Rheumatology News

Vertebral fractures appear to be common in people with severe COVID-19, and also raise the mortality risk, findings from a retrospective cohort suggest.

Among 114 patients with COVID-19 who underwent lateral chest x-rays at the San Raffaele Hospital ED in Milan, more than a third were found to have thoracic vertebral fractures. And, those individuals were more than twice as likely to die as were those without vertebral fractures.

“Morphometric vertebral fractures are one of the most common comorbidities among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, and the presence of such fractures may predict the severity of disease outcomes,” lead investigator Andrea Giustina, MD, said in an interview.

This is the first study to examine vertebral fracture prevalence in any coronavirus disease, but such fractures have been linked to an increased risk of pneumonia and impaired respiratory function, including restrictive pulmonary dysfunction. One possible mechanism may be that they cause anatomical changes, such as kyphosis, which negatively impact respiratory function by decreasing vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and inspiratory time, explained Dr. Giustina, professor of endocrinology, San Raffaele Vita Salute University, Milan, and president of the European Society of Endocrinology. The results were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Clinically, the findings suggest that all patients with COVID-19 who are undergoing chest x-rays should have morphometric vertebral x-ray evaluation, said Dr. Giustina.

“One interesting aspect of the study is that without morphometry, approximatively two thirds of vertebral fractures [would have been] missed. Therefore, they are largely underestimated in clinical practice,” he noted.
 

Thoracic vertebral fractures assessed via lateral chest x-rays

The 114 study subjects included were those whose lateral chest x-rays allowed for a high-quality assessment and in which all the thoracic tract of T4-T12 were viewable and assessable. None had been using glucocorticoids and only 3% had a prior diagnosis of osteoporosis.

The majority (75%) were male, and median age was 57 years. Most (79%) were hospitalized after evaluation in the ED. Of those, 12% (13) were admitted to the ICU and 15% (16) died.

Thoracic vertebral fractures were detected on the lateral chest x-rays in 36% (41) of the patients. In contrast, in studies of women aged 50 years and older from the general European population, morphometric vertebral fracture prevalence ranged from 18% to 26%, the investigators noted.

Of the total 65 vertebral fractures detected, 60% were classified as mild (height ratio decrease <25%), 33.3% as moderate (25%-40% decrease) and 7.7% as severe (>40%). Patients with more than one vertebral fracture were classified by their most severe one.

Those with versus without vertebral fractures didn’t differ by sex, body mass index, or clinical or biological parameters evaluated in the ED. But, compared with those without vertebral fractures, those with them were significantly older (68 vs. 54 years) and were more likely to have arterial hypertension (56% vs. 30%) and coronary artery disease (22% vs. 7%).

In multivariate analysis, age was the only statistically significant predictor of vertebral fractures (odds ratio, 1.04; P < .001).

Mortality doubled, though not significantly

Those with vertebral fractures were more likely to be hospitalized, although not significantly (88% vs. 74%). There was no significant difference in ICU admission (11% vs. 12.5%).

However, those with vertebral fractures required noninvasive mechanical ventilation significantly more often (48.8% vs. 27.4%; P = .02), and were more than twice as likely to die (22% vs. 10%; P = .07). While the difference in overall mortality wasn’t quite statistically significant, those with severe vertebral fractures were significantly more likely to die, compared with those with mild or moderate fractures (60%, 7%, 24%, respectively, for severe, moderate, and mild; P = .04), despite no significant differences in clinical or laboratory parameters.

“Our data from the field reinforce the need of implementing previously published recommendations concerning the importance of bone fragility care during the COVID pandemic with at least those patients already treated with antiosteoporotic drugs maintaining their adherence to treatments including vitamin D, which have also been suggested very recently to have no relevant predisposing effect on COVID-19,” Dr. Giustina and colleagues wrote.

Moreover, they added, “continuity of care should also include bone density monitoring despite very restricted access to clinical facilities, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, all patients with fractures should start antiresorptive treatment right away, even during hospital stay.”

The authors reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Giustina A et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa738.

Vertebral fractures appear to be common in people with severe COVID-19, and also raise the mortality risk, findings from a retrospective cohort suggest.

Among 114 patients with COVID-19 who underwent lateral chest x-rays at the San Raffaele Hospital ED in Milan, more than a third were found to have thoracic vertebral fractures. And, those individuals were more than twice as likely to die as were those without vertebral fractures.

“Morphometric vertebral fractures are one of the most common comorbidities among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, and the presence of such fractures may predict the severity of disease outcomes,” lead investigator Andrea Giustina, MD, said in an interview.

This is the first study to examine vertebral fracture prevalence in any coronavirus disease, but such fractures have been linked to an increased risk of pneumonia and impaired respiratory function, including restrictive pulmonary dysfunction. One possible mechanism may be that they cause anatomical changes, such as kyphosis, which negatively impact respiratory function by decreasing vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and inspiratory time, explained Dr. Giustina, professor of endocrinology, San Raffaele Vita Salute University, Milan, and president of the European Society of Endocrinology. The results were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Clinically, the findings suggest that all patients with COVID-19 who are undergoing chest x-rays should have morphometric vertebral x-ray evaluation, said Dr. Giustina.

“One interesting aspect of the study is that without morphometry, approximatively two thirds of vertebral fractures [would have been] missed. Therefore, they are largely underestimated in clinical practice,” he noted.
 

Thoracic vertebral fractures assessed via lateral chest x-rays

The 114 study subjects included were those whose lateral chest x-rays allowed for a high-quality assessment and in which all the thoracic tract of T4-T12 were viewable and assessable. None had been using glucocorticoids and only 3% had a prior diagnosis of osteoporosis.

The majority (75%) were male, and median age was 57 years. Most (79%) were hospitalized after evaluation in the ED. Of those, 12% (13) were admitted to the ICU and 15% (16) died.

Thoracic vertebral fractures were detected on the lateral chest x-rays in 36% (41) of the patients. In contrast, in studies of women aged 50 years and older from the general European population, morphometric vertebral fracture prevalence ranged from 18% to 26%, the investigators noted.

Of the total 65 vertebral fractures detected, 60% were classified as mild (height ratio decrease <25%), 33.3% as moderate (25%-40% decrease) and 7.7% as severe (>40%). Patients with more than one vertebral fracture were classified by their most severe one.

Those with versus without vertebral fractures didn’t differ by sex, body mass index, or clinical or biological parameters evaluated in the ED. But, compared with those without vertebral fractures, those with them were significantly older (68 vs. 54 years) and were more likely to have arterial hypertension (56% vs. 30%) and coronary artery disease (22% vs. 7%).

In multivariate analysis, age was the only statistically significant predictor of vertebral fractures (odds ratio, 1.04; P < .001).

Mortality doubled, though not significantly

Those with vertebral fractures were more likely to be hospitalized, although not significantly (88% vs. 74%). There was no significant difference in ICU admission (11% vs. 12.5%).

However, those with vertebral fractures required noninvasive mechanical ventilation significantly more often (48.8% vs. 27.4%; P = .02), and were more than twice as likely to die (22% vs. 10%; P = .07). While the difference in overall mortality wasn’t quite statistically significant, those with severe vertebral fractures were significantly more likely to die, compared with those with mild or moderate fractures (60%, 7%, 24%, respectively, for severe, moderate, and mild; P = .04), despite no significant differences in clinical or laboratory parameters.

“Our data from the field reinforce the need of implementing previously published recommendations concerning the importance of bone fragility care during the COVID pandemic with at least those patients already treated with antiosteoporotic drugs maintaining their adherence to treatments including vitamin D, which have also been suggested very recently to have no relevant predisposing effect on COVID-19,” Dr. Giustina and colleagues wrote.

Moreover, they added, “continuity of care should also include bone density monitoring despite very restricted access to clinical facilities, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, all patients with fractures should start antiresorptive treatment right away, even during hospital stay.”

The authors reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Giustina A et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa738.

Vertebral fractures appear to be common in people with severe COVID-19, and also raise the mortality risk, findings from a retrospective cohort suggest.

Among 114 patients with COVID-19 who underwent lateral chest x-rays at the San Raffaele Hospital ED in Milan, more than a third were found to have thoracic vertebral fractures. And, those individuals were more than twice as likely to die as were those without vertebral fractures.

“Morphometric vertebral fractures are one of the most common comorbidities among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, and the presence of such fractures may predict the severity of disease outcomes,” lead investigator Andrea Giustina, MD, said in an interview.

This is the first study to examine vertebral fracture prevalence in any coronavirus disease, but such fractures have been linked to an increased risk of pneumonia and impaired respiratory function, including restrictive pulmonary dysfunction. One possible mechanism may be that they cause anatomical changes, such as kyphosis, which negatively impact respiratory function by decreasing vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and inspiratory time, explained Dr. Giustina, professor of endocrinology, San Raffaele Vita Salute University, Milan, and president of the European Society of Endocrinology. The results were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Clinically, the findings suggest that all patients with COVID-19 who are undergoing chest x-rays should have morphometric vertebral x-ray evaluation, said Dr. Giustina.

“One interesting aspect of the study is that without morphometry, approximatively two thirds of vertebral fractures [would have been] missed. Therefore, they are largely underestimated in clinical practice,” he noted.
 

Thoracic vertebral fractures assessed via lateral chest x-rays

The 114 study subjects included were those whose lateral chest x-rays allowed for a high-quality assessment and in which all the thoracic tract of T4-T12 were viewable and assessable. None had been using glucocorticoids and only 3% had a prior diagnosis of osteoporosis.

The majority (75%) were male, and median age was 57 years. Most (79%) were hospitalized after evaluation in the ED. Of those, 12% (13) were admitted to the ICU and 15% (16) died.

Thoracic vertebral fractures were detected on the lateral chest x-rays in 36% (41) of the patients. In contrast, in studies of women aged 50 years and older from the general European population, morphometric vertebral fracture prevalence ranged from 18% to 26%, the investigators noted.

Of the total 65 vertebral fractures detected, 60% were classified as mild (height ratio decrease <25%), 33.3% as moderate (25%-40% decrease) and 7.7% as severe (>40%). Patients with more than one vertebral fracture were classified by their most severe one.

Those with versus without vertebral fractures didn’t differ by sex, body mass index, or clinical or biological parameters evaluated in the ED. But, compared with those without vertebral fractures, those with them were significantly older (68 vs. 54 years) and were more likely to have arterial hypertension (56% vs. 30%) and coronary artery disease (22% vs. 7%).

In multivariate analysis, age was the only statistically significant predictor of vertebral fractures (odds ratio, 1.04; P < .001).

Mortality doubled, though not significantly

Those with vertebral fractures were more likely to be hospitalized, although not significantly (88% vs. 74%). There was no significant difference in ICU admission (11% vs. 12.5%).

However, those with vertebral fractures required noninvasive mechanical ventilation significantly more often (48.8% vs. 27.4%; P = .02), and were more than twice as likely to die (22% vs. 10%; P = .07). While the difference in overall mortality wasn’t quite statistically significant, those with severe vertebral fractures were significantly more likely to die, compared with those with mild or moderate fractures (60%, 7%, 24%, respectively, for severe, moderate, and mild; P = .04), despite no significant differences in clinical or laboratory parameters.

“Our data from the field reinforce the need of implementing previously published recommendations concerning the importance of bone fragility care during the COVID pandemic with at least those patients already treated with antiosteoporotic drugs maintaining their adherence to treatments including vitamin D, which have also been suggested very recently to have no relevant predisposing effect on COVID-19,” Dr. Giustina and colleagues wrote.

Moreover, they added, “continuity of care should also include bone density monitoring despite very restricted access to clinical facilities, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, all patients with fractures should start antiresorptive treatment right away, even during hospital stay.”

The authors reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Giustina A et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa738.

Updated assessment and treatment options provide more tools to help clinicians manage osteoporosis and reduce fracture risk, according to Rick Pope, MPAS, PA-C.

iStock/Thinkstock

Criteria from the National Osteoporosis Foundation for the diagnosis of osteoporosis expanded in 2020 to include a T score measure of –2.5 or less at the wrist in postmenopausal women or in men aged 50 years and older (in addition to existing criteria of –2.5 or lower T scores at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, or total hip), he said in a presentation at the virtual annual Metabolic and Endocrine Disease Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Other updated diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis include a low-trauma hip fracture regardless of bone mineral density, and a history of fracture of the pelvis or wrist in the context of osteopenia (in addition to the existing criteria of fracture of the vertebrae or proximal humerus).

When a diagnosis of osteoporosis is established, the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool calculator continues to serve as useful tool that allows clinicians to easily input patient data and obtain a projection of fracture risk, Mr. Pope said.

During a clinical visit, be sure to measure patients’ height, and look for kyphosis to help evaluate fall risk. Progressive kyphosis is important because the head weight can increase to 40 pounds if the kyphosis progresses to 30 degrees, and puts further stress on the vertebrae, he emphasized. In addition, looking at gait is important, especially for older patients, said Mr. Pope. “I want to get an assessment of how steady they are on their feet.”

Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) is a useful strategy to evaluate the spine for silent compression fractures, especially in someone who has lost 1.5 inches in height or is on chronic steroids, Mr. Pope said. VFA has several advantages, including lower cost and lower radiation exposure than plain radiographs of the spine.

In addition, trabecular bone score (TBS) allows clinicians to evaluate bone microarchitecture, and this score can serve as an important indicator of fracture risk, Mr. Pope said.

As for treatment options, managing skeletal health in osteoporosis patients includes advising patients on healthy lifestyle practices that include not only adequate calcium and vitamin D, but also smoking cessation and a combination of weight-bearing, dynamic balance, and resistive exercises, he noted.

When considering medications, patient factors determine the most appropriate drug to use, Mr. Pope emphasized.

Bisphosphonates remain an option for treatment and have shown effectiveness at reducing fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, but concerns persist about side effects such as osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures (AFF), he noted.

Reassure patients that AFF is more of an issue with long-term bisphosphonate use, Mr. Pope said, citing a 2012 study in which the risk of atypical femoral fracture was 1.78 per 100,000 person-years among individuals with 0.1-1.9 years of bisphosphonate exposure, but this jumped to 113 per 100,000 person-years among those with 8-9.9 years of bisphosphonate exposure.

“Eight years seems to be the sweet spot,” before a significant increase, he said. In his clinic, clinicians stop patients at about 8 years of bisphosphonate treatment, and then consider restarting.

However, nonbisphosphonate treatments are also available, including the monoclonal antibody denosumab. “It is different than bisphosphonates, and the effect wears off rapidly,” said Mr. Pope. Also, creatinine clearance is not an issue with denosumab. However, when patients have gone past the 10-year mark, should be switched to an alternative treatment because of an increased fracture risk at that point.

One relatively new treatment, abaloparatide, is currently indicated only for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Data have shown an 86% reduction in vertebral fracture risk, but the drug carries a black-box warning for osteosarcoma, said Mr. Pope.

Romosozumab, another newcomer drug, is indicated only for postmenopausal osteoporotic women at high risk for fracture with multiple risk factors who have failed other therapies. Romosozumab carries a black-box warning for cardiovascular risk for those with a history of MI or stroke. “This is a completely different mechanism of action” from other drugs, Mr. Pope said. The drug is given twice a month for a total of 12 months, and must be administered by a health professional in an office setting.

Mr. Pope had no financial conflicts to disclose. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Updated assessment and treatment options provide more tools to help clinicians manage osteoporosis and reduce fracture risk, according to Rick Pope, MPAS, PA-C.

iStock/Thinkstock

Criteria from the National Osteoporosis Foundation for the diagnosis of osteoporosis expanded in 2020 to include a T score measure of –2.5 or less at the wrist in postmenopausal women or in men aged 50 years and older (in addition to existing criteria of –2.5 or lower T scores at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, or total hip), he said in a presentation at the virtual annual Metabolic and Endocrine Disease Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Other updated diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis include a low-trauma hip fracture regardless of bone mineral density, and a history of fracture of the pelvis or wrist in the context of osteopenia (in addition to the existing criteria of fracture of the vertebrae or proximal humerus).

When a diagnosis of osteoporosis is established, the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool calculator continues to serve as useful tool that allows clinicians to easily input patient data and obtain a projection of fracture risk, Mr. Pope said.

During a clinical visit, be sure to measure patients’ height, and look for kyphosis to help evaluate fall risk. Progressive kyphosis is important because the head weight can increase to 40 pounds if the kyphosis progresses to 30 degrees, and puts further stress on the vertebrae, he emphasized. In addition, looking at gait is important, especially for older patients, said Mr. Pope. “I want to get an assessment of how steady they are on their feet.”

Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) is a useful strategy to evaluate the spine for silent compression fractures, especially in someone who has lost 1.5 inches in height or is on chronic steroids, Mr. Pope said. VFA has several advantages, including lower cost and lower radiation exposure than plain radiographs of the spine.

In addition, trabecular bone score (TBS) allows clinicians to evaluate bone microarchitecture, and this score can serve as an important indicator of fracture risk, Mr. Pope said.

As for treatment options, managing skeletal health in osteoporosis patients includes advising patients on healthy lifestyle practices that include not only adequate calcium and vitamin D, but also smoking cessation and a combination of weight-bearing, dynamic balance, and resistive exercises, he noted.

When considering medications, patient factors determine the most appropriate drug to use, Mr. Pope emphasized.

Bisphosphonates remain an option for treatment and have shown effectiveness at reducing fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, but concerns persist about side effects such as osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures (AFF), he noted.

Reassure patients that AFF is more of an issue with long-term bisphosphonate use, Mr. Pope said, citing a 2012 study in which the risk of atypical femoral fracture was 1.78 per 100,000 person-years among individuals with 0.1-1.9 years of bisphosphonate exposure, but this jumped to 113 per 100,000 person-years among those with 8-9.9 years of bisphosphonate exposure.

“Eight years seems to be the sweet spot,” before a significant increase, he said. In his clinic, clinicians stop patients at about 8 years of bisphosphonate treatment, and then consider restarting.

However, nonbisphosphonate treatments are also available, including the monoclonal antibody denosumab. “It is different than bisphosphonates, and the effect wears off rapidly,” said Mr. Pope. Also, creatinine clearance is not an issue with denosumab. However, when patients have gone past the 10-year mark, should be switched to an alternative treatment because of an increased fracture risk at that point.

One relatively new treatment, abaloparatide, is currently indicated only for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Data have shown an 86% reduction in vertebral fracture risk, but the drug carries a black-box warning for osteosarcoma, said Mr. Pope.

Romosozumab, another newcomer drug, is indicated only for postmenopausal osteoporotic women at high risk for fracture with multiple risk factors who have failed other therapies. Romosozumab carries a black-box warning for cardiovascular risk for those with a history of MI or stroke. “This is a completely different mechanism of action” from other drugs, Mr. Pope said. The drug is given twice a month for a total of 12 months, and must be administered by a health professional in an office setting.

Mr. Pope had no financial conflicts to disclose. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Updated assessment and treatment options provide more tools to help clinicians manage osteoporosis and reduce fracture risk, according to Rick Pope, MPAS, PA-C.

iStock/Thinkstock

Criteria from the National Osteoporosis Foundation for the diagnosis of osteoporosis expanded in 2020 to include a T score measure of –2.5 or less at the wrist in postmenopausal women or in men aged 50 years and older (in addition to existing criteria of –2.5 or lower T scores at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, or total hip), he said in a presentation at the virtual annual Metabolic and Endocrine Disease Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Other updated diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis include a low-trauma hip fracture regardless of bone mineral density, and a history of fracture of the pelvis or wrist in the context of osteopenia (in addition to the existing criteria of fracture of the vertebrae or proximal humerus).

When a diagnosis of osteoporosis is established, the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool calculator continues to serve as useful tool that allows clinicians to easily input patient data and obtain a projection of fracture risk, Mr. Pope said.

During a clinical visit, be sure to measure patients’ height, and look for kyphosis to help evaluate fall risk. Progressive kyphosis is important because the head weight can increase to 40 pounds if the kyphosis progresses to 30 degrees, and puts further stress on the vertebrae, he emphasized. In addition, looking at gait is important, especially for older patients, said Mr. Pope. “I want to get an assessment of how steady they are on their feet.”

Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) is a useful strategy to evaluate the spine for silent compression fractures, especially in someone who has lost 1.5 inches in height or is on chronic steroids, Mr. Pope said. VFA has several advantages, including lower cost and lower radiation exposure than plain radiographs of the spine.

In addition, trabecular bone score (TBS) allows clinicians to evaluate bone microarchitecture, and this score can serve as an important indicator of fracture risk, Mr. Pope said.

As for treatment options, managing skeletal health in osteoporosis patients includes advising patients on healthy lifestyle practices that include not only adequate calcium and vitamin D, but also smoking cessation and a combination of weight-bearing, dynamic balance, and resistive exercises, he noted.

When considering medications, patient factors determine the most appropriate drug to use, Mr. Pope emphasized.

Bisphosphonates remain an option for treatment and have shown effectiveness at reducing fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, but concerns persist about side effects such as osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures (AFF), he noted.

Reassure patients that AFF is more of an issue with long-term bisphosphonate use, Mr. Pope said, citing a 2012 study in which the risk of atypical femoral fracture was 1.78 per 100,000 person-years among individuals with 0.1-1.9 years of bisphosphonate exposure, but this jumped to 113 per 100,000 person-years among those with 8-9.9 years of bisphosphonate exposure.

“Eight years seems to be the sweet spot,” before a significant increase, he said. In his clinic, clinicians stop patients at about 8 years of bisphosphonate treatment, and then consider restarting.

However, nonbisphosphonate treatments are also available, including the monoclonal antibody denosumab. “It is different than bisphosphonates, and the effect wears off rapidly,” said Mr. Pope. Also, creatinine clearance is not an issue with denosumab. However, when patients have gone past the 10-year mark, should be switched to an alternative treatment because of an increased fracture risk at that point.

One relatively new treatment, abaloparatide, is currently indicated only for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Data have shown an 86% reduction in vertebral fracture risk, but the drug carries a black-box warning for osteosarcoma, said Mr. Pope.

Romosozumab, another newcomer drug, is indicated only for postmenopausal osteoporotic women at high risk for fracture with multiple risk factors who have failed other therapies. Romosozumab carries a black-box warning for cardiovascular risk for those with a history of MI or stroke. “This is a completely different mechanism of action” from other drugs, Mr. Pope said. The drug is given twice a month for a total of 12 months, and must be administered by a health professional in an office setting.

Mr. Pope had no financial conflicts to disclose. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus wanes over time, latest research has suggested.

An ongoing study led by Imperial College London (ICL) found that the proportion of people testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies dropped by 26.5% over a 3-month period between June and September.

The findings from a non–peer reviewed preprint suggested that infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers only limited protection against reinfection.

Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT-2 programme at ICL, said: “Testing positive for antibodies does not mean you are immune to COVID-19.

“It remains unclear what level of immunity antibodies provide, or for how long this immunity lasts.”

Experts said that, while the findings suggested that immunity might fade over time, the severity of illness from further infections could be reduced.
 

Antibody prevalence declined in all adults

Results from cross-sectional studies over the 3-month period involved 365,104 adults who self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay test.

There were 17,576 positive tests over the three rounds.

Antibody prevalence, adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England, declined from 6.0% to 4.4%, a reduction of 26.5% over the 3 months.

The decline was seen in all age groups. However, the lowest prevalence of a positive test, and the largest fall, was seen in those aged 75 years and older.

No change was seen in positive antibody tests in health care workers over the 3 months.

The results suggested that people who did not show symptoms of COVID-19 were more likely to lose detectable antibodies sooner than those who did show symptoms.

Prof Helen Ward, one of the lead authors of the report said that, while it was clear that the proportion of people with antibodies was falling over time, “We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others.”
 

Results ‘weaken argument for herd immunity’

Commenting on the results to the Science Media Centre, Rowland Kao, professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, warned that, if the results were correct, “any strategy that relies on ‘herd immunity’ lacks credibility.”

However, he added that, “while the decline is substantial, nevertheless substantial proportions of the population do retain some immune response, over 4 months after the peak of the epidemic”.

Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease, also from the University of Edinburgh, said it was too early to assume that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 did not last because “the study does not look at antibody concentrations, antibody function, or other aspects of immunity such as T-cell immunity and does not look at the trajectory of antibody levels in the same individuals over time”.

However, she said the findings did not mean that a vaccine would be ineffective because vaccines contained adjuvants that could induce durable immune responses, particularly with multiple immunizations.

“What is not clear is how quickly antibody levels would rise again if a person encounters the SARS-CoV-2 virus a second time. It is possible they will still rapidly respond, and either have a milder illness, or remain protected through immune memory,” commented Dr. Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading.

Health Minister Lord Bethell said: “Regardless of the result of an antibody test, everyone must continue to comply with government guidelines including social distancing, self-isolating, and getting a test if you have symptoms, and always remember: hands, face, space.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus wanes over time, latest research has suggested.

An ongoing study led by Imperial College London (ICL) found that the proportion of people testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies dropped by 26.5% over a 3-month period between June and September.

The findings from a non–peer reviewed preprint suggested that infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers only limited protection against reinfection.

Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT-2 programme at ICL, said: “Testing positive for antibodies does not mean you are immune to COVID-19.

“It remains unclear what level of immunity antibodies provide, or for how long this immunity lasts.”

Experts said that, while the findings suggested that immunity might fade over time, the severity of illness from further infections could be reduced.
 

Antibody prevalence declined in all adults

Results from cross-sectional studies over the 3-month period involved 365,104 adults who self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay test.

There were 17,576 positive tests over the three rounds.

Antibody prevalence, adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England, declined from 6.0% to 4.4%, a reduction of 26.5% over the 3 months.

The decline was seen in all age groups. However, the lowest prevalence of a positive test, and the largest fall, was seen in those aged 75 years and older.

No change was seen in positive antibody tests in health care workers over the 3 months.

The results suggested that people who did not show symptoms of COVID-19 were more likely to lose detectable antibodies sooner than those who did show symptoms.

Prof Helen Ward, one of the lead authors of the report said that, while it was clear that the proportion of people with antibodies was falling over time, “We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others.”
 

Results ‘weaken argument for herd immunity’

Commenting on the results to the Science Media Centre, Rowland Kao, professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, warned that, if the results were correct, “any strategy that relies on ‘herd immunity’ lacks credibility.”

However, he added that, “while the decline is substantial, nevertheless substantial proportions of the population do retain some immune response, over 4 months after the peak of the epidemic”.

Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease, also from the University of Edinburgh, said it was too early to assume that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 did not last because “the study does not look at antibody concentrations, antibody function, or other aspects of immunity such as T-cell immunity and does not look at the trajectory of antibody levels in the same individuals over time”.

However, she said the findings did not mean that a vaccine would be ineffective because vaccines contained adjuvants that could induce durable immune responses, particularly with multiple immunizations.

“What is not clear is how quickly antibody levels would rise again if a person encounters the SARS-CoV-2 virus a second time. It is possible they will still rapidly respond, and either have a milder illness, or remain protected through immune memory,” commented Dr. Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading.

Health Minister Lord Bethell said: “Regardless of the result of an antibody test, everyone must continue to comply with government guidelines including social distancing, self-isolating, and getting a test if you have symptoms, and always remember: hands, face, space.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus wanes over time, latest research has suggested.

An ongoing study led by Imperial College London (ICL) found that the proportion of people testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies dropped by 26.5% over a 3-month period between June and September.

The findings from a non–peer reviewed preprint suggested that infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers only limited protection against reinfection.

Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT-2 programme at ICL, said: “Testing positive for antibodies does not mean you are immune to COVID-19.

“It remains unclear what level of immunity antibodies provide, or for how long this immunity lasts.”

Experts said that, while the findings suggested that immunity might fade over time, the severity of illness from further infections could be reduced.
 

Antibody prevalence declined in all adults

Results from cross-sectional studies over the 3-month period involved 365,104 adults who self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay test.

There were 17,576 positive tests over the three rounds.

Antibody prevalence, adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England, declined from 6.0% to 4.4%, a reduction of 26.5% over the 3 months.

The decline was seen in all age groups. However, the lowest prevalence of a positive test, and the largest fall, was seen in those aged 75 years and older.

No change was seen in positive antibody tests in health care workers over the 3 months.

The results suggested that people who did not show symptoms of COVID-19 were more likely to lose detectable antibodies sooner than those who did show symptoms.

Prof Helen Ward, one of the lead authors of the report said that, while it was clear that the proportion of people with antibodies was falling over time, “We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others.”
 

Results ‘weaken argument for herd immunity’

Commenting on the results to the Science Media Centre, Rowland Kao, professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, warned that, if the results were correct, “any strategy that relies on ‘herd immunity’ lacks credibility.”

However, he added that, “while the decline is substantial, nevertheless substantial proportions of the population do retain some immune response, over 4 months after the peak of the epidemic”.

Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease, also from the University of Edinburgh, said it was too early to assume that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 did not last because “the study does not look at antibody concentrations, antibody function, or other aspects of immunity such as T-cell immunity and does not look at the trajectory of antibody levels in the same individuals over time”.

However, she said the findings did not mean that a vaccine would be ineffective because vaccines contained adjuvants that could induce durable immune responses, particularly with multiple immunizations.

“What is not clear is how quickly antibody levels would rise again if a person encounters the SARS-CoV-2 virus a second time. It is possible they will still rapidly respond, and either have a milder illness, or remain protected through immune memory,” commented Dr. Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading.

Health Minister Lord Bethell said: “Regardless of the result of an antibody test, everyone must continue to comply with government guidelines including social distancing, self-isolating, and getting a test if you have symptoms, and always remember: hands, face, space.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Danny Dvir, MD, has a message for physicians who have patients with severe valvular heart disease who are deferring valve replacement or repair until after the COVID-19 pandemic: Urge them not to wait.

Data from the Multicenter International Valve Disease Registry vividly demonstrate that clinical outcomes are poor in patients with uncorrected valve disease who become hospitalized with COVID-19. Indeed, the mortality rate within 30 days after hospital admission in 136 such patients enrolled in the registry from centers in Europe, North America, and Israel was 42%, Dr. Dvir reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“That’s dramatically higher than for an age-matched population infected with COVID-19 without valvular heart disease, which is 10%-15%,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The bright spot was that, in the small subgroup of 15 registry participants who underwent transcatheter or, much less frequently, surgical treatment of their failing valve while COVID-19 infected, 30-day mortality was far lower. In fact, it was comparable with the background rate in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without valve disease, according to Dr. Dvir, an interventional cardiologist at Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

He personally did several of the transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

“It’s doable. I truly believe that when you get a severe aortic stenosis patient who’s infected with the coronavirus, they get very unstable, but we can treat them. We can treat them even during the infection,” Dr. Dvir said.

The majority of patients in the registry had severe aortic stenosis. In the 42 such patients aged 80 years or more who didn’t undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical valve replacement, 30-day mortality was 60%. In contrast, only one of the six patients in this advanced-age category who underwent valve replacement while infected died. Similarly, 30-day mortality was 24% among those younger than age 80 who valve remained untreated, but it dropped to 11% in those who received a prosthetic valve.

“We try our best to protect our patients through social distancing, but we have a treatment that can potentially reduce their mortality risk if they get infected later on. So I say to my patients: ‘Don’t wait at home. Do not wait! If you get infected when you have severe aortic stenosis, the clinical outcome is bad.’ But it seems reasonable that if they get infected when they’ve already been treated for their aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation, they will do better.”

Dr. Dvir noted that, although the case numbers in the registry series were small and subject to potential bias, the data suggest this treatment approach may be lifesaving.

Session comoderator Timothy D. Henry, MD, commented that this registry study contains a great take-home point: “This is really consistent with what see in a lot of the other areas of COVID, that what we know to be best clinical care, we should do it, with or without the COVID.”

He asked Dr. Dvir about any special measures he takes while doing TAVR in this extreme setting. In the United States, for example, interventionalists are increasingly using transesophageal echocardiography to guide their procedures using conscious sedation, without intubation, noted Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.

“We try to minimize the procedure time; that’s one of the important things,” Dr. Dvir replied. “And you need to be protected during the procedure in a very cautious and meticulous way. You need many fans in the room because you sweat a lot.”

Discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., commented: “The main thing I get from this presentation is the need for patients to be educated that if you’ve got valve disease, you’re better off getting it treated before you’ve got COVID. Obviously, try to prevent getting COVID – that’s the best thing you can do – but you can’t always control that.”

Discussant Mamas Mamas, MD, professor of cardiology at Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said deferred treatment of severe valvular heart disease during the pandemic has created a looming public health crisis in the United Kingdom.

“We’ve analyzed the U.K. management of aortic stenosis, and what we’ve found is that during the COVID pandemic there have been 2,500 fewer cases of aortic stenosis that have been treated. We’ve got 2,500 patients on the waiting list, and we’ve got to work out how we’re going to treat them. We estimate with simulations that about 300 of them are going to die before we can get them treated for their aortic stenosis,” according to Dr. Mamas.

Dr. Henry commented that deferral of valve procedures is “really challenging” for a couple of reasons: Not only are patients scared to come into the hospital because they fear getting COVID, but they don’t want to be hospitalized during the pandemic because their family can’t visit them there.

“These patients are mostly over 80 years old. No one wants to come in the hospital when the family won’t be around, especially when you’re 90 years old,” the interventional cardiologist said.

Dr. Dvir reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Jena.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Danny Dvir, MD, has a message for physicians who have patients with severe valvular heart disease who are deferring valve replacement or repair until after the COVID-19 pandemic: Urge them not to wait.

Data from the Multicenter International Valve Disease Registry vividly demonstrate that clinical outcomes are poor in patients with uncorrected valve disease who become hospitalized with COVID-19. Indeed, the mortality rate within 30 days after hospital admission in 136 such patients enrolled in the registry from centers in Europe, North America, and Israel was 42%, Dr. Dvir reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“That’s dramatically higher than for an age-matched population infected with COVID-19 without valvular heart disease, which is 10%-15%,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The bright spot was that, in the small subgroup of 15 registry participants who underwent transcatheter or, much less frequently, surgical treatment of their failing valve while COVID-19 infected, 30-day mortality was far lower. In fact, it was comparable with the background rate in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without valve disease, according to Dr. Dvir, an interventional cardiologist at Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

He personally did several of the transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

“It’s doable. I truly believe that when you get a severe aortic stenosis patient who’s infected with the coronavirus, they get very unstable, but we can treat them. We can treat them even during the infection,” Dr. Dvir said.

The majority of patients in the registry had severe aortic stenosis. In the 42 such patients aged 80 years or more who didn’t undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical valve replacement, 30-day mortality was 60%. In contrast, only one of the six patients in this advanced-age category who underwent valve replacement while infected died. Similarly, 30-day mortality was 24% among those younger than age 80 who valve remained untreated, but it dropped to 11% in those who received a prosthetic valve.

“We try our best to protect our patients through social distancing, but we have a treatment that can potentially reduce their mortality risk if they get infected later on. So I say to my patients: ‘Don’t wait at home. Do not wait! If you get infected when you have severe aortic stenosis, the clinical outcome is bad.’ But it seems reasonable that if they get infected when they’ve already been treated for their aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation, they will do better.”

Dr. Dvir noted that, although the case numbers in the registry series were small and subject to potential bias, the data suggest this treatment approach may be lifesaving.

Session comoderator Timothy D. Henry, MD, commented that this registry study contains a great take-home point: “This is really consistent with what see in a lot of the other areas of COVID, that what we know to be best clinical care, we should do it, with or without the COVID.”

He asked Dr. Dvir about any special measures he takes while doing TAVR in this extreme setting. In the United States, for example, interventionalists are increasingly using transesophageal echocardiography to guide their procedures using conscious sedation, without intubation, noted Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.

“We try to minimize the procedure time; that’s one of the important things,” Dr. Dvir replied. “And you need to be protected during the procedure in a very cautious and meticulous way. You need many fans in the room because you sweat a lot.”

Discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., commented: “The main thing I get from this presentation is the need for patients to be educated that if you’ve got valve disease, you’re better off getting it treated before you’ve got COVID. Obviously, try to prevent getting COVID – that’s the best thing you can do – but you can’t always control that.”

Discussant Mamas Mamas, MD, professor of cardiology at Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said deferred treatment of severe valvular heart disease during the pandemic has created a looming public health crisis in the United Kingdom.

“We’ve analyzed the U.K. management of aortic stenosis, and what we’ve found is that during the COVID pandemic there have been 2,500 fewer cases of aortic stenosis that have been treated. We’ve got 2,500 patients on the waiting list, and we’ve got to work out how we’re going to treat them. We estimate with simulations that about 300 of them are going to die before we can get them treated for their aortic stenosis,” according to Dr. Mamas.

Dr. Henry commented that deferral of valve procedures is “really challenging” for a couple of reasons: Not only are patients scared to come into the hospital because they fear getting COVID, but they don’t want to be hospitalized during the pandemic because their family can’t visit them there.

“These patients are mostly over 80 years old. No one wants to come in the hospital when the family won’t be around, especially when you’re 90 years old,” the interventional cardiologist said.

Dr. Dvir reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Jena.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Danny Dvir, MD, has a message for physicians who have patients with severe valvular heart disease who are deferring valve replacement or repair until after the COVID-19 pandemic: Urge them not to wait.

Data from the Multicenter International Valve Disease Registry vividly demonstrate that clinical outcomes are poor in patients with uncorrected valve disease who become hospitalized with COVID-19. Indeed, the mortality rate within 30 days after hospital admission in 136 such patients enrolled in the registry from centers in Europe, North America, and Israel was 42%, Dr. Dvir reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“That’s dramatically higher than for an age-matched population infected with COVID-19 without valvular heart disease, which is 10%-15%,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The bright spot was that, in the small subgroup of 15 registry participants who underwent transcatheter or, much less frequently, surgical treatment of their failing valve while COVID-19 infected, 30-day mortality was far lower. In fact, it was comparable with the background rate in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without valve disease, according to Dr. Dvir, an interventional cardiologist at Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

He personally did several of the transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

“It’s doable. I truly believe that when you get a severe aortic stenosis patient who’s infected with the coronavirus, they get very unstable, but we can treat them. We can treat them even during the infection,” Dr. Dvir said.

The majority of patients in the registry had severe aortic stenosis. In the 42 such patients aged 80 years or more who didn’t undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical valve replacement, 30-day mortality was 60%. In contrast, only one of the six patients in this advanced-age category who underwent valve replacement while infected died. Similarly, 30-day mortality was 24% among those younger than age 80 who valve remained untreated, but it dropped to 11% in those who received a prosthetic valve.

“We try our best to protect our patients through social distancing, but we have a treatment that can potentially reduce their mortality risk if they get infected later on. So I say to my patients: ‘Don’t wait at home. Do not wait! If you get infected when you have severe aortic stenosis, the clinical outcome is bad.’ But it seems reasonable that if they get infected when they’ve already been treated for their aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation, they will do better.”

Dr. Dvir noted that, although the case numbers in the registry series were small and subject to potential bias, the data suggest this treatment approach may be lifesaving.

Session comoderator Timothy D. Henry, MD, commented that this registry study contains a great take-home point: “This is really consistent with what see in a lot of the other areas of COVID, that what we know to be best clinical care, we should do it, with or without the COVID.”

He asked Dr. Dvir about any special measures he takes while doing TAVR in this extreme setting. In the United States, for example, interventionalists are increasingly using transesophageal echocardiography to guide their procedures using conscious sedation, without intubation, noted Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.

“We try to minimize the procedure time; that’s one of the important things,” Dr. Dvir replied. “And you need to be protected during the procedure in a very cautious and meticulous way. You need many fans in the room because you sweat a lot.”

Discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., commented: “The main thing I get from this presentation is the need for patients to be educated that if you’ve got valve disease, you’re better off getting it treated before you’ve got COVID. Obviously, try to prevent getting COVID – that’s the best thing you can do – but you can’t always control that.”

Discussant Mamas Mamas, MD, professor of cardiology at Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said deferred treatment of severe valvular heart disease during the pandemic has created a looming public health crisis in the United Kingdom.

“We’ve analyzed the U.K. management of aortic stenosis, and what we’ve found is that during the COVID pandemic there have been 2,500 fewer cases of aortic stenosis that have been treated. We’ve got 2,500 patients on the waiting list, and we’ve got to work out how we’re going to treat them. We estimate with simulations that about 300 of them are going to die before we can get them treated for their aortic stenosis,” according to Dr. Mamas.

Dr. Henry commented that deferral of valve procedures is “really challenging” for a couple of reasons: Not only are patients scared to come into the hospital because they fear getting COVID, but they don’t want to be hospitalized during the pandemic because their family can’t visit them there.

“These patients are mostly over 80 years old. No one wants to come in the hospital when the family won’t be around, especially when you’re 90 years old,” the interventional cardiologist said.

Dr. Dvir reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Jena.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Major thromboembolic complications and adverse cardiovascular events occurred with high frequency in patients with COVID-19, especially in the intensive care setting, despite a high use of thromboprophylaxis, in a new large observational U.S. study.

“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. 

“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.

However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.

The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Rates similar to other very sick patients

The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.

“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”

He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”

Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.

“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.

“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.

The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.

“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”

For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White. 

Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.

Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.

“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”

Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.

“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
 

ARDS biggest risk factor

Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.

“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”

They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.

“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.

“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.

The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
 

Wait for randomized trials

In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.

Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.

“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”

He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.

“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.

This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Major thromboembolic complications and adverse cardiovascular events occurred with high frequency in patients with COVID-19, especially in the intensive care setting, despite a high use of thromboprophylaxis, in a new large observational U.S. study.

“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. 

“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.

However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.

The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Rates similar to other very sick patients

The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.

“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”

He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”

Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.

“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.

“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.

The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.

“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”

For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White. 

Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.

Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.

“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”

Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.

“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
 

ARDS biggest risk factor

Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.

“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”

They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.

“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.

“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.

The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
 

Wait for randomized trials

In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.

Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.

“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”

He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.

“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.

This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Major thromboembolic complications and adverse cardiovascular events occurred with high frequency in patients with COVID-19, especially in the intensive care setting, despite a high use of thromboprophylaxis, in a new large observational U.S. study.

“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. 

“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.

However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.

The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Rates similar to other very sick patients

The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.

“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”

He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”

Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.

“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.

“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.

The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.

“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”

For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White. 

Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.

Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.

“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”

Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.

“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
 

ARDS biggest risk factor

Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.

“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”

They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.

“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.

“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.

The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
 

Wait for randomized trials

In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.

Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.

“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”

He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.

“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.

This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Abatacept’s safety as well as indicators of its potential efficacy in the treatment of patients with early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) were reinforced by newly reported results from the 6-month, open-label extension of the phase 2 ASSET trial.

“Exploratory outcome measures during the open-label extension, including the composite ACR CRISS [American College of Rheumatology Combined Response Index in diffuse cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis] score, indicate that abatacept [Orencia] might promote overall global improvement in these participants,” Lorinda Chung, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote in the Lancet Rheumatology.

To continue to determine the safety and efficacy of abatacept as a treatment for dcSSc, the researchers launched the open-label extension of the randomized, double-blind ASSET trial. After patients in ASSET completed 12 months of treatment with either 125 mg weekly of subcutaneous abatacept or placebo, they were invited to join the extension period. ASSET’s primary endpoint was the change in modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) from baseline to 12 months.

Of the 88 patients who began the ASSET trial – half of which were assigned to the abatacept group and the other half to the placebo group – 33 and 34 transitioned to weekly open-label treatment with 125 mg of abatacept, respectively. In the trial’s primary endpoint at 12 months, mean improvement in mRSS with abatacept was –6.6 (standard deviation, 6.4), compared to –3.7 (SD, 7.6) with placebo.

All told, 32 patients in each group completed 18 months of treatment. Patients who received abatacept in both periods had even more improvement in mRSS score (–9.8 [SD, 8.1]), as did patients who received placebo and then abatacept (–6.3 [SD, 9.3]). After 12 months, 68% of patients (23 of 34) in the abatacept group had a 5-unit or greater improvement in mRSS, compared with 50% of patients (19 of 38) in the placebo group. After 18 months, that percentage went up to 72% (23 of 32) among patients who took abatacept in both periods and 65% (20 of 31) for those who received it only in the extension.

Although the median ACR CRISS score was significantly greater at 12 months with abatacept, compared with placebo, both groups improved during the open-label period. After 12 months, an ACR CRISS score of 0.60 or higher was achieved by 55% (18 of 33) of the abatacept group and 36% (13 of 36) of the placebo group. In the extension, those percentages leapt to 66% (19 of 29) and 50% (13 of 26), respectively.

Throughout the double-blind phase, adverse events – including infectious events, serious events, and those that led to study withdrawal – were more frequent with placebo than with abatacept. During the extension period, although adverse events occurred slightly more among 18-month abatacept users, they ultimately occurred in fewer participants than in the double-blind phase.

Time to push forward with additional studies on abatacept

The results fortified by this open-label extension from Dr. Chung and colleagues should lay the groundwork for a phase 3 study on treatment with abatacept, wrote Francesco Del Galdo, MD, PhD, of the University of Leeds (England), in an accompanying editorial.

Along with clinically important improvements in several key measures, Dr. Del Galdo restated the value of abatacept’s “very benign” safety profile over the 18-month study period. However, he also acknowledged the “absence of concurrent immunosuppression” in the ASSET trial, noting that there is not yet a record of combination therapy safety across the board.

Beyond safety, he wondered if perhaps the time has passed for a placebo arm in dcSSc patients. He noted that participants in the initial placebo group were more likely to have “clinically relevant worsening of disease that required escape treatment,” which could make it ethically and analytically difficult to justify placebo.

The authors acknowledged the extension’s limitations, including the possibility that the survivors of the 12-month trial who joined the extension were more responsive to treatment or suffered from less severe disease. In addition, they noted that the study “was not powered for formal statistical comparison of the two treatment arms,” meaning all open-label results are considered exploratory. Finally, the number of participants in the extension period was small and likely contributed to low rates of adverse events, such as infection.

The trial was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, which markets abatacept, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, clinical trial support, and personal fees from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies, as well as serving on the advisory boards for such companies. Dr. Del Galdo reported receiving consultancy fees and research grants from several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Chung L et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2020 Oct 19. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30237-X.

Abatacept’s safety as well as indicators of its potential efficacy in the treatment of patients with early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) were reinforced by newly reported results from the 6-month, open-label extension of the phase 2 ASSET trial.

“Exploratory outcome measures during the open-label extension, including the composite ACR CRISS [American College of Rheumatology Combined Response Index in diffuse cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis] score, indicate that abatacept [Orencia] might promote overall global improvement in these participants,” Lorinda Chung, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote in the Lancet Rheumatology.

To continue to determine the safety and efficacy of abatacept as a treatment for dcSSc, the researchers launched the open-label extension of the randomized, double-blind ASSET trial. After patients in ASSET completed 12 months of treatment with either 125 mg weekly of subcutaneous abatacept or placebo, they were invited to join the extension period. ASSET’s primary endpoint was the change in modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) from baseline to 12 months.

Of the 88 patients who began the ASSET trial – half of which were assigned to the abatacept group and the other half to the placebo group – 33 and 34 transitioned to weekly open-label treatment with 125 mg of abatacept, respectively. In the trial’s primary endpoint at 12 months, mean improvement in mRSS with abatacept was –6.6 (standard deviation, 6.4), compared to –3.7 (SD, 7.6) with placebo.

All told, 32 patients in each group completed 18 months of treatment. Patients who received abatacept in both periods had even more improvement in mRSS score (–9.8 [SD, 8.1]), as did patients who received placebo and then abatacept (–6.3 [SD, 9.3]). After 12 months, 68% of patients (23 of 34) in the abatacept group had a 5-unit or greater improvement in mRSS, compared with 50% of patients (19 of 38) in the placebo group. After 18 months, that percentage went up to 72% (23 of 32) among patients who took abatacept in both periods and 65% (20 of 31) for those who received it only in the extension.

Although the median ACR CRISS score was significantly greater at 12 months with abatacept, compared with placebo, both groups improved during the open-label period. After 12 months, an ACR CRISS score of 0.60 or higher was achieved by 55% (18 of 33) of the abatacept group and 36% (13 of 36) of the placebo group. In the extension, those percentages leapt to 66% (19 of 29) and 50% (13 of 26), respectively.

Throughout the double-blind phase, adverse events – including infectious events, serious events, and those that led to study withdrawal – were more frequent with placebo than with abatacept. During the extension period, although adverse events occurred slightly more among 18-month abatacept users, they ultimately occurred in fewer participants than in the double-blind phase.

Time to push forward with additional studies on abatacept

The results fortified by this open-label extension from Dr. Chung and colleagues should lay the groundwork for a phase 3 study on treatment with abatacept, wrote Francesco Del Galdo, MD, PhD, of the University of Leeds (England), in an accompanying editorial.

Along with clinically important improvements in several key measures, Dr. Del Galdo restated the value of abatacept’s “very benign” safety profile over the 18-month study period. However, he also acknowledged the “absence of concurrent immunosuppression” in the ASSET trial, noting that there is not yet a record of combination therapy safety across the board.

Beyond safety, he wondered if perhaps the time has passed for a placebo arm in dcSSc patients. He noted that participants in the initial placebo group were more likely to have “clinically relevant worsening of disease that required escape treatment,” which could make it ethically and analytically difficult to justify placebo.

The authors acknowledged the extension’s limitations, including the possibility that the survivors of the 12-month trial who joined the extension were more responsive to treatment or suffered from less severe disease. In addition, they noted that the study “was not powered for formal statistical comparison of the two treatment arms,” meaning all open-label results are considered exploratory. Finally, the number of participants in the extension period was small and likely contributed to low rates of adverse events, such as infection.

The trial was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, which markets abatacept, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, clinical trial support, and personal fees from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies, as well as serving on the advisory boards for such companies. Dr. Del Galdo reported receiving consultancy fees and research grants from several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Chung L et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2020 Oct 19. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30237-X.

Abatacept’s safety as well as indicators of its potential efficacy in the treatment of patients with early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) were reinforced by newly reported results from the 6-month, open-label extension of the phase 2 ASSET trial.

“Exploratory outcome measures during the open-label extension, including the composite ACR CRISS [American College of Rheumatology Combined Response Index in diffuse cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis] score, indicate that abatacept [Orencia] might promote overall global improvement in these participants,” Lorinda Chung, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote in the Lancet Rheumatology.

To continue to determine the safety and efficacy of abatacept as a treatment for dcSSc, the researchers launched the open-label extension of the randomized, double-blind ASSET trial. After patients in ASSET completed 12 months of treatment with either 125 mg weekly of subcutaneous abatacept or placebo, they were invited to join the extension period. ASSET’s primary endpoint was the change in modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) from baseline to 12 months.

Of the 88 patients who began the ASSET trial – half of which were assigned to the abatacept group and the other half to the placebo group – 33 and 34 transitioned to weekly open-label treatment with 125 mg of abatacept, respectively. In the trial’s primary endpoint at 12 months, mean improvement in mRSS with abatacept was –6.6 (standard deviation, 6.4), compared to –3.7 (SD, 7.6) with placebo.

All told, 32 patients in each group completed 18 months of treatment. Patients who received abatacept in both periods had even more improvement in mRSS score (–9.8 [SD, 8.1]), as did patients who received placebo and then abatacept (–6.3 [SD, 9.3]). After 12 months, 68% of patients (23 of 34) in the abatacept group had a 5-unit or greater improvement in mRSS, compared with 50% of patients (19 of 38) in the placebo group. After 18 months, that percentage went up to 72% (23 of 32) among patients who took abatacept in both periods and 65% (20 of 31) for those who received it only in the extension.

Although the median ACR CRISS score was significantly greater at 12 months with abatacept, compared with placebo, both groups improved during the open-label period. After 12 months, an ACR CRISS score of 0.60 or higher was achieved by 55% (18 of 33) of the abatacept group and 36% (13 of 36) of the placebo group. In the extension, those percentages leapt to 66% (19 of 29) and 50% (13 of 26), respectively.

Throughout the double-blind phase, adverse events – including infectious events, serious events, and those that led to study withdrawal – were more frequent with placebo than with abatacept. During the extension period, although adverse events occurred slightly more among 18-month abatacept users, they ultimately occurred in fewer participants than in the double-blind phase.

Time to push forward with additional studies on abatacept

The results fortified by this open-label extension from Dr. Chung and colleagues should lay the groundwork for a phase 3 study on treatment with abatacept, wrote Francesco Del Galdo, MD, PhD, of the University of Leeds (England), in an accompanying editorial.

Along with clinically important improvements in several key measures, Dr. Del Galdo restated the value of abatacept’s “very benign” safety profile over the 18-month study period. However, he also acknowledged the “absence of concurrent immunosuppression” in the ASSET trial, noting that there is not yet a record of combination therapy safety across the board.

Beyond safety, he wondered if perhaps the time has passed for a placebo arm in dcSSc patients. He noted that participants in the initial placebo group were more likely to have “clinically relevant worsening of disease that required escape treatment,” which could make it ethically and analytically difficult to justify placebo.

The authors acknowledged the extension’s limitations, including the possibility that the survivors of the 12-month trial who joined the extension were more responsive to treatment or suffered from less severe disease. In addition, they noted that the study “was not powered for formal statistical comparison of the two treatment arms,” meaning all open-label results are considered exploratory. Finally, the number of participants in the extension period was small and likely contributed to low rates of adverse events, such as infection.

The trial was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, which markets abatacept, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, clinical trial support, and personal fees from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies, as well as serving on the advisory boards for such companies. Dr. Del Galdo reported receiving consultancy fees and research grants from several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Chung L et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2020 Oct 19. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30237-X.

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIA-U) are significantly more likely to experience a flare in their eye disease if their arthritis is also worsening, a team of U.S.-based researchers has found.

Jonathan Trobe, M.D./Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

In a longitudinal cohort study, children with active arthritis at the time of a routine rheumatology assessment had an almost 2.5-fold increased risk of also having active uveitis 45 days before or after the assessment than did children whose arthritis was not flaring at the rheumatology assessment.

“We demonstrate that the two diseases often run parallel courses,” corresponding author Emily J. Liebling, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and associates state in Arthritis Care & Research, noting that the magnitude of the association is striking.

“Although there are known risk factors associated with uveitis development in children with JIA, less data are available about factors associated with uveitis flare or activity,” said Sheila T. Angeles-Han, MD, MSc, of the departments of pediatrics and ophthalmology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center who commented on the study in an interview.

“If proven, this knowledge has the potential to impact practice patterns and current guidelines wherein a pediatric rheumatologist who evaluates a child with JIA-associated uveitis and finds active arthritis would request an expedited ophthalmic examination,” Dr. Angeles-Han suggested.

Dr. Angeles-Han led the development of the first American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Screening, Monitoring, and Treatment of JIA-Associated Uveitis, which recommends regular screening for uveitis in all children with JIA. Children found to have uveitis should then be screened at least every 3 months, and more frequently if they are taking glucocorticoids and treatment is being tapered.

JIA-associated uveitis accounts for around 20%-40% of all cases of noninfectious childhood eye inflammation, and it can run an insidious and chronic course.

“Children with acute anterior uveitis are symptomatic and tend to have a painful red eye, thus prompting an ophthalmic evaluation,” Dr. Angeles-Han explained. “This is different from children with chronic anterior uveitis who tend not to have any symptoms, thus a screening examination is critical to detect ocular inflammation.”

While the ACR/AF guideline distinguishes between acute and chronic uveitis, Dr. Liebling and colleagues explain that they did not because their experience shows that “even patients with chronic anterior uveitis, typically thought to have silent disease, may exhibit symptoms of eye pain, redness, vision changes, and photophobia.”

Conversely, they say “the JIA subtypes usually associated with acute anterior uveitis may instead manifest as asymptomatic eye disease.”

For their study, Dr. Liebling and coinvestigators examined the records of children seen at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia over a 6.5-year period. For inclusion, children had to have a physician diagnosis of JIA of any subtype and a history of uveitis.

A total of 98 children were included in the retrospective evaluation; the median age at diagnosis of JIA was 3.3 years, and the median age at first uveitis diagnosis was 5.1 years. The majority (82%) were female, 69% were antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive, and 60% had oligoarthritis – all of which have been associated with having a higher risk for developing uveitis.

However, independent of these and several other factors, the probability of having active uveitis within 45 days of a rheumatology assessment was 65% in those with active arthritis versus 42% for those with no active joints.

Their data are based on 1,229 rheumatology visits that occurred between 2013 and 2019, with a median of 13 visits per patient. Overall, arthritis was defined as being active in 17% of visits, and active uveitis was observed in 18% of rheumatology visits.

Concordance between arthritis and uveitis activity was observed 73% of the time, the researchers reported. A sensitivity analysis that excluded children with the enthesitis-related arthritis subtype of JIA, who may not undergo frequent eye exams, did not change their findings.

Decreased odds of active uveitis at any time point were seen with the use of combination biologic and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Years from uveitis diagnosis was also associated with lower odds of active uveitis over time.

Other factors associated with lower odds of uveitis were female sex, HLA-B27 positivity, and having any subtype of JIA other than the oligoarticular subtype.

Dr. Liebling and coinvestigators concluded that, contrary to the historical dogma, arthritis and uveitis do not run distinct and unrelated courses: “In patients with JIA-U, there is a significant temporal association between arthritis and uveitis disease activity.”

The study was sponsored by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Rheumatology Research Fund. The investigators for the study had no financial support from commercial sources or any other potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Angeles-Han had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Liebling EJ et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1002/acr.24483.

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIA-U) are significantly more likely to experience a flare in their eye disease if their arthritis is also worsening, a team of U.S.-based researchers has found.

Jonathan Trobe, M.D./Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

In a longitudinal cohort study, children with active arthritis at the time of a routine rheumatology assessment had an almost 2.5-fold increased risk of also having active uveitis 45 days before or after the assessment than did children whose arthritis was not flaring at the rheumatology assessment.

“We demonstrate that the two diseases often run parallel courses,” corresponding author Emily J. Liebling, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and associates state in Arthritis Care & Research, noting that the magnitude of the association is striking.

“Although there are known risk factors associated with uveitis development in children with JIA, less data are available about factors associated with uveitis flare or activity,” said Sheila T. Angeles-Han, MD, MSc, of the departments of pediatrics and ophthalmology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center who commented on the study in an interview.

“If proven, this knowledge has the potential to impact practice patterns and current guidelines wherein a pediatric rheumatologist who evaluates a child with JIA-associated uveitis and finds active arthritis would request an expedited ophthalmic examination,” Dr. Angeles-Han suggested.

Dr. Angeles-Han led the development of the first American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Screening, Monitoring, and Treatment of JIA-Associated Uveitis, which recommends regular screening for uveitis in all children with JIA. Children found to have uveitis should then be screened at least every 3 months, and more frequently if they are taking glucocorticoids and treatment is being tapered.

JIA-associated uveitis accounts for around 20%-40% of all cases of noninfectious childhood eye inflammation, and it can run an insidious and chronic course.

“Children with acute anterior uveitis are symptomatic and tend to have a painful red eye, thus prompting an ophthalmic evaluation,” Dr. Angeles-Han explained. “This is different from children with chronic anterior uveitis who tend not to have any symptoms, thus a screening examination is critical to detect ocular inflammation.”

While the ACR/AF guideline distinguishes between acute and chronic uveitis, Dr. Liebling and colleagues explain that they did not because their experience shows that “even patients with chronic anterior uveitis, typically thought to have silent disease, may exhibit symptoms of eye pain, redness, vision changes, and photophobia.”

Conversely, they say “the JIA subtypes usually associated with acute anterior uveitis may instead manifest as asymptomatic eye disease.”

For their study, Dr. Liebling and coinvestigators examined the records of children seen at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia over a 6.5-year period. For inclusion, children had to have a physician diagnosis of JIA of any subtype and a history of uveitis.

A total of 98 children were included in the retrospective evaluation; the median age at diagnosis of JIA was 3.3 years, and the median age at first uveitis diagnosis was 5.1 years. The majority (82%) were female, 69% were antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive, and 60% had oligoarthritis – all of which have been associated with having a higher risk for developing uveitis.

However, independent of these and several other factors, the probability of having active uveitis within 45 days of a rheumatology assessment was 65% in those with active arthritis versus 42% for those with no active joints.

Their data are based on 1,229 rheumatology visits that occurred between 2013 and 2019, with a median of 13 visits per patient. Overall, arthritis was defined as being active in 17% of visits, and active uveitis was observed in 18% of rheumatology visits.

Concordance between arthritis and uveitis activity was observed 73% of the time, the researchers reported. A sensitivity analysis that excluded children with the enthesitis-related arthritis subtype of JIA, who may not undergo frequent eye exams, did not change their findings.

Decreased odds of active uveitis at any time point were seen with the use of combination biologic and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Years from uveitis diagnosis was also associated with lower odds of active uveitis over time.

Other factors associated with lower odds of uveitis were female sex, HLA-B27 positivity, and having any subtype of JIA other than the oligoarticular subtype.

Dr. Liebling and coinvestigators concluded that, contrary to the historical dogma, arthritis and uveitis do not run distinct and unrelated courses: “In patients with JIA-U, there is a significant temporal association between arthritis and uveitis disease activity.”

The study was sponsored by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Rheumatology Research Fund. The investigators for the study had no financial support from commercial sources or any other potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Angeles-Han had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Liebling EJ et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1002/acr.24483.

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIA-U) are significantly more likely to experience a flare in their eye disease if their arthritis is also worsening, a team of U.S.-based researchers has found.

Jonathan Trobe, M.D./Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

In a longitudinal cohort study, children with active arthritis at the time of a routine rheumatology assessment had an almost 2.5-fold increased risk of also having active uveitis 45 days before or after the assessment than did children whose arthritis was not flaring at the rheumatology assessment.

“We demonstrate that the two diseases often run parallel courses,” corresponding author Emily J. Liebling, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and associates state in Arthritis Care & Research, noting that the magnitude of the association is striking.

“Although there are known risk factors associated with uveitis development in children with JIA, less data are available about factors associated with uveitis flare or activity,” said Sheila T. Angeles-Han, MD, MSc, of the departments of pediatrics and ophthalmology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center who commented on the study in an interview.

“If proven, this knowledge has the potential to impact practice patterns and current guidelines wherein a pediatric rheumatologist who evaluates a child with JIA-associated uveitis and finds active arthritis would request an expedited ophthalmic examination,” Dr. Angeles-Han suggested.

Dr. Angeles-Han led the development of the first American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Screening, Monitoring, and Treatment of JIA-Associated Uveitis, which recommends regular screening for uveitis in all children with JIA. Children found to have uveitis should then be screened at least every 3 months, and more frequently if they are taking glucocorticoids and treatment is being tapered.

JIA-associated uveitis accounts for around 20%-40% of all cases of noninfectious childhood eye inflammation, and it can run an insidious and chronic course.

“Children with acute anterior uveitis are symptomatic and tend to have a painful red eye, thus prompting an ophthalmic evaluation,” Dr. Angeles-Han explained. “This is different from children with chronic anterior uveitis who tend not to have any symptoms, thus a screening examination is critical to detect ocular inflammation.”

While the ACR/AF guideline distinguishes between acute and chronic uveitis, Dr. Liebling and colleagues explain that they did not because their experience shows that “even patients with chronic anterior uveitis, typically thought to have silent disease, may exhibit symptoms of eye pain, redness, vision changes, and photophobia.”

Conversely, they say “the JIA subtypes usually associated with acute anterior uveitis may instead manifest as asymptomatic eye disease.”

For their study, Dr. Liebling and coinvestigators examined the records of children seen at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia over a 6.5-year period. For inclusion, children had to have a physician diagnosis of JIA of any subtype and a history of uveitis.

A total of 98 children were included in the retrospective evaluation; the median age at diagnosis of JIA was 3.3 years, and the median age at first uveitis diagnosis was 5.1 years. The majority (82%) were female, 69% were antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive, and 60% had oligoarthritis – all of which have been associated with having a higher risk for developing uveitis.

However, independent of these and several other factors, the probability of having active uveitis within 45 days of a rheumatology assessment was 65% in those with active arthritis versus 42% for those with no active joints.

Their data are based on 1,229 rheumatology visits that occurred between 2013 and 2019, with a median of 13 visits per patient. Overall, arthritis was defined as being active in 17% of visits, and active uveitis was observed in 18% of rheumatology visits.

Concordance between arthritis and uveitis activity was observed 73% of the time, the researchers reported. A sensitivity analysis that excluded children with the enthesitis-related arthritis subtype of JIA, who may not undergo frequent eye exams, did not change their findings.

Decreased odds of active uveitis at any time point were seen with the use of combination biologic and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Years from uveitis diagnosis was also associated with lower odds of active uveitis over time.

Other factors associated with lower odds of uveitis were female sex, HLA-B27 positivity, and having any subtype of JIA other than the oligoarticular subtype.

Dr. Liebling and coinvestigators concluded that, contrary to the historical dogma, arthritis and uveitis do not run distinct and unrelated courses: “In patients with JIA-U, there is a significant temporal association between arthritis and uveitis disease activity.”

The study was sponsored by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Rheumatology Research Fund. The investigators for the study had no financial support from commercial sources or any other potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Angeles-Han had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Liebling EJ et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1002/acr.24483.

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

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

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

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

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

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