surgery.

“The SGLT2 inhibitor may be restarted once the patient’s oral intake is back to baseline and any other risk factors for ketoacidosis are resolved,” the agency added.

SGLT2 inhibitors lower blood sugar by causing the kidney to remove sugar from the body through urine. Side effects for the drugs vary, but include urinary tract infections and genital mycotic infection. Patients with severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease, who are on dialysis treatment, or who have a known hypersensitivity to the medication should not take SGLT2 inhibitors, the FDA said.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved safety labeling changes to all sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors used to treat high blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The new changes affect canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin, and were made because surgery may put patients being treated with SGLT2 inhibitors at a higher risk of ketoacidosis. Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin should be discontinued 3 days before scheduled surgery, and ertugliflozin should be stopped at least 4 days before, the agency noted in a press release. Blood glucose should be monitored after drug discontinuation and appropriately managed before surgery.

“The SGLT2 inhibitor may be restarted once the patient’s oral intake is back to baseline and any other risk factors for ketoacidosis are resolved,” the agency added.

SGLT2 inhibitors lower blood sugar by causing the kidney to remove sugar from the body through urine. Side effects for the drugs vary, but include urinary tract infections and genital mycotic infection. Patients with severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease, who are on dialysis treatment, or who have a known hypersensitivity to the medication should not take SGLT2 inhibitors, the FDA said.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved safety labeling changes to all sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors used to treat high blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The new changes affect canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin, and were made because surgery may put patients being treated with SGLT2 inhibitors at a higher risk of ketoacidosis. Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin should be discontinued 3 days before scheduled surgery, and ertugliflozin should be stopped at least 4 days before, the agency noted in a press release. Blood glucose should be monitored after drug discontinuation and appropriately managed before surgery.

“The SGLT2 inhibitor may be restarted once the patient’s oral intake is back to baseline and any other risk factors for ketoacidosis are resolved,” the agency added.

SGLT2 inhibitors lower blood sugar by causing the kidney to remove sugar from the body through urine. Side effects for the drugs vary, but include urinary tract infections and genital mycotic infection. Patients with severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease, who are on dialysis treatment, or who have a known hypersensitivity to the medication should not take SGLT2 inhibitors, the FDA said.

lfranki@mdedge.com

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, it now seems like the norm is that large medical conferences are being canceled.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) canceled its 2020 annual meeting, which was scheduled for late April. The cancellation disappointed many, because we will miss out on the camaraderie and professional invigoration that comes from gathering with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals from across the United States and around the world. After the APA’s decision was announced, the White House released guidelines advising Americans to avoid social gatherings of 10 or more people.

On a practical level, many psychiatrists will not be able to earn up to 35 continuing medical education credits (CME) from attending the meeting and fulfilling the administrative requirements to obtain a CME certificate. Not only have meetings been canceled, but events many other clinicians count on for CME, such as journal clubs and department grand rounds, have been canceled until they can be moved to a virtual space.

The CME requirements for state medical licenses vary widely. On average, most states require at least 25 credits per year or 60 to 100 credits every 2 years, and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology requires diplomates to complete an average of 30 specialty and/or subspecialty CME credits per year, averaged over 3 years. Usually, annual medical conferences would be a great way to get an infusion of CME credits, brush up on cutting-edge treatments, and review the basics.

On top of everything else we have to worry about with COVID-19, getting enough CME credits has been added to the list for many psychiatrists and mental health clinicians. A public health emergency like COVID-19 is a time for flexibility and thoughtful planning. As our schedules and daily lives are disrupted, it’s important to find relief in routine activities that are not affected by social distancing and fears of isolation and quarantine. A routine activity to lean into might include learning or practicing a skill that we enjoy, such as psychiatry (hopefully!) and the practice of medicine. The CME could be focused on a psychiatric topic or perhaps learning about the specifics of COVID-19 or brushing up on medical knowledge that might be a bit rusty after many years of practicing solely psychiatry.

As you start to gather CME credits online, it’s helpful to sign up for a service that stores your CME credits and helps you keep track of the number. When it comes time to renew your medical license or apply for maintenance of certification (MOC), who wants to be the person searching through their email for PDFs of CME certificates or taking pictures or scanning paper certificates? The APA has a section under education and MOC to track certificates earned by watching online modules from its “Learning Center.” The website also allows users to upload external certificates. The American Medical Association offers a similar service on its “Ed Hub,” in which users can log in to watch, listen, or download articles to earn CME credits after finishing the associated quiz. Medscape, in the CME and Education section, also offers an easy-to-use CME dashboard, in which clinicians can filter by their specialty, topic, duration of learning activity – ranging from 0.25 to 3 CME credits. Clinicians also can track their credits as they complete activities.

If you’re someone who’s having trouble focusing on anything besides COVID-19, there are COVID-19-specific CME activities that are available and can help psychiatrists feel comfortable talking with patients, family, and their institutions about the risks of COVID-19. The AMA Ed Hub has a featured 8-credit CME course about the novel coronavirus with updates about diagnosis, treatment, and public health strategies.

For the psychiatrists who may have procrastinated in-depth learning about the opioid crisis or getting their buprenorphine waivers, AMA Ed Hub offers a 42-credit course about opioids and pain management covering guidelines, research, and treatment.

For fun refreshers on general medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine offers up to 20 online CME exams based on quizzes from interesting clinical cases ranging from “regular” medicine to rare clinical scenarios. The APA Learning Center has an easy-to-use search function allowing users to select content from more than 200 modules covering a wide range of general topics; from reviewing recent treatment guidelines to specialized psychiatric topics such as geriatric bipolar disorder. A psychiatrist who has been quickly pushed to telepsychiatry because of the current pandemic could use the APA Learning Center to find educational modules about risk management in telepsychiatry or learn the special considerations of using telepsychiatry to treat patients with serious mental illness.

Using podcasts to earn CME is becoming increasingly common, with such as outlets as JAMA Networks offering podcasts in many specialties in which subscribers can take a quiz through the JAMA app and obtain CME credits.

As our clinical boundaries as psychiatrists are pushed by an ever-changing public health situation, now is the time to earn CME focused on new topics to meet the demands placed on health care workers at the front lines of clinical care.

If the COVID-19 pandemic reaches the number of cases predicted by public health officials, our health care system is going to be under extreme stress. All specialties face the threat of losing part of their working capacity as clinicians get sick with the virus, or as they stay home because of exposure or to take care of a loved one. It’s a time for flexibility but also to flex our muscles as health care professionals. CME can be a way to empower ourselves by staying current on the cutting edge of our specialties, but also brushing up on the medicine that we may be asked to practice in a time of great need.
 

Dr. Posada is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va. She also is associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. Dr. Posada has no disclosures.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, it now seems like the norm is that large medical conferences are being canceled.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) canceled its 2020 annual meeting, which was scheduled for late April. The cancellation disappointed many, because we will miss out on the camaraderie and professional invigoration that comes from gathering with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals from across the United States and around the world. After the APA’s decision was announced, the White House released guidelines advising Americans to avoid social gatherings of 10 or more people.

On a practical level, many psychiatrists will not be able to earn up to 35 continuing medical education credits (CME) from attending the meeting and fulfilling the administrative requirements to obtain a CME certificate. Not only have meetings been canceled, but events many other clinicians count on for CME, such as journal clubs and department grand rounds, have been canceled until they can be moved to a virtual space.

The CME requirements for state medical licenses vary widely. On average, most states require at least 25 credits per year or 60 to 100 credits every 2 years, and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology requires diplomates to complete an average of 30 specialty and/or subspecialty CME credits per year, averaged over 3 years. Usually, annual medical conferences would be a great way to get an infusion of CME credits, brush up on cutting-edge treatments, and review the basics.

On top of everything else we have to worry about with COVID-19, getting enough CME credits has been added to the list for many psychiatrists and mental health clinicians. A public health emergency like COVID-19 is a time for flexibility and thoughtful planning. As our schedules and daily lives are disrupted, it’s important to find relief in routine activities that are not affected by social distancing and fears of isolation and quarantine. A routine activity to lean into might include learning or practicing a skill that we enjoy, such as psychiatry (hopefully!) and the practice of medicine. The CME could be focused on a psychiatric topic or perhaps learning about the specifics of COVID-19 or brushing up on medical knowledge that might be a bit rusty after many years of practicing solely psychiatry.

As you start to gather CME credits online, it’s helpful to sign up for a service that stores your CME credits and helps you keep track of the number. When it comes time to renew your medical license or apply for maintenance of certification (MOC), who wants to be the person searching through their email for PDFs of CME certificates or taking pictures or scanning paper certificates? The APA has a section under education and MOC to track certificates earned by watching online modules from its “Learning Center.” The website also allows users to upload external certificates. The American Medical Association offers a similar service on its “Ed Hub,” in which users can log in to watch, listen, or download articles to earn CME credits after finishing the associated quiz. Medscape, in the CME and Education section, also offers an easy-to-use CME dashboard, in which clinicians can filter by their specialty, topic, duration of learning activity – ranging from 0.25 to 3 CME credits. Clinicians also can track their credits as they complete activities.

If you’re someone who’s having trouble focusing on anything besides COVID-19, there are COVID-19-specific CME activities that are available and can help psychiatrists feel comfortable talking with patients, family, and their institutions about the risks of COVID-19. The AMA Ed Hub has a featured 8-credit CME course about the novel coronavirus with updates about diagnosis, treatment, and public health strategies.

For the psychiatrists who may have procrastinated in-depth learning about the opioid crisis or getting their buprenorphine waivers, AMA Ed Hub offers a 42-credit course about opioids and pain management covering guidelines, research, and treatment.

For fun refreshers on general medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine offers up to 20 online CME exams based on quizzes from interesting clinical cases ranging from “regular” medicine to rare clinical scenarios. The APA Learning Center has an easy-to-use search function allowing users to select content from more than 200 modules covering a wide range of general topics; from reviewing recent treatment guidelines to specialized psychiatric topics such as geriatric bipolar disorder. A psychiatrist who has been quickly pushed to telepsychiatry because of the current pandemic could use the APA Learning Center to find educational modules about risk management in telepsychiatry or learn the special considerations of using telepsychiatry to treat patients with serious mental illness.

Using podcasts to earn CME is becoming increasingly common, with such as outlets as JAMA Networks offering podcasts in many specialties in which subscribers can take a quiz through the JAMA app and obtain CME credits.

As our clinical boundaries as psychiatrists are pushed by an ever-changing public health situation, now is the time to earn CME focused on new topics to meet the demands placed on health care workers at the front lines of clinical care.

If the COVID-19 pandemic reaches the number of cases predicted by public health officials, our health care system is going to be under extreme stress. All specialties face the threat of losing part of their working capacity as clinicians get sick with the virus, or as they stay home because of exposure or to take care of a loved one. It’s a time for flexibility but also to flex our muscles as health care professionals. CME can be a way to empower ourselves by staying current on the cutting edge of our specialties, but also brushing up on the medicine that we may be asked to practice in a time of great need.
 

Dr. Posada is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va. She also is associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. Dr. Posada has no disclosures.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, it now seems like the norm is that large medical conferences are being canceled.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) canceled its 2020 annual meeting, which was scheduled for late April. The cancellation disappointed many, because we will miss out on the camaraderie and professional invigoration that comes from gathering with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals from across the United States and around the world. After the APA’s decision was announced, the White House released guidelines advising Americans to avoid social gatherings of 10 or more people.

On a practical level, many psychiatrists will not be able to earn up to 35 continuing medical education credits (CME) from attending the meeting and fulfilling the administrative requirements to obtain a CME certificate. Not only have meetings been canceled, but events many other clinicians count on for CME, such as journal clubs and department grand rounds, have been canceled until they can be moved to a virtual space.

The CME requirements for state medical licenses vary widely. On average, most states require at least 25 credits per year or 60 to 100 credits every 2 years, and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology requires diplomates to complete an average of 30 specialty and/or subspecialty CME credits per year, averaged over 3 years. Usually, annual medical conferences would be a great way to get an infusion of CME credits, brush up on cutting-edge treatments, and review the basics.

On top of everything else we have to worry about with COVID-19, getting enough CME credits has been added to the list for many psychiatrists and mental health clinicians. A public health emergency like COVID-19 is a time for flexibility and thoughtful planning. As our schedules and daily lives are disrupted, it’s important to find relief in routine activities that are not affected by social distancing and fears of isolation and quarantine. A routine activity to lean into might include learning or practicing a skill that we enjoy, such as psychiatry (hopefully!) and the practice of medicine. The CME could be focused on a psychiatric topic or perhaps learning about the specifics of COVID-19 or brushing up on medical knowledge that might be a bit rusty after many years of practicing solely psychiatry.

As you start to gather CME credits online, it’s helpful to sign up for a service that stores your CME credits and helps you keep track of the number. When it comes time to renew your medical license or apply for maintenance of certification (MOC), who wants to be the person searching through their email for PDFs of CME certificates or taking pictures or scanning paper certificates? The APA has a section under education and MOC to track certificates earned by watching online modules from its “Learning Center.” The website also allows users to upload external certificates. The American Medical Association offers a similar service on its “Ed Hub,” in which users can log in to watch, listen, or download articles to earn CME credits after finishing the associated quiz. Medscape, in the CME and Education section, also offers an easy-to-use CME dashboard, in which clinicians can filter by their specialty, topic, duration of learning activity – ranging from 0.25 to 3 CME credits. Clinicians also can track their credits as they complete activities.

If you’re someone who’s having trouble focusing on anything besides COVID-19, there are COVID-19-specific CME activities that are available and can help psychiatrists feel comfortable talking with patients, family, and their institutions about the risks of COVID-19. The AMA Ed Hub has a featured 8-credit CME course about the novel coronavirus with updates about diagnosis, treatment, and public health strategies.

For the psychiatrists who may have procrastinated in-depth learning about the opioid crisis or getting their buprenorphine waivers, AMA Ed Hub offers a 42-credit course about opioids and pain management covering guidelines, research, and treatment.

For fun refreshers on general medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine offers up to 20 online CME exams based on quizzes from interesting clinical cases ranging from “regular” medicine to rare clinical scenarios. The APA Learning Center has an easy-to-use search function allowing users to select content from more than 200 modules covering a wide range of general topics; from reviewing recent treatment guidelines to specialized psychiatric topics such as geriatric bipolar disorder. A psychiatrist who has been quickly pushed to telepsychiatry because of the current pandemic could use the APA Learning Center to find educational modules about risk management in telepsychiatry or learn the special considerations of using telepsychiatry to treat patients with serious mental illness.

Using podcasts to earn CME is becoming increasingly common, with such as outlets as JAMA Networks offering podcasts in many specialties in which subscribers can take a quiz through the JAMA app and obtain CME credits.

As our clinical boundaries as psychiatrists are pushed by an ever-changing public health situation, now is the time to earn CME focused on new topics to meet the demands placed on health care workers at the front lines of clinical care.

If the COVID-19 pandemic reaches the number of cases predicted by public health officials, our health care system is going to be under extreme stress. All specialties face the threat of losing part of their working capacity as clinicians get sick with the virus, or as they stay home because of exposure or to take care of a loved one. It’s a time for flexibility but also to flex our muscles as health care professionals. CME can be a way to empower ourselves by staying current on the cutting edge of our specialties, but also brushing up on the medicine that we may be asked to practice in a time of great need.
 

Dr. Posada is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va. She also is associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. Dr. Posada has no disclosures.

This article is the first in a series on maternal mortality.

“You’re in really bad shape, kid. I don’t know if you’re gonna live through the night. I’m going to do everything I can to save your life, but the truth is you might die.”

If Timoria McQueen Saba imagined the words she would hear in the moments after she gave birth, those likely weren’t among them. But then she started to bleed. The energy around her shifted; she felt the urgency and intensity in the room, and she could see it – reflected from the television monitor over her bed – in the faces of her care team. After her husband and newborn daughter were led from the room, she did, in fact, hear those words.

They were spoken by a surgeon called in after efforts to control the bleeding failed – emetic words that joined forces with her hemorrhaging and confusion and fear, and as she began to vomit, her eyelids felt heavy. She fought to keep them open, sensing that if she closed them they might never open again.

In 2018 alone, similar words perhaps were spoken to the 658 U.S. women who suffered maternal complications and whose eyes never did open again. This is the latest official maternal mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Ms. Saba’s eyes, however, remained open through her birth trauma and through the PTSD that followed. A fierce advocate for maternal health, she shares her story often, as she did during a panel discussion at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ annual meeting in May 2019, in an effort to improve outcomes for other women and families.

But her story unfolded nearly a decade ago and those eyes still are seeing women die from childbirth. Despite her efforts and the efforts of countless other individuals and organizations working to improve maternal outcomes, the new CDC data show that the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate of any similarly wealthy industrialized nation.

“I cannot believe I’m still talking about this issue,” Ms. Saba told a standing-room-only crowd and her copanelists Neel T. Shah, MD, and Charles S. Johnson IV, whose wife, Kira, died in 2016 during surgery for bleeding complications following the birth of their second child. “If all the people who I’d written to had just listened maybe once and tried to propel my message forward back then, Charles would be in a much better situation and so would his children.”

Mr. Johnson said that for 10 hours he and other family members pleaded for help for Kira, a healthy, vibrant women he described as “sunshine personified.”

She showed signs of postpartum bleeding after delivering a healthy baby boy by C-section, but a “STAT CT” order went unheeded for hours before she was finally taken for surgery.

“You’re walking down this corridor, you get to this point, these double doors open, and you just can’t go any further – and that was the last time I saw my wife alive,” he said. “When they took Kira back into the operating room, there were three-and-a-half liters of blood in her abdomen, and her heart stopped immediately.

Kira Johnson died April 13, 2016.

“I’m not here to tell you what I think, I’m here to tell you what I know, and that’s that Kira deserved so much better, and that Kira’s not alone, and that women all over this country deserve so much better.”

The U.S. maternal mortality crisis

Dr. Shah, an ob.gyn. at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and director of the Delivery Decisions Initiative at Harvard Medical School’s Ariadne Labs, both in Boston, where he has “been on this mission to improve safety in childbirth for years now,” echoed Ms. Saba’s dismay regarding the pace of progress.

“It’s not just about the present, it’s about the future, it’s about the pact that every generation ought to have with the next one to leave things at least as well as they found them. And when it comes to the health of our moms in this country, we are not doing that,” he said. “An American mom today is 50% more likely to die in childbirth than her own mother was, and 3-4 times more likely to die if she’s black than if she’s white.”

Indeed, the data released Jan. 30 by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) – the first on maternal mortality released by the agency since 2007 – show a U.S. maternal mortality rate of 17.4 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2018.

The rate is higher than the 12.7 per 100,000 live births reported in 2007, but the increase is attributable mostly to changes in data collection and reporting methods. In 2003, “a consensus process recommended that all states add a standardized ‘checkbox’ to improve the identification of maternal deaths,” and implementation wasn’t complete until 2017 as “funding, technology, and state laws allowed,” meaning 2018 was the first year that data were reported in a standardized fashion across states, the CDC explained in a press release.

The data demonstrate ongoing wide racial/ethnic disparities: the maternal mortality rates for non-Hispanic black women, non-Hispanic white women, and Hispanic women were 37.1, 14.7, and 11.8 per 100,000 live births, consistent with earlier data.

Further, the rates for women aged 40 years and over were nearly eightfold higher than for those under age 25 years (81.9 vs. 10.6 per 100,000 live births).

CDC officials noted, however, that inconsistencies in reporting still leave some question about the accuracy of the data, stating in the release that “NCHS has identified instances where application of the checkbox information according to coding rules led to misclassification of maternal deaths.”

The agency is making changes in rules and reporting to ensure greater accuracy, but the numbers nevertheless reveal a startling truth: “The United States is the most dangerous place to deliver a baby in the industrialized world.”

 

Progress and challenges

Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. who served for 4 years as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health before leaving the position in January, made that statement during another panel discussion at ACOG 2019 – The President’s Panel: Maternal Mortality: Progress Toward Prevention – which was moderated by Lisa M. Hollier, MD, now the immediate past president of ACOG.

Texas Children's Hospital

That’s not to say progress hasn’t been or can’t be made, Dr. Gee said.

In fact, quality improvement measures she facilitated in Louisiana led to a 25% reduction in infant mortality and a 10% reduction in neonatal intensive care unit admissions, demonstrating the potential for improvement with such initiatives, but addressing maternal issues is a greater challenge, she said.

“I think part of the sad truth is that we really focus on babies first, not moms ... and that needs to change,” Dr. Gee said.

Dr. Hollier focused much of her attention during her tenure as ACOG president on doing just that, particularly through an emphasis on heart disease, which is the leading cause of U.S. maternal deaths in pregnancy and the postpartum period.

In an interview, she shared her thoughts on the progress achieved and the work that remains.

ACOG was instrumental in the enactment of the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act of 2018, which appropriated funding for Enhancing Reviews and Surveillance to Eliminate Maternal Mortality (ERASE MM), a CDC initiative to support state-based maternal mortality review committees, said Dr. Hollier, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“The really great news is that almost immediately after passage of the legislation, the CDC put out the notice of the funding opportunity, and they were able to provide 24 awards supporting 25 states,” she said.

ERASE MM will enhance state data collection and availability and enable a level of data sharing that “will really add strength and depth to reporting from the maternal mortality review committees, which really provides us with the best information we have to truly understand the causes, the contributing factors, and the strategies that can be put in place to prevent future maternal deaths.”

Further, the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health (AIM) program, a cooperative agreement with the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Maternal and Child Health Bureau to improve safety and outcomes through evidence-based patient safety bundles, was extended, and in May 2019, ACOG updated its guidance on managing cardiac contributors to maternal mortality, releasing its “Pregnancy and Heart Disease” Practice Bulletin, she said.

Dr. Hollier continues in her quest for improved maternal outcomes. She is slated to deliver a keynote address at the American College of Cardiology/World Congress of Cardiology conference March 28 in Chicago.

“I’m so excited ... to talk about the new guidelines that we’ve put out and to really talk about how cardiologists and ob.gyns. can work together to improve women’s health outcomes,” she said, adding that she already is seeing a strengthening of such partnerships.

A number of academic institutions are developing “pregnancy heart teams” to identify and care for women who have or develop heart disease during pregnancy.

“This type of collaboration ... is going to be essential to address mortality from cardiovascular causes and from cardiomyopathy, which accounts for about 25% of all maternal mortality,” she said. “The next area where we really need some buy-in is from our emergency physicians.”

Enhanced collaboration with emergency physicians and other specialties present opportunities to better identify and address pregnancy-related complications and sequelae, she said.

“Women are dying because they’re not being diagnosed,” she added. “We have to raise that level of awareness – it’s just absolutely critical.”
 

Identifying and addressing drivers of the crisis

Dr. Gee further emphasized the importance of addressing maternal health, noting that for every woman who dies from maternal causes, 100 experience maternal morbidity.

“It’s startling and it’s scary,” she said. “We are looking at this not just as a problem of outcomes, but a problem of racial inequity and racial bias and implicit bias.”

When she and her team assessed maternal mortality in Louisiana, they looked specifically at whether each death could have been prevented if, for example, blood was given sooner, cardiomyopathy was recognized sooner, or hypertension was treated on time.

“When we looked at these numbers ... when we looked at white women, 9% of the time we could have done better with our medical care; with black women, 59% of the time we could have saved her life with better care,” said Dr Gee, who is a gratis assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Louisiana State University, New Orleans. “And if that doesn’t convince you that racial bias is an incredibly important thing to address – that we need to have a conversation about and address at a national level – I don’t know what would.”

In fact, numerous health, societal, socioeconomic, and other factors – some known, some yet to be identified, and many inter-related – are among the drivers of the U.S. maternal mortality crisis. In the coming months, an Ob.Gyn. News team will examine several of these drivers in depth. We’ll look specifically at the role of racism and bias, and at urban-rural disparities in access and outcomes – especially for women of color and indigenous women. We’ll address the scope and impact of each, successes and failures in addressing the problems, and ongoing initiatives.

Follow us for insights from experts, researchers, practicing physicians, and patients and families affected by the maternal mortality crisis, and stay with us through coverage of ACOG 2020 for perspective on what, specifically, ob.gyns. can do about it.

Mr. Johnson proposed a starting point:

“Here’s the good news – you guys ready for this? We can fix this,” he said, adding that the solution starts with “speaking Timoria’s name ... speaking the name of Kira Dixon Johnson ... speaking the names of these women and then asking the people that are around you, ‘What are we prepared to do to make sure that this doesn’t happen to other women.’ ”

sworcester@mdedge.com

This article is the first in a series on maternal mortality.

“You’re in really bad shape, kid. I don’t know if you’re gonna live through the night. I’m going to do everything I can to save your life, but the truth is you might die.”

If Timoria McQueen Saba imagined the words she would hear in the moments after she gave birth, those likely weren’t among them. But then she started to bleed. The energy around her shifted; she felt the urgency and intensity in the room, and she could see it – reflected from the television monitor over her bed – in the faces of her care team. After her husband and newborn daughter were led from the room, she did, in fact, hear those words.

They were spoken by a surgeon called in after efforts to control the bleeding failed – emetic words that joined forces with her hemorrhaging and confusion and fear, and as she began to vomit, her eyelids felt heavy. She fought to keep them open, sensing that if she closed them they might never open again.

In 2018 alone, similar words perhaps were spoken to the 658 U.S. women who suffered maternal complications and whose eyes never did open again. This is the latest official maternal mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Ms. Saba’s eyes, however, remained open through her birth trauma and through the PTSD that followed. A fierce advocate for maternal health, she shares her story often, as she did during a panel discussion at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ annual meeting in May 2019, in an effort to improve outcomes for other women and families.

But her story unfolded nearly a decade ago and those eyes still are seeing women die from childbirth. Despite her efforts and the efforts of countless other individuals and organizations working to improve maternal outcomes, the new CDC data show that the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate of any similarly wealthy industrialized nation.

“I cannot believe I’m still talking about this issue,” Ms. Saba told a standing-room-only crowd and her copanelists Neel T. Shah, MD, and Charles S. Johnson IV, whose wife, Kira, died in 2016 during surgery for bleeding complications following the birth of their second child. “If all the people who I’d written to had just listened maybe once and tried to propel my message forward back then, Charles would be in a much better situation and so would his children.”

Mr. Johnson said that for 10 hours he and other family members pleaded for help for Kira, a healthy, vibrant women he described as “sunshine personified.”

She showed signs of postpartum bleeding after delivering a healthy baby boy by C-section, but a “STAT CT” order went unheeded for hours before she was finally taken for surgery.

“You’re walking down this corridor, you get to this point, these double doors open, and you just can’t go any further – and that was the last time I saw my wife alive,” he said. “When they took Kira back into the operating room, there were three-and-a-half liters of blood in her abdomen, and her heart stopped immediately.

Kira Johnson died April 13, 2016.

“I’m not here to tell you what I think, I’m here to tell you what I know, and that’s that Kira deserved so much better, and that Kira’s not alone, and that women all over this country deserve so much better.”

The U.S. maternal mortality crisis

Dr. Shah, an ob.gyn. at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and director of the Delivery Decisions Initiative at Harvard Medical School’s Ariadne Labs, both in Boston, where he has “been on this mission to improve safety in childbirth for years now,” echoed Ms. Saba’s dismay regarding the pace of progress.

“It’s not just about the present, it’s about the future, it’s about the pact that every generation ought to have with the next one to leave things at least as well as they found them. And when it comes to the health of our moms in this country, we are not doing that,” he said. “An American mom today is 50% more likely to die in childbirth than her own mother was, and 3-4 times more likely to die if she’s black than if she’s white.”

Indeed, the data released Jan. 30 by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) – the first on maternal mortality released by the agency since 2007 – show a U.S. maternal mortality rate of 17.4 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2018.

The rate is higher than the 12.7 per 100,000 live births reported in 2007, but the increase is attributable mostly to changes in data collection and reporting methods. In 2003, “a consensus process recommended that all states add a standardized ‘checkbox’ to improve the identification of maternal deaths,” and implementation wasn’t complete until 2017 as “funding, technology, and state laws allowed,” meaning 2018 was the first year that data were reported in a standardized fashion across states, the CDC explained in a press release.

The data demonstrate ongoing wide racial/ethnic disparities: the maternal mortality rates for non-Hispanic black women, non-Hispanic white women, and Hispanic women were 37.1, 14.7, and 11.8 per 100,000 live births, consistent with earlier data.

Further, the rates for women aged 40 years and over were nearly eightfold higher than for those under age 25 years (81.9 vs. 10.6 per 100,000 live births).

CDC officials noted, however, that inconsistencies in reporting still leave some question about the accuracy of the data, stating in the release that “NCHS has identified instances where application of the checkbox information according to coding rules led to misclassification of maternal deaths.”

The agency is making changes in rules and reporting to ensure greater accuracy, but the numbers nevertheless reveal a startling truth: “The United States is the most dangerous place to deliver a baby in the industrialized world.”

 

Progress and challenges

Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. who served for 4 years as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health before leaving the position in January, made that statement during another panel discussion at ACOG 2019 – The President’s Panel: Maternal Mortality: Progress Toward Prevention – which was moderated by Lisa M. Hollier, MD, now the immediate past president of ACOG.

Texas Children's Hospital

That’s not to say progress hasn’t been or can’t be made, Dr. Gee said.

In fact, quality improvement measures she facilitated in Louisiana led to a 25% reduction in infant mortality and a 10% reduction in neonatal intensive care unit admissions, demonstrating the potential for improvement with such initiatives, but addressing maternal issues is a greater challenge, she said.

“I think part of the sad truth is that we really focus on babies first, not moms ... and that needs to change,” Dr. Gee said.

Dr. Hollier focused much of her attention during her tenure as ACOG president on doing just that, particularly through an emphasis on heart disease, which is the leading cause of U.S. maternal deaths in pregnancy and the postpartum period.

In an interview, she shared her thoughts on the progress achieved and the work that remains.

ACOG was instrumental in the enactment of the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act of 2018, which appropriated funding for Enhancing Reviews and Surveillance to Eliminate Maternal Mortality (ERASE MM), a CDC initiative to support state-based maternal mortality review committees, said Dr. Hollier, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“The really great news is that almost immediately after passage of the legislation, the CDC put out the notice of the funding opportunity, and they were able to provide 24 awards supporting 25 states,” she said.

ERASE MM will enhance state data collection and availability and enable a level of data sharing that “will really add strength and depth to reporting from the maternal mortality review committees, which really provides us with the best information we have to truly understand the causes, the contributing factors, and the strategies that can be put in place to prevent future maternal deaths.”

Further, the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health (AIM) program, a cooperative agreement with the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Maternal and Child Health Bureau to improve safety and outcomes through evidence-based patient safety bundles, was extended, and in May 2019, ACOG updated its guidance on managing cardiac contributors to maternal mortality, releasing its “Pregnancy and Heart Disease” Practice Bulletin, she said.

Dr. Hollier continues in her quest for improved maternal outcomes. She is slated to deliver a keynote address at the American College of Cardiology/World Congress of Cardiology conference March 28 in Chicago.

“I’m so excited ... to talk about the new guidelines that we’ve put out and to really talk about how cardiologists and ob.gyns. can work together to improve women’s health outcomes,” she said, adding that she already is seeing a strengthening of such partnerships.

A number of academic institutions are developing “pregnancy heart teams” to identify and care for women who have or develop heart disease during pregnancy.

“This type of collaboration ... is going to be essential to address mortality from cardiovascular causes and from cardiomyopathy, which accounts for about 25% of all maternal mortality,” she said. “The next area where we really need some buy-in is from our emergency physicians.”

Enhanced collaboration with emergency physicians and other specialties present opportunities to better identify and address pregnancy-related complications and sequelae, she said.

“Women are dying because they’re not being diagnosed,” she added. “We have to raise that level of awareness – it’s just absolutely critical.”
 

Identifying and addressing drivers of the crisis

Dr. Gee further emphasized the importance of addressing maternal health, noting that for every woman who dies from maternal causes, 100 experience maternal morbidity.

“It’s startling and it’s scary,” she said. “We are looking at this not just as a problem of outcomes, but a problem of racial inequity and racial bias and implicit bias.”

When she and her team assessed maternal mortality in Louisiana, they looked specifically at whether each death could have been prevented if, for example, blood was given sooner, cardiomyopathy was recognized sooner, or hypertension was treated on time.

“When we looked at these numbers ... when we looked at white women, 9% of the time we could have done better with our medical care; with black women, 59% of the time we could have saved her life with better care,” said Dr Gee, who is a gratis assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Louisiana State University, New Orleans. “And if that doesn’t convince you that racial bias is an incredibly important thing to address – that we need to have a conversation about and address at a national level – I don’t know what would.”

In fact, numerous health, societal, socioeconomic, and other factors – some known, some yet to be identified, and many inter-related – are among the drivers of the U.S. maternal mortality crisis. In the coming months, an Ob.Gyn. News team will examine several of these drivers in depth. We’ll look specifically at the role of racism and bias, and at urban-rural disparities in access and outcomes – especially for women of color and indigenous women. We’ll address the scope and impact of each, successes and failures in addressing the problems, and ongoing initiatives.

Follow us for insights from experts, researchers, practicing physicians, and patients and families affected by the maternal mortality crisis, and stay with us through coverage of ACOG 2020 for perspective on what, specifically, ob.gyns. can do about it.

Mr. Johnson proposed a starting point:

“Here’s the good news – you guys ready for this? We can fix this,” he said, adding that the solution starts with “speaking Timoria’s name ... speaking the name of Kira Dixon Johnson ... speaking the names of these women and then asking the people that are around you, ‘What are we prepared to do to make sure that this doesn’t happen to other women.’ ”

sworcester@mdedge.com

This article is the first in a series on maternal mortality.

“You’re in really bad shape, kid. I don’t know if you’re gonna live through the night. I’m going to do everything I can to save your life, but the truth is you might die.”

If Timoria McQueen Saba imagined the words she would hear in the moments after she gave birth, those likely weren’t among them. But then she started to bleed. The energy around her shifted; she felt the urgency and intensity in the room, and she could see it – reflected from the television monitor over her bed – in the faces of her care team. After her husband and newborn daughter were led from the room, she did, in fact, hear those words.

They were spoken by a surgeon called in after efforts to control the bleeding failed – emetic words that joined forces with her hemorrhaging and confusion and fear, and as she began to vomit, her eyelids felt heavy. She fought to keep them open, sensing that if she closed them they might never open again.

In 2018 alone, similar words perhaps were spoken to the 658 U.S. women who suffered maternal complications and whose eyes never did open again. This is the latest official maternal mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Ms. Saba’s eyes, however, remained open through her birth trauma and through the PTSD that followed. A fierce advocate for maternal health, she shares her story often, as she did during a panel discussion at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ annual meeting in May 2019, in an effort to improve outcomes for other women and families.

But her story unfolded nearly a decade ago and those eyes still are seeing women die from childbirth. Despite her efforts and the efforts of countless other individuals and organizations working to improve maternal outcomes, the new CDC data show that the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate of any similarly wealthy industrialized nation.

“I cannot believe I’m still talking about this issue,” Ms. Saba told a standing-room-only crowd and her copanelists Neel T. Shah, MD, and Charles S. Johnson IV, whose wife, Kira, died in 2016 during surgery for bleeding complications following the birth of their second child. “If all the people who I’d written to had just listened maybe once and tried to propel my message forward back then, Charles would be in a much better situation and so would his children.”

Mr. Johnson said that for 10 hours he and other family members pleaded for help for Kira, a healthy, vibrant women he described as “sunshine personified.”

She showed signs of postpartum bleeding after delivering a healthy baby boy by C-section, but a “STAT CT” order went unheeded for hours before she was finally taken for surgery.

“You’re walking down this corridor, you get to this point, these double doors open, and you just can’t go any further – and that was the last time I saw my wife alive,” he said. “When they took Kira back into the operating room, there were three-and-a-half liters of blood in her abdomen, and her heart stopped immediately.

Kira Johnson died April 13, 2016.

“I’m not here to tell you what I think, I’m here to tell you what I know, and that’s that Kira deserved so much better, and that Kira’s not alone, and that women all over this country deserve so much better.”

The U.S. maternal mortality crisis

Dr. Shah, an ob.gyn. at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and director of the Delivery Decisions Initiative at Harvard Medical School’s Ariadne Labs, both in Boston, where he has “been on this mission to improve safety in childbirth for years now,” echoed Ms. Saba’s dismay regarding the pace of progress.

“It’s not just about the present, it’s about the future, it’s about the pact that every generation ought to have with the next one to leave things at least as well as they found them. And when it comes to the health of our moms in this country, we are not doing that,” he said. “An American mom today is 50% more likely to die in childbirth than her own mother was, and 3-4 times more likely to die if she’s black than if she’s white.”

Indeed, the data released Jan. 30 by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) – the first on maternal mortality released by the agency since 2007 – show a U.S. maternal mortality rate of 17.4 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2018.

The rate is higher than the 12.7 per 100,000 live births reported in 2007, but the increase is attributable mostly to changes in data collection and reporting methods. In 2003, “a consensus process recommended that all states add a standardized ‘checkbox’ to improve the identification of maternal deaths,” and implementation wasn’t complete until 2017 as “funding, technology, and state laws allowed,” meaning 2018 was the first year that data were reported in a standardized fashion across states, the CDC explained in a press release.

The data demonstrate ongoing wide racial/ethnic disparities: the maternal mortality rates for non-Hispanic black women, non-Hispanic white women, and Hispanic women were 37.1, 14.7, and 11.8 per 100,000 live births, consistent with earlier data.

Further, the rates for women aged 40 years and over were nearly eightfold higher than for those under age 25 years (81.9 vs. 10.6 per 100,000 live births).

CDC officials noted, however, that inconsistencies in reporting still leave some question about the accuracy of the data, stating in the release that “NCHS has identified instances where application of the checkbox information according to coding rules led to misclassification of maternal deaths.”

The agency is making changes in rules and reporting to ensure greater accuracy, but the numbers nevertheless reveal a startling truth: “The United States is the most dangerous place to deliver a baby in the industrialized world.”

 

Progress and challenges

Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. who served for 4 years as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health before leaving the position in January, made that statement during another panel discussion at ACOG 2019 – The President’s Panel: Maternal Mortality: Progress Toward Prevention – which was moderated by Lisa M. Hollier, MD, now the immediate past president of ACOG.

Texas Children's Hospital

That’s not to say progress hasn’t been or can’t be made, Dr. Gee said.

In fact, quality improvement measures she facilitated in Louisiana led to a 25% reduction in infant mortality and a 10% reduction in neonatal intensive care unit admissions, demonstrating the potential for improvement with such initiatives, but addressing maternal issues is a greater challenge, she said.

“I think part of the sad truth is that we really focus on babies first, not moms ... and that needs to change,” Dr. Gee said.

Dr. Hollier focused much of her attention during her tenure as ACOG president on doing just that, particularly through an emphasis on heart disease, which is the leading cause of U.S. maternal deaths in pregnancy and the postpartum period.

In an interview, she shared her thoughts on the progress achieved and the work that remains.

ACOG was instrumental in the enactment of the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act of 2018, which appropriated funding for Enhancing Reviews and Surveillance to Eliminate Maternal Mortality (ERASE MM), a CDC initiative to support state-based maternal mortality review committees, said Dr. Hollier, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“The really great news is that almost immediately after passage of the legislation, the CDC put out the notice of the funding opportunity, and they were able to provide 24 awards supporting 25 states,” she said.

ERASE MM will enhance state data collection and availability and enable a level of data sharing that “will really add strength and depth to reporting from the maternal mortality review committees, which really provides us with the best information we have to truly understand the causes, the contributing factors, and the strategies that can be put in place to prevent future maternal deaths.”

Further, the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health (AIM) program, a cooperative agreement with the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Maternal and Child Health Bureau to improve safety and outcomes through evidence-based patient safety bundles, was extended, and in May 2019, ACOG updated its guidance on managing cardiac contributors to maternal mortality, releasing its “Pregnancy and Heart Disease” Practice Bulletin, she said.

Dr. Hollier continues in her quest for improved maternal outcomes. She is slated to deliver a keynote address at the American College of Cardiology/World Congress of Cardiology conference March 28 in Chicago.

“I’m so excited ... to talk about the new guidelines that we’ve put out and to really talk about how cardiologists and ob.gyns. can work together to improve women’s health outcomes,” she said, adding that she already is seeing a strengthening of such partnerships.

A number of academic institutions are developing “pregnancy heart teams” to identify and care for women who have or develop heart disease during pregnancy.

“This type of collaboration ... is going to be essential to address mortality from cardiovascular causes and from cardiomyopathy, which accounts for about 25% of all maternal mortality,” she said. “The next area where we really need some buy-in is from our emergency physicians.”

Enhanced collaboration with emergency physicians and other specialties present opportunities to better identify and address pregnancy-related complications and sequelae, she said.

“Women are dying because they’re not being diagnosed,” she added. “We have to raise that level of awareness – it’s just absolutely critical.”
 

Identifying and addressing drivers of the crisis

Dr. Gee further emphasized the importance of addressing maternal health, noting that for every woman who dies from maternal causes, 100 experience maternal morbidity.

“It’s startling and it’s scary,” she said. “We are looking at this not just as a problem of outcomes, but a problem of racial inequity and racial bias and implicit bias.”

When she and her team assessed maternal mortality in Louisiana, they looked specifically at whether each death could have been prevented if, for example, blood was given sooner, cardiomyopathy was recognized sooner, or hypertension was treated on time.

“When we looked at these numbers ... when we looked at white women, 9% of the time we could have done better with our medical care; with black women, 59% of the time we could have saved her life with better care,” said Dr Gee, who is a gratis assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Louisiana State University, New Orleans. “And if that doesn’t convince you that racial bias is an incredibly important thing to address – that we need to have a conversation about and address at a national level – I don’t know what would.”

In fact, numerous health, societal, socioeconomic, and other factors – some known, some yet to be identified, and many inter-related – are among the drivers of the U.S. maternal mortality crisis. In the coming months, an Ob.Gyn. News team will examine several of these drivers in depth. We’ll look specifically at the role of racism and bias, and at urban-rural disparities in access and outcomes – especially for women of color and indigenous women. We’ll address the scope and impact of each, successes and failures in addressing the problems, and ongoing initiatives.

Follow us for insights from experts, researchers, practicing physicians, and patients and families affected by the maternal mortality crisis, and stay with us through coverage of ACOG 2020 for perspective on what, specifically, ob.gyns. can do about it.

Mr. Johnson proposed a starting point:

“Here’s the good news – you guys ready for this? We can fix this,” he said, adding that the solution starts with “speaking Timoria’s name ... speaking the name of Kira Dixon Johnson ... speaking the names of these women and then asking the people that are around you, ‘What are we prepared to do to make sure that this doesn’t happen to other women.’ ”

sworcester@mdedge.com

The Trump Administration is looking to telehealth services to play a more prominent role in helping mitigate the spread of COVID-19 by expanding existing benefits for Medicare beneficiaries.

“Medicare can pay for office, hospital, and other visits furnished via telehealth across the country and including in patients’ places of residence, starting March 6, 2020,” the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said in a fact sheet issued March 17.

Some of the existing benefits were previously limited to rural communities.

“Medicare beneficiaries across the nation, no matter where they live, will now be able to receive a wide range of services via telehealth without ever having to leave home,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during a March 17 White House press briefing on administration actions to contain the spread of COVID-19. “These services can also be provided in a variety of settings, including nursing homes, hospital outpatient departments, and more.”

That means that seniors can continue to receive their routine care without having to leave the home and risk infection, or they can get medical guidance if they have mild symptoms, which would help mitigate the spread to others.

“This shift is very important for clinicians and providers who, over the coming weeks, will face considerable strain on their time and resources,” Dr. Verma said. “[It] allows the health care system to prioritize care for those who have more needs or who are in dire need, and it also preserves protective equipment.”

A range of providers will be able to deliver telehealth services, including doctors, nurse practitioners, clinical psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers. Visits using the telehealth services will be considered the same as in-person visits and will be paid as if the patient were seen in the office.

This expansion of Medicare telehealth services will continue for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

“In addition, the [Health and Human Services’] office of inspector general is providing flexibility for health care providers to reduce or waive cost-sharing for telehealth visits paid by federal health care programs,” the fact sheet states. CMS also said it will not conduct audits to ensure that an established relationship exists between the provider and the patient – a prior requirement for telehealth billing – during this public health emergency.

Billing for virtual check-ins, which are essentially brief conversations that may not require a full visit to the physician office, needs an established relationship between the practice and the patient. Likewise, for e-visits, which include non–face-to-face communications through online patient portals, billing can occur only when there is an established patient relationship.

Key to the expansion is that it will cover the entire United States and will not be limited to rural areas.

Dr. Verma also noted that the administration “will be temporarily suspending certain HIPAA requirements so that doctors can provide telehealth with their own phones.”

She noted this was all a part of mitigation efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19.

“As we are encouraging Americans to stay home whenever possible, we don’t want our Medicare policies getting in the way,” she said, adding that state Medicaid agencies can expand their telehealth services without the approval of CMS during this emergency.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The Trump Administration is looking to telehealth services to play a more prominent role in helping mitigate the spread of COVID-19 by expanding existing benefits for Medicare beneficiaries.

“Medicare can pay for office, hospital, and other visits furnished via telehealth across the country and including in patients’ places of residence, starting March 6, 2020,” the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said in a fact sheet issued March 17.

Some of the existing benefits were previously limited to rural communities.

“Medicare beneficiaries across the nation, no matter where they live, will now be able to receive a wide range of services via telehealth without ever having to leave home,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during a March 17 White House press briefing on administration actions to contain the spread of COVID-19. “These services can also be provided in a variety of settings, including nursing homes, hospital outpatient departments, and more.”

That means that seniors can continue to receive their routine care without having to leave the home and risk infection, or they can get medical guidance if they have mild symptoms, which would help mitigate the spread to others.

“This shift is very important for clinicians and providers who, over the coming weeks, will face considerable strain on their time and resources,” Dr. Verma said. “[It] allows the health care system to prioritize care for those who have more needs or who are in dire need, and it also preserves protective equipment.”

A range of providers will be able to deliver telehealth services, including doctors, nurse practitioners, clinical psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers. Visits using the telehealth services will be considered the same as in-person visits and will be paid as if the patient were seen in the office.

This expansion of Medicare telehealth services will continue for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

“In addition, the [Health and Human Services’] office of inspector general is providing flexibility for health care providers to reduce or waive cost-sharing for telehealth visits paid by federal health care programs,” the fact sheet states. CMS also said it will not conduct audits to ensure that an established relationship exists between the provider and the patient – a prior requirement for telehealth billing – during this public health emergency.

Billing for virtual check-ins, which are essentially brief conversations that may not require a full visit to the physician office, needs an established relationship between the practice and the patient. Likewise, for e-visits, which include non–face-to-face communications through online patient portals, billing can occur only when there is an established patient relationship.

Key to the expansion is that it will cover the entire United States and will not be limited to rural areas.

Dr. Verma also noted that the administration “will be temporarily suspending certain HIPAA requirements so that doctors can provide telehealth with their own phones.”

She noted this was all a part of mitigation efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19.

“As we are encouraging Americans to stay home whenever possible, we don’t want our Medicare policies getting in the way,” she said, adding that state Medicaid agencies can expand their telehealth services without the approval of CMS during this emergency.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The Trump Administration is looking to telehealth services to play a more prominent role in helping mitigate the spread of COVID-19 by expanding existing benefits for Medicare beneficiaries.

“Medicare can pay for office, hospital, and other visits furnished via telehealth across the country and including in patients’ places of residence, starting March 6, 2020,” the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said in a fact sheet issued March 17.

Some of the existing benefits were previously limited to rural communities.

“Medicare beneficiaries across the nation, no matter where they live, will now be able to receive a wide range of services via telehealth without ever having to leave home,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during a March 17 White House press briefing on administration actions to contain the spread of COVID-19. “These services can also be provided in a variety of settings, including nursing homes, hospital outpatient departments, and more.”

That means that seniors can continue to receive their routine care without having to leave the home and risk infection, or they can get medical guidance if they have mild symptoms, which would help mitigate the spread to others.

“This shift is very important for clinicians and providers who, over the coming weeks, will face considerable strain on their time and resources,” Dr. Verma said. “[It] allows the health care system to prioritize care for those who have more needs or who are in dire need, and it also preserves protective equipment.”

A range of providers will be able to deliver telehealth services, including doctors, nurse practitioners, clinical psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers. Visits using the telehealth services will be considered the same as in-person visits and will be paid as if the patient were seen in the office.

This expansion of Medicare telehealth services will continue for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

“In addition, the [Health and Human Services’] office of inspector general is providing flexibility for health care providers to reduce or waive cost-sharing for telehealth visits paid by federal health care programs,” the fact sheet states. CMS also said it will not conduct audits to ensure that an established relationship exists between the provider and the patient – a prior requirement for telehealth billing – during this public health emergency.

Billing for virtual check-ins, which are essentially brief conversations that may not require a full visit to the physician office, needs an established relationship between the practice and the patient. Likewise, for e-visits, which include non–face-to-face communications through online patient portals, billing can occur only when there is an established patient relationship.

Key to the expansion is that it will cover the entire United States and will not be limited to rural areas.

Dr. Verma also noted that the administration “will be temporarily suspending certain HIPAA requirements so that doctors can provide telehealth with their own phones.”

She noted this was all a part of mitigation efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19.

“As we are encouraging Americans to stay home whenever possible, we don’t want our Medicare policies getting in the way,” she said, adding that state Medicaid agencies can expand their telehealth services without the approval of CMS during this emergency.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

In December, at a major breast cancer conference, some attendees couldn’t find a seat and were told to leave an overcrowded session on immunotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). They refused, and pushed in to hear what was being said.

The crowd might have been surprised to learn that the main draw of the event, a successful new drug, was not all it might have been for women with the disease, being handicapped by a test that determines who is eligible for it.

“That room was overpacked ― there were five people deep against the wall. ... It was amazing,” said Janice Cowden of Bradenton, Florida. She attended the meeting, the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, as a patient advocate.

Cowden lives with metastatic TNBC, which is known for poor prognoses, aggressiveness, and a lack of targeted treatment options. “Stage IV is a state of desperation. We just want something to work,” she said.

That’s why the conference room was packed – the session was focused on something that had been found to work – the immunotherapy atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech/Roche).

Atezolizumab had recently been conditionally approved for first-line use in advanced TNBC, having been shown to significantly slow disease progression and, in some patients, to possibly improve survival. A pair of medical oncologists reviewed the clinical trial data during the session.

One important point from the trial data was that the benefit was greater in patients whose tumors had the biomarker PD-L1, and so the Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug specified that it should be used only in those patients.

The drug approval was accompanied by approval of a companion diagnostic test used to identify this PD-L1-positive subgroup of patients, the Ventana SP142 Assay (Roche Diagnostics).

At the meeting, pathologist David Rimm, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, discussed the biomarker PD-L1 and the test. Rimm had a subtle but unsettling message about the crucial test: that the SP142 diagnostic assay, when used by increasing numbers of pathologists, resulted in increasing rates of PD-L1 scores that were not concordant.

A related meeting poster, presented the next day with Rimm as senior author, was more explicit and concluded that “more than half of the pathologists in real-world situations may mis- assign” patient scores with SP142 (and another Roche assay) because of wide variability in readouts.

“They’ve made a test that is inadequate – it just doesn’t work. It’s like flipping a coin,” he told Medscape Medical News about Roche’s SP142 assay in everyday practice.

The general problem is not a new one – for some years there have been problems with the use of PD-L1 as a biomarker for immunotherapy and with assays for that biomarker, with many groups questioning both accuracy and reproducibility. But the problems with SP142 are “the most egregious,” said Rimm, who has served as a paid consultant to Roche Diagnostics in the past.

In clinical practice, Rimm’s overall message is that because of the difficulty of reading SP142 assay results, some TNBC patients who were PD-L1-positive would not get the drug, and some who were not positive would get the drug.

Patient advocate Cowden was not worried about overtreatment. She was concerned about patients who “might die without receiving a potentially life-extending treatment.”

In an essay in the Pathologist, Rimm echoed that sentiment about undertreatment (as well as overtreatment) with atezolizumab for breast cancer: “In all cases, the patients are the potential victims, but this appears to be completely under the radar of the hype surrounding this new drug.”
 

Roche Disputes Problems With Assay

Roche, manufacturer of both atezolizumab and the companion diagnostic test, disputes that there is a problem.

The FDA and multiple health authorities worldwide have approved atezolizumab and the companion diagnostic SP142 assay for use in TNBC, points out Eslie Dennis, MD, vice president of medical affairs at Roche Tissue Diagnostics.

“The role of a companion diagnostic assay is to discriminate between responders and non-responders for a specific therapeutic product in a specific indication, with a cut-off based on clinical outcomes,” she wrote in an email to Medscape Medical News.

Data from the pivotal IMpassion130 trial show that the assay was effective at that task. Among the 369 patients in the 902-patient trial whose tumors were ≥1% positive for PD-L1, those treated with atezolizumab (and nab-paclitaxel; n = 185) had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.4 months, vs. 4.8 months among those treated with placebo (and nab-paclitaxel; n = 184) (P < .0001).

“Exploratory analysis showed no [PFS] benefit in PD-L1-negative patients as tested by the SP142 assay [in IMpassion130],” Dennis and three other physicians write in a reply to Rimm in a letter published in July 2019 in the Pathologist.

The same held true for overall survival in exploratory analysis – there was no benefit with atezolizumab among the PD-L1-negative patients, they write.

Notably, overall survival benefit for patients who were PD-L1 positive was about 10 months (at the first interim analysis; at the second analysis, the benefit dropped to 7 months and was not statistically significant).

But Rimm points out that the pivotal trial used only one pathologist in a central lab to determine PD-L1 status, who was undoubtedly an expert with the SP142 assay.

Further, Rimm observes that additional data submitted to the FDA to show that SP142 test results are reproducible outside of the pivotal trial setting were performed with only three pathologists and thus unsurprisingly yielded high rates of agreement – all above 90%.

The data from both of these circumstances are problematic, Rimm said, because in the real world, hundreds of pathologists will score the SP142 assay – all in the context of a busy day reading a variety of other tests for other diseases.

It’s one thing to get an FDA approval for an assay, and it’s another thing to be a reliable, well-functioning assay in the real world, he summarized.

Last year, Roberto Salgado, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, commented that “a positive phase III trial should not be taken as a guarantee that the assay used in the trial can be implemented in daily practice” in an opinion piece in the Pathologist.
 

SP142 Identifies the “Fewest Possible Patients”

The SP142 assay has been shown in multiple studies to have lower sensitivity for PD-L1 than other competing PD-L1 assays, said Rimm, citing examples such as a 2017 study and a 2018 study.

Angela DeMichele, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, agreed and explained what that meant in practical terms for women whose tumors are tested with SP142. “It means that the test is going to identify the fewest possible PD-L1-positive patients [relative to the other available assays],” she said. “It [the SP142 assay] is far from a perfect test for this situation,” added DeMichele, an expert on biomarkers in breast cancer clinical trials.

She said that biomarker tests, like many products of science, tend to become dated with the passage of time, as more is learned about the target and new assays are developed. “Unfortunately, you can’t change assays midstream,” said DeMichele. She has received a grant from Roche and Stand Up to Cancer to study atezolizumab and another drug in a clinical trial among patients with metastatic TNBC who have minimal residual disease.

DeMichele also said that “David Rimm is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about this issue.”

But DeMichelle also points out the practical: “We’re stuck as clinicians” because regulatory bodies and insurance companies only pay for atezolizumab when the SP142 assay indicates PD-L1 positivity. That’s not the case in Europe, where health authorities do not specify which PD-L1 assay is to be used with atezolizumab for breast cancer, pointed out Belgium’s Salgado last year.
 

Another Level of Complexity

At the immunotherapy session in San Antonio, Rimm discussed the results of a study of 68 TNBC archived cases in which specimens were stained with the SP142 assay at Yale and were distributed via electronic images to 19 pathologists at 14 institutions across the United States for PD-L1 scoring.

The study, coauthored by academics from Iowa, Texas A&M, UC San Diego, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, and others, used a novel method to determine the minimum number of evaluators needed to estimate “concordance” or agreement about a test result among large numbers of readers. The consensus/agreement was as high as 80% when eight or fewer pathologists’ scores were compared, but was as low as 40% when results from more than eight pathologists were included, said Rimm.

These are some of the data that led him to declare that using the assay is no better than flipping a coin.

Yes, PD-L1 testing is a challenge, and it has “introduced another level of complexity” for pathologists in reading assays, write experts Emina Torlakovic, MD, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and Allen Gown, MD, PhenoPath Laboratories, Seattle, in response to Rimm last year.

But there is “poor” consensus among pathologists, they point out, “for many scoring systems that are still clinically applied (such as Gleason grading).” Consensus “improves with education and training,” the pair add. To that end, Roche has initiated a global training program for pathologists using the SP142 assay for TNBC. At San Antonio, Roche’s Dennis reported that among 432 pathologists from 58 countries, there was overall agreement of 98.2% in scoring assays.

Rimm commented that such high agreement would not be a surprise if testing took place soon after any such training program.

In an email to Medscape Medical News, Torlakovic encouraged pathologists who wish to practice their skill in interpreting assays, including SP142, to visit CBQAReadout.ca, a testing site. The site, which was founded by Torlakovic and may be one of a kind, offers CME credits and is sponsored by independent pathology organizations, such as CAP-ACP and the Saskatchewan Health Authority, as well as pharmaceutical companies, including Roche.

No Clue

Patient advocate Cowden believes the controversy about PD-L1 testing for atezolizumab is largely unknown among breast cancer patients. She learned about SP142 assay ambiguities in San Antonio, when the Florida Breast Cancer Foundation funded her trip to the meeting and the Alamo Breast Cancer Foundation asked her to write a report on Rimm’s presentation.

Cowden is a member of a Facebook group for stage IV TNBC, which has about 1500 members. She estimates that 75%-80% would be willing to try atezolizumab “no matter what,” meaning they don’t care about PD-L1 positivity being associated with efficacy.

The Facebook group members “know there is a test and if you are positive, there is an immunotherapy for their breast cancer,” said Cowden.

None know that women may be excluded from treatment because of shortcomings with the SP142 test. “They have no clue,” she said.

Rimm and DeMichele have financial ties to Roche and other companies. Dennis is an employee of Roche. Torlakovic has ties to multiple companies, including Roche, for whom she has acted as a paid consultant, grant recipient, and paid lecturer. Gown did not respond to a request for financial disclosures. Cowden reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In December, at a major breast cancer conference, some attendees couldn’t find a seat and were told to leave an overcrowded session on immunotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). They refused, and pushed in to hear what was being said.

The crowd might have been surprised to learn that the main draw of the event, a successful new drug, was not all it might have been for women with the disease, being handicapped by a test that determines who is eligible for it.

“That room was overpacked ― there were five people deep against the wall. ... It was amazing,” said Janice Cowden of Bradenton, Florida. She attended the meeting, the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, as a patient advocate.

Cowden lives with metastatic TNBC, which is known for poor prognoses, aggressiveness, and a lack of targeted treatment options. “Stage IV is a state of desperation. We just want something to work,” she said.

That’s why the conference room was packed – the session was focused on something that had been found to work – the immunotherapy atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech/Roche).

Atezolizumab had recently been conditionally approved for first-line use in advanced TNBC, having been shown to significantly slow disease progression and, in some patients, to possibly improve survival. A pair of medical oncologists reviewed the clinical trial data during the session.

One important point from the trial data was that the benefit was greater in patients whose tumors had the biomarker PD-L1, and so the Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug specified that it should be used only in those patients.

The drug approval was accompanied by approval of a companion diagnostic test used to identify this PD-L1-positive subgroup of patients, the Ventana SP142 Assay (Roche Diagnostics).

At the meeting, pathologist David Rimm, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, discussed the biomarker PD-L1 and the test. Rimm had a subtle but unsettling message about the crucial test: that the SP142 diagnostic assay, when used by increasing numbers of pathologists, resulted in increasing rates of PD-L1 scores that were not concordant.

A related meeting poster, presented the next day with Rimm as senior author, was more explicit and concluded that “more than half of the pathologists in real-world situations may mis- assign” patient scores with SP142 (and another Roche assay) because of wide variability in readouts.

“They’ve made a test that is inadequate – it just doesn’t work. It’s like flipping a coin,” he told Medscape Medical News about Roche’s SP142 assay in everyday practice.

The general problem is not a new one – for some years there have been problems with the use of PD-L1 as a biomarker for immunotherapy and with assays for that biomarker, with many groups questioning both accuracy and reproducibility. But the problems with SP142 are “the most egregious,” said Rimm, who has served as a paid consultant to Roche Diagnostics in the past.

In clinical practice, Rimm’s overall message is that because of the difficulty of reading SP142 assay results, some TNBC patients who were PD-L1-positive would not get the drug, and some who were not positive would get the drug.

Patient advocate Cowden was not worried about overtreatment. She was concerned about patients who “might die without receiving a potentially life-extending treatment.”

In an essay in the Pathologist, Rimm echoed that sentiment about undertreatment (as well as overtreatment) with atezolizumab for breast cancer: “In all cases, the patients are the potential victims, but this appears to be completely under the radar of the hype surrounding this new drug.”
 

Roche Disputes Problems With Assay

Roche, manufacturer of both atezolizumab and the companion diagnostic test, disputes that there is a problem.

The FDA and multiple health authorities worldwide have approved atezolizumab and the companion diagnostic SP142 assay for use in TNBC, points out Eslie Dennis, MD, vice president of medical affairs at Roche Tissue Diagnostics.

“The role of a companion diagnostic assay is to discriminate between responders and non-responders for a specific therapeutic product in a specific indication, with a cut-off based on clinical outcomes,” she wrote in an email to Medscape Medical News.

Data from the pivotal IMpassion130 trial show that the assay was effective at that task. Among the 369 patients in the 902-patient trial whose tumors were ≥1% positive for PD-L1, those treated with atezolizumab (and nab-paclitaxel; n = 185) had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.4 months, vs. 4.8 months among those treated with placebo (and nab-paclitaxel; n = 184) (P < .0001).

“Exploratory analysis showed no [PFS] benefit in PD-L1-negative patients as tested by the SP142 assay [in IMpassion130],” Dennis and three other physicians write in a reply to Rimm in a letter published in July 2019 in the Pathologist.

The same held true for overall survival in exploratory analysis – there was no benefit with atezolizumab among the PD-L1-negative patients, they write.

Notably, overall survival benefit for patients who were PD-L1 positive was about 10 months (at the first interim analysis; at the second analysis, the benefit dropped to 7 months and was not statistically significant).

But Rimm points out that the pivotal trial used only one pathologist in a central lab to determine PD-L1 status, who was undoubtedly an expert with the SP142 assay.

Further, Rimm observes that additional data submitted to the FDA to show that SP142 test results are reproducible outside of the pivotal trial setting were performed with only three pathologists and thus unsurprisingly yielded high rates of agreement – all above 90%.

The data from both of these circumstances are problematic, Rimm said, because in the real world, hundreds of pathologists will score the SP142 assay – all in the context of a busy day reading a variety of other tests for other diseases.

It’s one thing to get an FDA approval for an assay, and it’s another thing to be a reliable, well-functioning assay in the real world, he summarized.

Last year, Roberto Salgado, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, commented that “a positive phase III trial should not be taken as a guarantee that the assay used in the trial can be implemented in daily practice” in an opinion piece in the Pathologist.
 

SP142 Identifies the “Fewest Possible Patients”

The SP142 assay has been shown in multiple studies to have lower sensitivity for PD-L1 than other competing PD-L1 assays, said Rimm, citing examples such as a 2017 study and a 2018 study.

Angela DeMichele, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, agreed and explained what that meant in practical terms for women whose tumors are tested with SP142. “It means that the test is going to identify the fewest possible PD-L1-positive patients [relative to the other available assays],” she said. “It [the SP142 assay] is far from a perfect test for this situation,” added DeMichele, an expert on biomarkers in breast cancer clinical trials.

She said that biomarker tests, like many products of science, tend to become dated with the passage of time, as more is learned about the target and new assays are developed. “Unfortunately, you can’t change assays midstream,” said DeMichele. She has received a grant from Roche and Stand Up to Cancer to study atezolizumab and another drug in a clinical trial among patients with metastatic TNBC who have minimal residual disease.

DeMichele also said that “David Rimm is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about this issue.”

But DeMichelle also points out the practical: “We’re stuck as clinicians” because regulatory bodies and insurance companies only pay for atezolizumab when the SP142 assay indicates PD-L1 positivity. That’s not the case in Europe, where health authorities do not specify which PD-L1 assay is to be used with atezolizumab for breast cancer, pointed out Belgium’s Salgado last year.
 

Another Level of Complexity

At the immunotherapy session in San Antonio, Rimm discussed the results of a study of 68 TNBC archived cases in which specimens were stained with the SP142 assay at Yale and were distributed via electronic images to 19 pathologists at 14 institutions across the United States for PD-L1 scoring.

The study, coauthored by academics from Iowa, Texas A&M, UC San Diego, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, and others, used a novel method to determine the minimum number of evaluators needed to estimate “concordance” or agreement about a test result among large numbers of readers. The consensus/agreement was as high as 80% when eight or fewer pathologists’ scores were compared, but was as low as 40% when results from more than eight pathologists were included, said Rimm.

These are some of the data that led him to declare that using the assay is no better than flipping a coin.

Yes, PD-L1 testing is a challenge, and it has “introduced another level of complexity” for pathologists in reading assays, write experts Emina Torlakovic, MD, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and Allen Gown, MD, PhenoPath Laboratories, Seattle, in response to Rimm last year.

But there is “poor” consensus among pathologists, they point out, “for many scoring systems that are still clinically applied (such as Gleason grading).” Consensus “improves with education and training,” the pair add. To that end, Roche has initiated a global training program for pathologists using the SP142 assay for TNBC. At San Antonio, Roche’s Dennis reported that among 432 pathologists from 58 countries, there was overall agreement of 98.2% in scoring assays.

Rimm commented that such high agreement would not be a surprise if testing took place soon after any such training program.

In an email to Medscape Medical News, Torlakovic encouraged pathologists who wish to practice their skill in interpreting assays, including SP142, to visit CBQAReadout.ca, a testing site. The site, which was founded by Torlakovic and may be one of a kind, offers CME credits and is sponsored by independent pathology organizations, such as CAP-ACP and the Saskatchewan Health Authority, as well as pharmaceutical companies, including Roche.

No Clue

Patient advocate Cowden believes the controversy about PD-L1 testing for atezolizumab is largely unknown among breast cancer patients. She learned about SP142 assay ambiguities in San Antonio, when the Florida Breast Cancer Foundation funded her trip to the meeting and the Alamo Breast Cancer Foundation asked her to write a report on Rimm’s presentation.

Cowden is a member of a Facebook group for stage IV TNBC, which has about 1500 members. She estimates that 75%-80% would be willing to try atezolizumab “no matter what,” meaning they don’t care about PD-L1 positivity being associated with efficacy.

The Facebook group members “know there is a test and if you are positive, there is an immunotherapy for their breast cancer,” said Cowden.

None know that women may be excluded from treatment because of shortcomings with the SP142 test. “They have no clue,” she said.

Rimm and DeMichele have financial ties to Roche and other companies. Dennis is an employee of Roche. Torlakovic has ties to multiple companies, including Roche, for whom she has acted as a paid consultant, grant recipient, and paid lecturer. Gown did not respond to a request for financial disclosures. Cowden reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In December, at a major breast cancer conference, some attendees couldn’t find a seat and were told to leave an overcrowded session on immunotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). They refused, and pushed in to hear what was being said.

The crowd might have been surprised to learn that the main draw of the event, a successful new drug, was not all it might have been for women with the disease, being handicapped by a test that determines who is eligible for it.

“That room was overpacked ― there were five people deep against the wall. ... It was amazing,” said Janice Cowden of Bradenton, Florida. She attended the meeting, the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, as a patient advocate.

Cowden lives with metastatic TNBC, which is known for poor prognoses, aggressiveness, and a lack of targeted treatment options. “Stage IV is a state of desperation. We just want something to work,” she said.

That’s why the conference room was packed – the session was focused on something that had been found to work – the immunotherapy atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech/Roche).

Atezolizumab had recently been conditionally approved for first-line use in advanced TNBC, having been shown to significantly slow disease progression and, in some patients, to possibly improve survival. A pair of medical oncologists reviewed the clinical trial data during the session.

One important point from the trial data was that the benefit was greater in patients whose tumors had the biomarker PD-L1, and so the Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug specified that it should be used only in those patients.

The drug approval was accompanied by approval of a companion diagnostic test used to identify this PD-L1-positive subgroup of patients, the Ventana SP142 Assay (Roche Diagnostics).

At the meeting, pathologist David Rimm, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, discussed the biomarker PD-L1 and the test. Rimm had a subtle but unsettling message about the crucial test: that the SP142 diagnostic assay, when used by increasing numbers of pathologists, resulted in increasing rates of PD-L1 scores that were not concordant.

A related meeting poster, presented the next day with Rimm as senior author, was more explicit and concluded that “more than half of the pathologists in real-world situations may mis- assign” patient scores with SP142 (and another Roche assay) because of wide variability in readouts.

“They’ve made a test that is inadequate – it just doesn’t work. It’s like flipping a coin,” he told Medscape Medical News about Roche’s SP142 assay in everyday practice.

The general problem is not a new one – for some years there have been problems with the use of PD-L1 as a biomarker for immunotherapy and with assays for that biomarker, with many groups questioning both accuracy and reproducibility. But the problems with SP142 are “the most egregious,” said Rimm, who has served as a paid consultant to Roche Diagnostics in the past.

In clinical practice, Rimm’s overall message is that because of the difficulty of reading SP142 assay results, some TNBC patients who were PD-L1-positive would not get the drug, and some who were not positive would get the drug.

Patient advocate Cowden was not worried about overtreatment. She was concerned about patients who “might die without receiving a potentially life-extending treatment.”

In an essay in the Pathologist, Rimm echoed that sentiment about undertreatment (as well as overtreatment) with atezolizumab for breast cancer: “In all cases, the patients are the potential victims, but this appears to be completely under the radar of the hype surrounding this new drug.”
 

Roche Disputes Problems With Assay

Roche, manufacturer of both atezolizumab and the companion diagnostic test, disputes that there is a problem.

The FDA and multiple health authorities worldwide have approved atezolizumab and the companion diagnostic SP142 assay for use in TNBC, points out Eslie Dennis, MD, vice president of medical affairs at Roche Tissue Diagnostics.

“The role of a companion diagnostic assay is to discriminate between responders and non-responders for a specific therapeutic product in a specific indication, with a cut-off based on clinical outcomes,” she wrote in an email to Medscape Medical News.

Data from the pivotal IMpassion130 trial show that the assay was effective at that task. Among the 369 patients in the 902-patient trial whose tumors were ≥1% positive for PD-L1, those treated with atezolizumab (and nab-paclitaxel; n = 185) had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.4 months, vs. 4.8 months among those treated with placebo (and nab-paclitaxel; n = 184) (P < .0001).

“Exploratory analysis showed no [PFS] benefit in PD-L1-negative patients as tested by the SP142 assay [in IMpassion130],” Dennis and three other physicians write in a reply to Rimm in a letter published in July 2019 in the Pathologist.

The same held true for overall survival in exploratory analysis – there was no benefit with atezolizumab among the PD-L1-negative patients, they write.

Notably, overall survival benefit for patients who were PD-L1 positive was about 10 months (at the first interim analysis; at the second analysis, the benefit dropped to 7 months and was not statistically significant).

But Rimm points out that the pivotal trial used only one pathologist in a central lab to determine PD-L1 status, who was undoubtedly an expert with the SP142 assay.

Further, Rimm observes that additional data submitted to the FDA to show that SP142 test results are reproducible outside of the pivotal trial setting were performed with only three pathologists and thus unsurprisingly yielded high rates of agreement – all above 90%.

The data from both of these circumstances are problematic, Rimm said, because in the real world, hundreds of pathologists will score the SP142 assay – all in the context of a busy day reading a variety of other tests for other diseases.

It’s one thing to get an FDA approval for an assay, and it’s another thing to be a reliable, well-functioning assay in the real world, he summarized.

Last year, Roberto Salgado, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, commented that “a positive phase III trial should not be taken as a guarantee that the assay used in the trial can be implemented in daily practice” in an opinion piece in the Pathologist.
 

SP142 Identifies the “Fewest Possible Patients”

The SP142 assay has been shown in multiple studies to have lower sensitivity for PD-L1 than other competing PD-L1 assays, said Rimm, citing examples such as a 2017 study and a 2018 study.

Angela DeMichele, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, agreed and explained what that meant in practical terms for women whose tumors are tested with SP142. “It means that the test is going to identify the fewest possible PD-L1-positive patients [relative to the other available assays],” she said. “It [the SP142 assay] is far from a perfect test for this situation,” added DeMichele, an expert on biomarkers in breast cancer clinical trials.

She said that biomarker tests, like many products of science, tend to become dated with the passage of time, as more is learned about the target and new assays are developed. “Unfortunately, you can’t change assays midstream,” said DeMichele. She has received a grant from Roche and Stand Up to Cancer to study atezolizumab and another drug in a clinical trial among patients with metastatic TNBC who have minimal residual disease.

DeMichele also said that “David Rimm is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about this issue.”

But DeMichelle also points out the practical: “We’re stuck as clinicians” because regulatory bodies and insurance companies only pay for atezolizumab when the SP142 assay indicates PD-L1 positivity. That’s not the case in Europe, where health authorities do not specify which PD-L1 assay is to be used with atezolizumab for breast cancer, pointed out Belgium’s Salgado last year.
 

Another Level of Complexity

At the immunotherapy session in San Antonio, Rimm discussed the results of a study of 68 TNBC archived cases in which specimens were stained with the SP142 assay at Yale and were distributed via electronic images to 19 pathologists at 14 institutions across the United States for PD-L1 scoring.

The study, coauthored by academics from Iowa, Texas A&M, UC San Diego, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, and others, used a novel method to determine the minimum number of evaluators needed to estimate “concordance” or agreement about a test result among large numbers of readers. The consensus/agreement was as high as 80% when eight or fewer pathologists’ scores were compared, but was as low as 40% when results from more than eight pathologists were included, said Rimm.

These are some of the data that led him to declare that using the assay is no better than flipping a coin.

Yes, PD-L1 testing is a challenge, and it has “introduced another level of complexity” for pathologists in reading assays, write experts Emina Torlakovic, MD, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and Allen Gown, MD, PhenoPath Laboratories, Seattle, in response to Rimm last year.

But there is “poor” consensus among pathologists, they point out, “for many scoring systems that are still clinically applied (such as Gleason grading).” Consensus “improves with education and training,” the pair add. To that end, Roche has initiated a global training program for pathologists using the SP142 assay for TNBC. At San Antonio, Roche’s Dennis reported that among 432 pathologists from 58 countries, there was overall agreement of 98.2% in scoring assays.

Rimm commented that such high agreement would not be a surprise if testing took place soon after any such training program.

In an email to Medscape Medical News, Torlakovic encouraged pathologists who wish to practice their skill in interpreting assays, including SP142, to visit CBQAReadout.ca, a testing site. The site, which was founded by Torlakovic and may be one of a kind, offers CME credits and is sponsored by independent pathology organizations, such as CAP-ACP and the Saskatchewan Health Authority, as well as pharmaceutical companies, including Roche.

No Clue

Patient advocate Cowden believes the controversy about PD-L1 testing for atezolizumab is largely unknown among breast cancer patients. She learned about SP142 assay ambiguities in San Antonio, when the Florida Breast Cancer Foundation funded her trip to the meeting and the Alamo Breast Cancer Foundation asked her to write a report on Rimm’s presentation.

Cowden is a member of a Facebook group for stage IV TNBC, which has about 1500 members. She estimates that 75%-80% would be willing to try atezolizumab “no matter what,” meaning they don’t care about PD-L1 positivity being associated with efficacy.

The Facebook group members “know there is a test and if you are positive, there is an immunotherapy for their breast cancer,” said Cowden.

None know that women may be excluded from treatment because of shortcomings with the SP142 test. “They have no clue,” she said.

Rimm and DeMichele have financial ties to Roche and other companies. Dennis is an employee of Roche. Torlakovic has ties to multiple companies, including Roche, for whom she has acted as a paid consultant, grant recipient, and paid lecturer. Gown did not respond to a request for financial disclosures. Cowden reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, remains viable in aerosols for hours and on surfaces for days, according to a new study.

The data indicate that the stability of the new virus is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, which caused the SARS epidemic, researchers report in an article published on the medRxivpreprint server. (The posted article has been submitted for journal publication but has not been peer reviewed.)

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has quickly outstripped the pace of the 2003 SARS epidemic. “Superspread” of the earlier disease arose from infection during medical procedures, in which a single infected individual seeded many secondary cases. In contrast, the novel coronavirus appears to be spread more through human-to-human transmission in a variety of settings.

However, it’s not yet known the extent to which asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals spread the new virus through daily routine.

To investigate how long SARS-CoV-2 remains infective in the environment, Neeltje van Doremalen, PhD, of the Laboratory of Virology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Hamilton, Montana, and colleagues conducted simulation experiments in which they compared the viability of SARS-CoV-2 with that of SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on surfaces.

Among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, viral loads in the upper respiratory tract are high; as a consequence, respiratory secretion in the form of aerosols (<5 μm) or droplets (>5 mcm) is likely, the authors note.

van Doremalen and colleagues used nebulizers to generate aerosols. Samples of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 were collecting at 0, 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes on a gelatin filter. The researchers then tested the infectivity of the viruses on Vero cells grown in culture.

They found that SARS-CoV-2 was largely stable through the full 180-minute test, with only a slight decline at 3 hours. This time course is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1; both viruses have a median half-life in aerosols of 2.7 hours (range, 1.65 hr for SARS-CoV-1, vs 7.24 hr for SARS-CoV-2).

The researchers then tested the viruses on a variety of surfaces for up to 7 days, using humidity values and temperatures designed to mimic “a variety of household and hospital situations.” The volumes of viral exposures that the team used were consistent with amounts found in the human upper and lower respiratory tracts.

For example, they applied 50 mcL of virus-containing solution to a piece of cardboard and then swabbed the surface, at different times, with an additional 1 mcL of medium. Each surface assay was replicated three times.

The novel coronavirus was most stable on plastic and stainless steel, with some virus remaining viable up to 72 hours. However, by that time the viral load had fallen by about three orders of magnitude, indicating exponential decay. This profile was remarkably similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, according to the authors.

However, the two viruses differed in staying power on copper and cardboard. No viable SARS-CoV-2 was detectable on copper after 4 hours or on cardboard after 24 hours. In contrast, SARS-CoV-1 was not viable beyond 8 hours for either copper or cardboard.

“Taken together, our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of HCoV-19 [SARS-CoV-2] are plausible, as the virus can remain viable in aerosols for multiple hours and on surfaces up to days,” the authors conclude.

Andrew Pekosz, PhD, codirector of the Center of Excellence in Influenza Research and Surveillance and director of the Center for Emerging Viruses and Infectious Diseases at the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health, Baltimore, Maryland, applauds the real-world value of the experiments.

“The PCR [polymerase chain reaction] test used [in other studies] to detect SARS-CoV-2 just detects the virus genome. It doesn’t tell you if the virus was still infectious, or ‘viable.’ That’s why this study is interesting,” Pekosz said. “It focuses on infectious virus, which is the virus that has the potential to transmit and infect another person. What we don’t know yet is how much infectious (viable) virus is needed to initiate infection in another person.”

He suggests that further investigations evaluate other types of environmental surfaces, including lacquered wood that is made into desks and ceramic tiles found in bathrooms and kitchens.

One limitation of the study is that the data for experiments on cardboard were more variable than the data for other surfaces tested.

The investigators and Pekosz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, remains viable in aerosols for hours and on surfaces for days, according to a new study.

The data indicate that the stability of the new virus is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, which caused the SARS epidemic, researchers report in an article published on the medRxivpreprint server. (The posted article has been submitted for journal publication but has not been peer reviewed.)

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has quickly outstripped the pace of the 2003 SARS epidemic. “Superspread” of the earlier disease arose from infection during medical procedures, in which a single infected individual seeded many secondary cases. In contrast, the novel coronavirus appears to be spread more through human-to-human transmission in a variety of settings.

However, it’s not yet known the extent to which asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals spread the new virus through daily routine.

To investigate how long SARS-CoV-2 remains infective in the environment, Neeltje van Doremalen, PhD, of the Laboratory of Virology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Hamilton, Montana, and colleagues conducted simulation experiments in which they compared the viability of SARS-CoV-2 with that of SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on surfaces.

Among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, viral loads in the upper respiratory tract are high; as a consequence, respiratory secretion in the form of aerosols (<5 μm) or droplets (>5 mcm) is likely, the authors note.

van Doremalen and colleagues used nebulizers to generate aerosols. Samples of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 were collecting at 0, 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes on a gelatin filter. The researchers then tested the infectivity of the viruses on Vero cells grown in culture.

They found that SARS-CoV-2 was largely stable through the full 180-minute test, with only a slight decline at 3 hours. This time course is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1; both viruses have a median half-life in aerosols of 2.7 hours (range, 1.65 hr for SARS-CoV-1, vs 7.24 hr for SARS-CoV-2).

The researchers then tested the viruses on a variety of surfaces for up to 7 days, using humidity values and temperatures designed to mimic “a variety of household and hospital situations.” The volumes of viral exposures that the team used were consistent with amounts found in the human upper and lower respiratory tracts.

For example, they applied 50 mcL of virus-containing solution to a piece of cardboard and then swabbed the surface, at different times, with an additional 1 mcL of medium. Each surface assay was replicated three times.

The novel coronavirus was most stable on plastic and stainless steel, with some virus remaining viable up to 72 hours. However, by that time the viral load had fallen by about three orders of magnitude, indicating exponential decay. This profile was remarkably similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, according to the authors.

However, the two viruses differed in staying power on copper and cardboard. No viable SARS-CoV-2 was detectable on copper after 4 hours or on cardboard after 24 hours. In contrast, SARS-CoV-1 was not viable beyond 8 hours for either copper or cardboard.

“Taken together, our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of HCoV-19 [SARS-CoV-2] are plausible, as the virus can remain viable in aerosols for multiple hours and on surfaces up to days,” the authors conclude.

Andrew Pekosz, PhD, codirector of the Center of Excellence in Influenza Research and Surveillance and director of the Center for Emerging Viruses and Infectious Diseases at the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health, Baltimore, Maryland, applauds the real-world value of the experiments.

“The PCR [polymerase chain reaction] test used [in other studies] to detect SARS-CoV-2 just detects the virus genome. It doesn’t tell you if the virus was still infectious, or ‘viable.’ That’s why this study is interesting,” Pekosz said. “It focuses on infectious virus, which is the virus that has the potential to transmit and infect another person. What we don’t know yet is how much infectious (viable) virus is needed to initiate infection in another person.”

He suggests that further investigations evaluate other types of environmental surfaces, including lacquered wood that is made into desks and ceramic tiles found in bathrooms and kitchens.

One limitation of the study is that the data for experiments on cardboard were more variable than the data for other surfaces tested.

The investigators and Pekosz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, remains viable in aerosols for hours and on surfaces for days, according to a new study.

The data indicate that the stability of the new virus is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, which caused the SARS epidemic, researchers report in an article published on the medRxivpreprint server. (The posted article has been submitted for journal publication but has not been peer reviewed.)

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has quickly outstripped the pace of the 2003 SARS epidemic. “Superspread” of the earlier disease arose from infection during medical procedures, in which a single infected individual seeded many secondary cases. In contrast, the novel coronavirus appears to be spread more through human-to-human transmission in a variety of settings.

However, it’s not yet known the extent to which asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals spread the new virus through daily routine.

To investigate how long SARS-CoV-2 remains infective in the environment, Neeltje van Doremalen, PhD, of the Laboratory of Virology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Hamilton, Montana, and colleagues conducted simulation experiments in which they compared the viability of SARS-CoV-2 with that of SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on surfaces.

Among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, viral loads in the upper respiratory tract are high; as a consequence, respiratory secretion in the form of aerosols (<5 μm) or droplets (>5 mcm) is likely, the authors note.

van Doremalen and colleagues used nebulizers to generate aerosols. Samples of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 were collecting at 0, 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes on a gelatin filter. The researchers then tested the infectivity of the viruses on Vero cells grown in culture.

They found that SARS-CoV-2 was largely stable through the full 180-minute test, with only a slight decline at 3 hours. This time course is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1; both viruses have a median half-life in aerosols of 2.7 hours (range, 1.65 hr for SARS-CoV-1, vs 7.24 hr for SARS-CoV-2).

The researchers then tested the viruses on a variety of surfaces for up to 7 days, using humidity values and temperatures designed to mimic “a variety of household and hospital situations.” The volumes of viral exposures that the team used were consistent with amounts found in the human upper and lower respiratory tracts.

For example, they applied 50 mcL of virus-containing solution to a piece of cardboard and then swabbed the surface, at different times, with an additional 1 mcL of medium. Each surface assay was replicated three times.

The novel coronavirus was most stable on plastic and stainless steel, with some virus remaining viable up to 72 hours. However, by that time the viral load had fallen by about three orders of magnitude, indicating exponential decay. This profile was remarkably similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, according to the authors.

However, the two viruses differed in staying power on copper and cardboard. No viable SARS-CoV-2 was detectable on copper after 4 hours or on cardboard after 24 hours. In contrast, SARS-CoV-1 was not viable beyond 8 hours for either copper or cardboard.

“Taken together, our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of HCoV-19 [SARS-CoV-2] are plausible, as the virus can remain viable in aerosols for multiple hours and on surfaces up to days,” the authors conclude.

Andrew Pekosz, PhD, codirector of the Center of Excellence in Influenza Research and Surveillance and director of the Center for Emerging Viruses and Infectious Diseases at the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health, Baltimore, Maryland, applauds the real-world value of the experiments.

“The PCR [polymerase chain reaction] test used [in other studies] to detect SARS-CoV-2 just detects the virus genome. It doesn’t tell you if the virus was still infectious, or ‘viable.’ That’s why this study is interesting,” Pekosz said. “It focuses on infectious virus, which is the virus that has the potential to transmit and infect another person. What we don’t know yet is how much infectious (viable) virus is needed to initiate infection in another person.”

He suggests that further investigations evaluate other types of environmental surfaces, including lacquered wood that is made into desks and ceramic tiles found in bathrooms and kitchens.

One limitation of the study is that the data for experiments on cardboard were more variable than the data for other surfaces tested.

The investigators and Pekosz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with diabetes may have an increased risk of developing coronavirus infection (COVID-19), along with increased risks of morbidity and mortality, according to researchers writing in Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome.

Although relevant clinical data remain scarce, patients with diabetes should take extra precautions to avoid infection and, if infected, may require special care, reported Ritesh Gupta, MD, of Fortis C-DOC Hospital, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“The disease severity [with COVID-19] has varied from mild, self-limiting, flu-like illness to fulminant pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death,” the authors wrote.

As of March 16, 2020, the World Health Organization reported 167,515 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 6,606 deaths from around the world, with a mortality rate of 3.9%. But the actual mortality rate may be lower, the authors suggested, because a study involving more than 1,000 confirmed cases reported a mortality rate of 1.4%.

“Considering that the number of unreported and unconfirmed cases is likely to be much higher than the reported cases, the actual mortality may be less than 1%, which is similar to that of severe seasonal influenza,” the authors said, in reference to an editorial by Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine. In addition, they noted, mortality rates may vary by region.

The largest study relevant to patients with diabetes, which involved 72,314 cases of COVID-19, showed that patients with diabetes had a threefold higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes (7.3% vs. 2.3%, respectively). These figures were reported by the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, data from smaller cohorts with diabetes and COVID-19 have yielded mixed results. For instance, one study, involving 140 patients from Wuhan, suggested that diabetes was not a risk factor for severe disease, and in an analysis of 11 studies reporting on laboratory abnormalities in patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19, raised blood sugar levels or diabetes were not mentioned among the predictors of severe disease.

“Our knowledge about the prevalence of COVID-19 and disease course in people with diabetes will evolve as more detailed analyses are carried out,” the authors wrote. “For now, it is reasonable to assume that people with diabetes are at increased risk of developing infection. Coexisting heart disease, kidney disease, advanced age, and frailty are likely to further increase the severity of disease.”
 

Prevention first

“It is important that people with diabetes maintain good glycemic control, because it might help in reducing the risk of infection and the severity,” the authors wrote.

In addition to more frequent monitoring of blood glucose levels, they recommended other preventive measures, such as getting adequate nutrition, exercising, and being current with vaccinations for influenza and pneumonia. The latter, they said, may also reduce the risk of secondary bacterial pneumonia after a respiratory viral infection.

In regard to nutrition, adequate protein intake is important and “any deficiencies of minerals and vitamins need to be taken care of,” they advised. Likewise, exercise is known to improve immunity and should continue, but they suggest avoiding gyms and swimming pools.

For patients with coexisting heart and/or kidney disease, they also recommended efforts to stabilize cardiac/renal status.

In addition, the general preventive measures, such as regular and thorough hand washing with soap and water, practicing good respiratory hygiene by sneezing and coughing into a bent elbow or a facial tissue, and avoiding contact with anyone who is infected, should be observed.

As with other patients with chronic diseases that are managed long-term medications, patients with diabetes should always ensure that they have a sufficient supply of their medications and refills, if possible.
 

After a diagnosis

If patients with diabetes develop COVID-19, then home management may still be possible, wrote the authors, who recommended basic treatment measures such as maintaining hydration and managing symptoms with acetaminophen and steam inhalation, and home isolation for 14 days or until the symptoms resolve.

In the event of hyperglycemia with fever in patients with type 1 diabetes, blood glucose and urinary ketones should be monitored often. “Frequent changes in dosage and correctional bolus may be required to maintain normoglycemia,” they cautioned.

Concerning diabetic drug regimens, they suggest patients avoid antihyperglycemic agents that can cause volume depletion or hypoglycemia and, if necessary, that they reduce oral antidiabetic drugs and follow sick-day guidelines.

For hospitalized patients, the investigators strengthened that statement, advising that oral agents need to be stopped, particularly sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and metformin. “Insulin is the preferred agent for control of hyperglycemia in hospitalized sick patients,” they wrote.

Untested therapies

The authors also discussed a range of untested therapies that may help fight COVID-19, such as antiviral drugs (such as lopinavir and ritonavir), zinc nanoparticles, and vitamin C. Supplementing those recommendations, Dr. Gupta and colleagues provided a concise review of COVID-19 epidemiology and extant data relevant to patients with diabetes.

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gupta et al. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(3):211-12.

Patients with diabetes may have an increased risk of developing coronavirus infection (COVID-19), along with increased risks of morbidity and mortality, according to researchers writing in Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome.

Although relevant clinical data remain scarce, patients with diabetes should take extra precautions to avoid infection and, if infected, may require special care, reported Ritesh Gupta, MD, of Fortis C-DOC Hospital, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“The disease severity [with COVID-19] has varied from mild, self-limiting, flu-like illness to fulminant pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death,” the authors wrote.

As of March 16, 2020, the World Health Organization reported 167,515 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 6,606 deaths from around the world, with a mortality rate of 3.9%. But the actual mortality rate may be lower, the authors suggested, because a study involving more than 1,000 confirmed cases reported a mortality rate of 1.4%.

“Considering that the number of unreported and unconfirmed cases is likely to be much higher than the reported cases, the actual mortality may be less than 1%, which is similar to that of severe seasonal influenza,” the authors said, in reference to an editorial by Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine. In addition, they noted, mortality rates may vary by region.

The largest study relevant to patients with diabetes, which involved 72,314 cases of COVID-19, showed that patients with diabetes had a threefold higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes (7.3% vs. 2.3%, respectively). These figures were reported by the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, data from smaller cohorts with diabetes and COVID-19 have yielded mixed results. For instance, one study, involving 140 patients from Wuhan, suggested that diabetes was not a risk factor for severe disease, and in an analysis of 11 studies reporting on laboratory abnormalities in patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19, raised blood sugar levels or diabetes were not mentioned among the predictors of severe disease.

“Our knowledge about the prevalence of COVID-19 and disease course in people with diabetes will evolve as more detailed analyses are carried out,” the authors wrote. “For now, it is reasonable to assume that people with diabetes are at increased risk of developing infection. Coexisting heart disease, kidney disease, advanced age, and frailty are likely to further increase the severity of disease.”
 

Prevention first

“It is important that people with diabetes maintain good glycemic control, because it might help in reducing the risk of infection and the severity,” the authors wrote.

In addition to more frequent monitoring of blood glucose levels, they recommended other preventive measures, such as getting adequate nutrition, exercising, and being current with vaccinations for influenza and pneumonia. The latter, they said, may also reduce the risk of secondary bacterial pneumonia after a respiratory viral infection.

In regard to nutrition, adequate protein intake is important and “any deficiencies of minerals and vitamins need to be taken care of,” they advised. Likewise, exercise is known to improve immunity and should continue, but they suggest avoiding gyms and swimming pools.

For patients with coexisting heart and/or kidney disease, they also recommended efforts to stabilize cardiac/renal status.

In addition, the general preventive measures, such as regular and thorough hand washing with soap and water, practicing good respiratory hygiene by sneezing and coughing into a bent elbow or a facial tissue, and avoiding contact with anyone who is infected, should be observed.

As with other patients with chronic diseases that are managed long-term medications, patients with diabetes should always ensure that they have a sufficient supply of their medications and refills, if possible.
 

After a diagnosis

If patients with diabetes develop COVID-19, then home management may still be possible, wrote the authors, who recommended basic treatment measures such as maintaining hydration and managing symptoms with acetaminophen and steam inhalation, and home isolation for 14 days or until the symptoms resolve.

In the event of hyperglycemia with fever in patients with type 1 diabetes, blood glucose and urinary ketones should be monitored often. “Frequent changes in dosage and correctional bolus may be required to maintain normoglycemia,” they cautioned.

Concerning diabetic drug regimens, they suggest patients avoid antihyperglycemic agents that can cause volume depletion or hypoglycemia and, if necessary, that they reduce oral antidiabetic drugs and follow sick-day guidelines.

For hospitalized patients, the investigators strengthened that statement, advising that oral agents need to be stopped, particularly sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and metformin. “Insulin is the preferred agent for control of hyperglycemia in hospitalized sick patients,” they wrote.

Untested therapies

The authors also discussed a range of untested therapies that may help fight COVID-19, such as antiviral drugs (such as lopinavir and ritonavir), zinc nanoparticles, and vitamin C. Supplementing those recommendations, Dr. Gupta and colleagues provided a concise review of COVID-19 epidemiology and extant data relevant to patients with diabetes.

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gupta et al. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(3):211-12.

Patients with diabetes may have an increased risk of developing coronavirus infection (COVID-19), along with increased risks of morbidity and mortality, according to researchers writing in Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome.

Although relevant clinical data remain scarce, patients with diabetes should take extra precautions to avoid infection and, if infected, may require special care, reported Ritesh Gupta, MD, of Fortis C-DOC Hospital, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“The disease severity [with COVID-19] has varied from mild, self-limiting, flu-like illness to fulminant pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death,” the authors wrote.

As of March 16, 2020, the World Health Organization reported 167,515 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 6,606 deaths from around the world, with a mortality rate of 3.9%. But the actual mortality rate may be lower, the authors suggested, because a study involving more than 1,000 confirmed cases reported a mortality rate of 1.4%.

“Considering that the number of unreported and unconfirmed cases is likely to be much higher than the reported cases, the actual mortality may be less than 1%, which is similar to that of severe seasonal influenza,” the authors said, in reference to an editorial by Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine. In addition, they noted, mortality rates may vary by region.

The largest study relevant to patients with diabetes, which involved 72,314 cases of COVID-19, showed that patients with diabetes had a threefold higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes (7.3% vs. 2.3%, respectively). These figures were reported by the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, data from smaller cohorts with diabetes and COVID-19 have yielded mixed results. For instance, one study, involving 140 patients from Wuhan, suggested that diabetes was not a risk factor for severe disease, and in an analysis of 11 studies reporting on laboratory abnormalities in patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19, raised blood sugar levels or diabetes were not mentioned among the predictors of severe disease.

“Our knowledge about the prevalence of COVID-19 and disease course in people with diabetes will evolve as more detailed analyses are carried out,” the authors wrote. “For now, it is reasonable to assume that people with diabetes are at increased risk of developing infection. Coexisting heart disease, kidney disease, advanced age, and frailty are likely to further increase the severity of disease.”
 

Prevention first

“It is important that people with diabetes maintain good glycemic control, because it might help in reducing the risk of infection and the severity,” the authors wrote.

In addition to more frequent monitoring of blood glucose levels, they recommended other preventive measures, such as getting adequate nutrition, exercising, and being current with vaccinations for influenza and pneumonia. The latter, they said, may also reduce the risk of secondary bacterial pneumonia after a respiratory viral infection.

In regard to nutrition, adequate protein intake is important and “any deficiencies of minerals and vitamins need to be taken care of,” they advised. Likewise, exercise is known to improve immunity and should continue, but they suggest avoiding gyms and swimming pools.

For patients with coexisting heart and/or kidney disease, they also recommended efforts to stabilize cardiac/renal status.

In addition, the general preventive measures, such as regular and thorough hand washing with soap and water, practicing good respiratory hygiene by sneezing and coughing into a bent elbow or a facial tissue, and avoiding contact with anyone who is infected, should be observed.

As with other patients with chronic diseases that are managed long-term medications, patients with diabetes should always ensure that they have a sufficient supply of their medications and refills, if possible.
 

After a diagnosis

If patients with diabetes develop COVID-19, then home management may still be possible, wrote the authors, who recommended basic treatment measures such as maintaining hydration and managing symptoms with acetaminophen and steam inhalation, and home isolation for 14 days or until the symptoms resolve.

In the event of hyperglycemia with fever in patients with type 1 diabetes, blood glucose and urinary ketones should be monitored often. “Frequent changes in dosage and correctional bolus may be required to maintain normoglycemia,” they cautioned.

Concerning diabetic drug regimens, they suggest patients avoid antihyperglycemic agents that can cause volume depletion or hypoglycemia and, if necessary, that they reduce oral antidiabetic drugs and follow sick-day guidelines.

For hospitalized patients, the investigators strengthened that statement, advising that oral agents need to be stopped, particularly sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and metformin. “Insulin is the preferred agent for control of hyperglycemia in hospitalized sick patients,” they wrote.

Untested therapies

The authors also discussed a range of untested therapies that may help fight COVID-19, such as antiviral drugs (such as lopinavir and ritonavir), zinc nanoparticles, and vitamin C. Supplementing those recommendations, Dr. Gupta and colleagues provided a concise review of COVID-19 epidemiology and extant data relevant to patients with diabetes.

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gupta et al. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(3):211-12.

The Food and Drug Administration announced three measures aimed at improving the testing capacity for COVID-19.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

First, the FDA is giving states more flexibility to approve and implement testing for COVID-19.

“States can set up a system in which they take responsibility for authorizing such tests and the laboratories will not engage with the FDA,” agency Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a March 16 statement announcing the policy updates. “Laboratories developing tests in these states can engage directly with the appropriate state authorities, instead of with the FDA.”

A copy of the updated guidance document can be found here.

Dr. Hahn added that laboratories working within this authority granted to states will not have to pursue an emergency use authorization (EUA). New York state was previously granted a waiver to allow for more state oversight over the introduction of diagnostic testing.

Second, the FDA is expanding guidance issued on Feb. 29 on who can develop diagnostic tests. Originally, the Feb. 29 guidance was aimed at labs certified to perform high-complexity testing consistent with requirements outlined in the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments.

“Under the update published today, the agency does not intend to object to commercial manufacturers distributing and labs using new commercially developed tests prior to the FDA granting an EUA, under certain circumstances,” Commissioner Hahn said, adding that a number of commercial manufacturers are developing tests for the coronavirus with the intent of submitting an EUA request.

“During this public health emergency, the FDA does not intend to object to the distribution and use of these tests for specimen testing for a reasonable period of time after the manufacturer’s validation of the test while the manufacturer is preparing its EUA request,” he added.

The updated guidance also provides recommendations for test developers working on serologic tests for COVID-19.

During a March 16 conference call with reporters, Commissioner Hahn said the flexibility would add a “significant number of tests and we believe this will be a surge to meet the demand that we expect to see, although it is somewhat difficult” to quantify the number of tests this new flexibility will bring to the market.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration announced three measures aimed at improving the testing capacity for COVID-19.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

First, the FDA is giving states more flexibility to approve and implement testing for COVID-19.

“States can set up a system in which they take responsibility for authorizing such tests and the laboratories will not engage with the FDA,” agency Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a March 16 statement announcing the policy updates. “Laboratories developing tests in these states can engage directly with the appropriate state authorities, instead of with the FDA.”

A copy of the updated guidance document can be found here.

Dr. Hahn added that laboratories working within this authority granted to states will not have to pursue an emergency use authorization (EUA). New York state was previously granted a waiver to allow for more state oversight over the introduction of diagnostic testing.

Second, the FDA is expanding guidance issued on Feb. 29 on who can develop diagnostic tests. Originally, the Feb. 29 guidance was aimed at labs certified to perform high-complexity testing consistent with requirements outlined in the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments.

“Under the update published today, the agency does not intend to object to commercial manufacturers distributing and labs using new commercially developed tests prior to the FDA granting an EUA, under certain circumstances,” Commissioner Hahn said, adding that a number of commercial manufacturers are developing tests for the coronavirus with the intent of submitting an EUA request.

“During this public health emergency, the FDA does not intend to object to the distribution and use of these tests for specimen testing for a reasonable period of time after the manufacturer’s validation of the test while the manufacturer is preparing its EUA request,” he added.

The updated guidance also provides recommendations for test developers working on serologic tests for COVID-19.

During a March 16 conference call with reporters, Commissioner Hahn said the flexibility would add a “significant number of tests and we believe this will be a surge to meet the demand that we expect to see, although it is somewhat difficult” to quantify the number of tests this new flexibility will bring to the market.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration announced three measures aimed at improving the testing capacity for COVID-19.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

First, the FDA is giving states more flexibility to approve and implement testing for COVID-19.

“States can set up a system in which they take responsibility for authorizing such tests and the laboratories will not engage with the FDA,” agency Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a March 16 statement announcing the policy updates. “Laboratories developing tests in these states can engage directly with the appropriate state authorities, instead of with the FDA.”

A copy of the updated guidance document can be found here.

Dr. Hahn added that laboratories working within this authority granted to states will not have to pursue an emergency use authorization (EUA). New York state was previously granted a waiver to allow for more state oversight over the introduction of diagnostic testing.

Second, the FDA is expanding guidance issued on Feb. 29 on who can develop diagnostic tests. Originally, the Feb. 29 guidance was aimed at labs certified to perform high-complexity testing consistent with requirements outlined in the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments.

“Under the update published today, the agency does not intend to object to commercial manufacturers distributing and labs using new commercially developed tests prior to the FDA granting an EUA, under certain circumstances,” Commissioner Hahn said, adding that a number of commercial manufacturers are developing tests for the coronavirus with the intent of submitting an EUA request.

“During this public health emergency, the FDA does not intend to object to the distribution and use of these tests for specimen testing for a reasonable period of time after the manufacturer’s validation of the test while the manufacturer is preparing its EUA request,” he added.

The updated guidance also provides recommendations for test developers working on serologic tests for COVID-19.

During a March 16 conference call with reporters, Commissioner Hahn said the flexibility would add a “significant number of tests and we believe this will be a surge to meet the demand that we expect to see, although it is somewhat difficult” to quantify the number of tests this new flexibility will bring to the market.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com