Rheumatology News

The number of children infected with COVID-19 rose by 7.8% during the week ending Sept. 3, putting the United States over the half-million mark in cumulative child cases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

States have reported 513,415 cases of COVID-19 in children since the beginning of the pandemic, with almost 37,000 coming in the last week, the AAP and the CHA said Sept. 8 in the weekly report. That figure includes New York City – the rest of New York State is not reporting ages for COVID-19 patients – as well as Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

“These numbers are a chilling reminder of why we need to take this virus seriously,” AAP President Sara Goza, MD, said in a written statement.

Children now represent 9.8% of the almost 5.3 million cases that have been reported in Americans of all ages. The proportion of child cases has continued to increase as the pandemic has progressed – it was 8.0% as of mid-July and 5.2% in early June, the data show.

“Throughout the summer, surges in the virus have occurred in Southern, Western, and Midwestern states,” the AAP statement said.

The latest AAP/CHA report shows that, from Aug. 27 to Sept. 3, the total number of child cases jumped by 33.7% in South Dakota, more than any other state. North Dakota was next at 22.7%, followed by Hawaii (18.1%), Missouri (16.8%), and Kentucky (16.4%).

“This rapid rise in positive cases occurred over the summer, and as the weather cools, we know people will spend more time indoors,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases. “The goal is to get children back into schools for in-person learning, but in many communities, this is not possible as the virus spreads unchecked.”

The smallest increase over the last week, just 0.9%, came in Rhode Island, with Massachusetts just a bit higher at 1.0%. Also at the low end of the increase scale are Arizona (3.3%) and Louisiana (4.0%), two states that have very high rates of cumulative cases: 1,380 per 100,000 children for Arizona and 1,234 per 100,000 for Louisiana, the report said.

To give those figures some context, Tennessee has the highest cumulative count of any state at 1,553 cases per 100,000 children and Vermont has the lowest at 151, based on the data gathered by the AAP and CHA.

“While much remains unknown about COVID-19, we do know that the spread among children reflects what is happening in the broader communities. A disproportionate number of cases are reported in Black and Hispanic children and in places where there is high poverty. We must work harder to address societal inequities that contribute to these disparities,” Dr. Goza said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The number of children infected with COVID-19 rose by 7.8% during the week ending Sept. 3, putting the United States over the half-million mark in cumulative child cases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

States have reported 513,415 cases of COVID-19 in children since the beginning of the pandemic, with almost 37,000 coming in the last week, the AAP and the CHA said Sept. 8 in the weekly report. That figure includes New York City – the rest of New York State is not reporting ages for COVID-19 patients – as well as Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

“These numbers are a chilling reminder of why we need to take this virus seriously,” AAP President Sara Goza, MD, said in a written statement.

Children now represent 9.8% of the almost 5.3 million cases that have been reported in Americans of all ages. The proportion of child cases has continued to increase as the pandemic has progressed – it was 8.0% as of mid-July and 5.2% in early June, the data show.

“Throughout the summer, surges in the virus have occurred in Southern, Western, and Midwestern states,” the AAP statement said.

The latest AAP/CHA report shows that, from Aug. 27 to Sept. 3, the total number of child cases jumped by 33.7% in South Dakota, more than any other state. North Dakota was next at 22.7%, followed by Hawaii (18.1%), Missouri (16.8%), and Kentucky (16.4%).

“This rapid rise in positive cases occurred over the summer, and as the weather cools, we know people will spend more time indoors,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases. “The goal is to get children back into schools for in-person learning, but in many communities, this is not possible as the virus spreads unchecked.”

The smallest increase over the last week, just 0.9%, came in Rhode Island, with Massachusetts just a bit higher at 1.0%. Also at the low end of the increase scale are Arizona (3.3%) and Louisiana (4.0%), two states that have very high rates of cumulative cases: 1,380 per 100,000 children for Arizona and 1,234 per 100,000 for Louisiana, the report said.

To give those figures some context, Tennessee has the highest cumulative count of any state at 1,553 cases per 100,000 children and Vermont has the lowest at 151, based on the data gathered by the AAP and CHA.

“While much remains unknown about COVID-19, we do know that the spread among children reflects what is happening in the broader communities. A disproportionate number of cases are reported in Black and Hispanic children and in places where there is high poverty. We must work harder to address societal inequities that contribute to these disparities,” Dr. Goza said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The number of children infected with COVID-19 rose by 7.8% during the week ending Sept. 3, putting the United States over the half-million mark in cumulative child cases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

States have reported 513,415 cases of COVID-19 in children since the beginning of the pandemic, with almost 37,000 coming in the last week, the AAP and the CHA said Sept. 8 in the weekly report. That figure includes New York City – the rest of New York State is not reporting ages for COVID-19 patients – as well as Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

“These numbers are a chilling reminder of why we need to take this virus seriously,” AAP President Sara Goza, MD, said in a written statement.

Children now represent 9.8% of the almost 5.3 million cases that have been reported in Americans of all ages. The proportion of child cases has continued to increase as the pandemic has progressed – it was 8.0% as of mid-July and 5.2% in early June, the data show.

“Throughout the summer, surges in the virus have occurred in Southern, Western, and Midwestern states,” the AAP statement said.

The latest AAP/CHA report shows that, from Aug. 27 to Sept. 3, the total number of child cases jumped by 33.7% in South Dakota, more than any other state. North Dakota was next at 22.7%, followed by Hawaii (18.1%), Missouri (16.8%), and Kentucky (16.4%).

“This rapid rise in positive cases occurred over the summer, and as the weather cools, we know people will spend more time indoors,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases. “The goal is to get children back into schools for in-person learning, but in many communities, this is not possible as the virus spreads unchecked.”

The smallest increase over the last week, just 0.9%, came in Rhode Island, with Massachusetts just a bit higher at 1.0%. Also at the low end of the increase scale are Arizona (3.3%) and Louisiana (4.0%), two states that have very high rates of cumulative cases: 1,380 per 100,000 children for Arizona and 1,234 per 100,000 for Louisiana, the report said.

To give those figures some context, Tennessee has the highest cumulative count of any state at 1,553 cases per 100,000 children and Vermont has the lowest at 151, based on the data gathered by the AAP and CHA.

“While much remains unknown about COVID-19, we do know that the spread among children reflects what is happening in the broader communities. A disproportionate number of cases are reported in Black and Hispanic children and in places where there is high poverty. We must work harder to address societal inequities that contribute to these disparities,” Dr. Goza said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the virtual medical meeting is now the norm. And while it’s admirable that key data are being disseminated (often for free), there is no escaping the fact that it is a fundamentally different and lesser experience.

Watching from home, most of us split our attention between live streams of the meeting and work and family obligations. There is far less urgency when early live presentations are recorded and can be viewed later.

In terms of discussing the data, Twitter may offer broader participation than a live meeting, yet only a small number of attendees actively engage online.

And the exhibit halls for these online meetings? With neither free coffee nor company-branded tchotchkes, I expect that they have virtual tumbleweeds blowing through and crickets chirping.

Even still, the virtual meeting experience, while inferior to the live one, is a tremendous advance. It should never be banished as a historical footnote but rather should remain an option. It’s analogous to watching the Super Bowl at home: Obviously, it’s not the same as being there, but it’s a terrific alternative. Like telemedicine, this pandemic has provided a critical proof of concept that there is a better model.
 

Reshaping the medical meeting

Let’s consider five reasons why medical meetings should be permanently reshaped by this pandemic.

This pandemic isn’t going away in 2020. While nearly every country has done a far better job than the United States of containing COVID-19 thus far, outbreaks remain a problem wherever crowds assemble. You’d be hard-pressed to devise a setting more conducive to mass spread than a conference of 20,000 attendees from all over the world sitting alongside each other cheek to jowl for 5 days. Worse yet is the thought of them returning home and infecting their patients, families, and friends. What medical society wants to be remembered for creating a COVID-19 superspreader event? Professional medical societies will need to offer this option as the safest alternative moving forward.

Virtual learning still conveys the most important content. Despite the many social benefits of a live meeting, its core purpose is to disseminate new research and current and emerging treatment options. Virtual meetings have proven that this format can effectively deliver the content, and not as a secondary offering but as the sole platform in real time.

Virtual learning levels the playing field. Traveling to attend conferences typically costs thousands of dollars, accounting for the registration fees, inflated hotel rates, ground transportation, and meals out for days on end. Most meetings also demand several days away from our work and families, forcing many of us to work extra in the days before we leave and upon our return. Parents and those with commitments at home also face special challenges. For international participants, the financial and time costs are even greater. A virtual meeting helps overcome these hurdles and erases barriers that have long precluded many from attending a conference.

Virtual learning is efficient and comfortable. Virtual meetings over the past 6 months have given us a glimpse of an astonishingly more efficient form. If the content seems of a lower magnitude without the fanfare of a live conference, it is in part because so much of a live meeting is spent walking a mile between session rooms, waiting in concession or taxi lines, sitting in traffic between venues, or simply waiting for a session to begin. All of that has been replaced with time that you can use productively in between video sessions viewed either live or on demand. And with a virtual meeting, you can comfortably watch the sessions. There’s no need to stand along the back wall of an overcrowded room or step over 10 people to squeeze into an open middle seat. You can be focused, rather than having an end-of-day presentation wash over you as your eyes cross because you’ve been running around for the past 12 hours.

Virtual learning and social media will only improve. While virtual meetings unquestionably have limitations, it’s important to acknowledge that the successes thus far still represent only the earliest forays into this endeavor. In-person meetings evolved to their present form over centuries. In contrast, virtual meetings are being cobbled together within a few weeks or months. They can only be expected to improve as presenters adapt their skills to the online audience and new tools improve virtual discussions.

I am not implying that live meetings will or should be replaced by virtual ones. We still need that experience of trainees and experts presenting to a live audience and discussing the results together, all while sharing the energy of the moment. But there should be room for both a live conference and a virtual version.

Practically speaking, it is unclear whether professional societies could forgo the revenue they receive from registration fees, meeting sponsorships, and corporate exhibits. Yet, there are certainly ways to obtain sponsorship revenue for a virtual program. Even if the virtual version of a conference costs far less than attending in person, there is plenty of room between that number and free. It costs remarkably little for a professional society to share its content, and virtual offerings further the mission of distributing this content broadly.

We should not rush to return to the previous status quo. Despite their limitations, virtual meetings have brought a new, higher standard of access and efficiency for sharing important new data and treatment options in medicine.

H. Jack West, MD, associate clinical professor and executive director of employer services at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., regularly comments on lung cancer for Medscape. West serves as web editor for JAMA Oncology, edits and writes several sections on lung cancer for UpToDate, and leads a wide range of continuing education programs and other educational programs, including hosting the audio podcast West Wind.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the virtual medical meeting is now the norm. And while it’s admirable that key data are being disseminated (often for free), there is no escaping the fact that it is a fundamentally different and lesser experience.

Watching from home, most of us split our attention between live streams of the meeting and work and family obligations. There is far less urgency when early live presentations are recorded and can be viewed later.

In terms of discussing the data, Twitter may offer broader participation than a live meeting, yet only a small number of attendees actively engage online.

And the exhibit halls for these online meetings? With neither free coffee nor company-branded tchotchkes, I expect that they have virtual tumbleweeds blowing through and crickets chirping.

Even still, the virtual meeting experience, while inferior to the live one, is a tremendous advance. It should never be banished as a historical footnote but rather should remain an option. It’s analogous to watching the Super Bowl at home: Obviously, it’s not the same as being there, but it’s a terrific alternative. Like telemedicine, this pandemic has provided a critical proof of concept that there is a better model.
 

Reshaping the medical meeting

Let’s consider five reasons why medical meetings should be permanently reshaped by this pandemic.

This pandemic isn’t going away in 2020. While nearly every country has done a far better job than the United States of containing COVID-19 thus far, outbreaks remain a problem wherever crowds assemble. You’d be hard-pressed to devise a setting more conducive to mass spread than a conference of 20,000 attendees from all over the world sitting alongside each other cheek to jowl for 5 days. Worse yet is the thought of them returning home and infecting their patients, families, and friends. What medical society wants to be remembered for creating a COVID-19 superspreader event? Professional medical societies will need to offer this option as the safest alternative moving forward.

Virtual learning still conveys the most important content. Despite the many social benefits of a live meeting, its core purpose is to disseminate new research and current and emerging treatment options. Virtual meetings have proven that this format can effectively deliver the content, and not as a secondary offering but as the sole platform in real time.

Virtual learning levels the playing field. Traveling to attend conferences typically costs thousands of dollars, accounting for the registration fees, inflated hotel rates, ground transportation, and meals out for days on end. Most meetings also demand several days away from our work and families, forcing many of us to work extra in the days before we leave and upon our return. Parents and those with commitments at home also face special challenges. For international participants, the financial and time costs are even greater. A virtual meeting helps overcome these hurdles and erases barriers that have long precluded many from attending a conference.

Virtual learning is efficient and comfortable. Virtual meetings over the past 6 months have given us a glimpse of an astonishingly more efficient form. If the content seems of a lower magnitude without the fanfare of a live conference, it is in part because so much of a live meeting is spent walking a mile between session rooms, waiting in concession or taxi lines, sitting in traffic between venues, or simply waiting for a session to begin. All of that has been replaced with time that you can use productively in between video sessions viewed either live or on demand. And with a virtual meeting, you can comfortably watch the sessions. There’s no need to stand along the back wall of an overcrowded room or step over 10 people to squeeze into an open middle seat. You can be focused, rather than having an end-of-day presentation wash over you as your eyes cross because you’ve been running around for the past 12 hours.

Virtual learning and social media will only improve. While virtual meetings unquestionably have limitations, it’s important to acknowledge that the successes thus far still represent only the earliest forays into this endeavor. In-person meetings evolved to their present form over centuries. In contrast, virtual meetings are being cobbled together within a few weeks or months. They can only be expected to improve as presenters adapt their skills to the online audience and new tools improve virtual discussions.

I am not implying that live meetings will or should be replaced by virtual ones. We still need that experience of trainees and experts presenting to a live audience and discussing the results together, all while sharing the energy of the moment. But there should be room for both a live conference and a virtual version.

Practically speaking, it is unclear whether professional societies could forgo the revenue they receive from registration fees, meeting sponsorships, and corporate exhibits. Yet, there are certainly ways to obtain sponsorship revenue for a virtual program. Even if the virtual version of a conference costs far less than attending in person, there is plenty of room between that number and free. It costs remarkably little for a professional society to share its content, and virtual offerings further the mission of distributing this content broadly.

We should not rush to return to the previous status quo. Despite their limitations, virtual meetings have brought a new, higher standard of access and efficiency for sharing important new data and treatment options in medicine.

H. Jack West, MD, associate clinical professor and executive director of employer services at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., regularly comments on lung cancer for Medscape. West serves as web editor for JAMA Oncology, edits and writes several sections on lung cancer for UpToDate, and leads a wide range of continuing education programs and other educational programs, including hosting the audio podcast West Wind.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the virtual medical meeting is now the norm. And while it’s admirable that key data are being disseminated (often for free), there is no escaping the fact that it is a fundamentally different and lesser experience.

Watching from home, most of us split our attention between live streams of the meeting and work and family obligations. There is far less urgency when early live presentations are recorded and can be viewed later.

In terms of discussing the data, Twitter may offer broader participation than a live meeting, yet only a small number of attendees actively engage online.

And the exhibit halls for these online meetings? With neither free coffee nor company-branded tchotchkes, I expect that they have virtual tumbleweeds blowing through and crickets chirping.

Even still, the virtual meeting experience, while inferior to the live one, is a tremendous advance. It should never be banished as a historical footnote but rather should remain an option. It’s analogous to watching the Super Bowl at home: Obviously, it’s not the same as being there, but it’s a terrific alternative. Like telemedicine, this pandemic has provided a critical proof of concept that there is a better model.
 

Reshaping the medical meeting

Let’s consider five reasons why medical meetings should be permanently reshaped by this pandemic.

This pandemic isn’t going away in 2020. While nearly every country has done a far better job than the United States of containing COVID-19 thus far, outbreaks remain a problem wherever crowds assemble. You’d be hard-pressed to devise a setting more conducive to mass spread than a conference of 20,000 attendees from all over the world sitting alongside each other cheek to jowl for 5 days. Worse yet is the thought of them returning home and infecting their patients, families, and friends. What medical society wants to be remembered for creating a COVID-19 superspreader event? Professional medical societies will need to offer this option as the safest alternative moving forward.

Virtual learning still conveys the most important content. Despite the many social benefits of a live meeting, its core purpose is to disseminate new research and current and emerging treatment options. Virtual meetings have proven that this format can effectively deliver the content, and not as a secondary offering but as the sole platform in real time.

Virtual learning levels the playing field. Traveling to attend conferences typically costs thousands of dollars, accounting for the registration fees, inflated hotel rates, ground transportation, and meals out for days on end. Most meetings also demand several days away from our work and families, forcing many of us to work extra in the days before we leave and upon our return. Parents and those with commitments at home also face special challenges. For international participants, the financial and time costs are even greater. A virtual meeting helps overcome these hurdles and erases barriers that have long precluded many from attending a conference.

Virtual learning is efficient and comfortable. Virtual meetings over the past 6 months have given us a glimpse of an astonishingly more efficient form. If the content seems of a lower magnitude without the fanfare of a live conference, it is in part because so much of a live meeting is spent walking a mile between session rooms, waiting in concession or taxi lines, sitting in traffic between venues, or simply waiting for a session to begin. All of that has been replaced with time that you can use productively in between video sessions viewed either live or on demand. And with a virtual meeting, you can comfortably watch the sessions. There’s no need to stand along the back wall of an overcrowded room or step over 10 people to squeeze into an open middle seat. You can be focused, rather than having an end-of-day presentation wash over you as your eyes cross because you’ve been running around for the past 12 hours.

Virtual learning and social media will only improve. While virtual meetings unquestionably have limitations, it’s important to acknowledge that the successes thus far still represent only the earliest forays into this endeavor. In-person meetings evolved to their present form over centuries. In contrast, virtual meetings are being cobbled together within a few weeks or months. They can only be expected to improve as presenters adapt their skills to the online audience and new tools improve virtual discussions.

I am not implying that live meetings will or should be replaced by virtual ones. We still need that experience of trainees and experts presenting to a live audience and discussing the results together, all while sharing the energy of the moment. But there should be room for both a live conference and a virtual version.

Practically speaking, it is unclear whether professional societies could forgo the revenue they receive from registration fees, meeting sponsorships, and corporate exhibits. Yet, there are certainly ways to obtain sponsorship revenue for a virtual program. Even if the virtual version of a conference costs far less than attending in person, there is plenty of room between that number and free. It costs remarkably little for a professional society to share its content, and virtual offerings further the mission of distributing this content broadly.

We should not rush to return to the previous status quo. Despite their limitations, virtual meetings have brought a new, higher standard of access and efficiency for sharing important new data and treatment options in medicine.

H. Jack West, MD, associate clinical professor and executive director of employer services at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., regularly comments on lung cancer for Medscape. West serves as web editor for JAMA Oncology, edits and writes several sections on lung cancer for UpToDate, and leads a wide range of continuing education programs and other educational programs, including hosting the audio podcast West Wind.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More evidence indicates that the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is associated not only with dramatically higher than usual mortality rates but also that a significant proportion of patients with AKI do not recover kidney function by the time they are discharged.

“This ... is the first study in the United States to report the persistence of kidney dysfunction (lack of recovery) in survivors of COVID-19–associated AKI [and] this is in marked contrast to other forms of AKI where over 80% of patients recover their renal function by 10 days,” Lili Chan, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues observed.

The research is a retrospective, observational cohort study published online Sept. 3 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

“We may be facing an epidemic of post–COVID-19 kidney disease and that, in turn, could mean much greater numbers of patients who require kidney dialysis and even transplants,” said senior author Girish Nadkarni, MD, a nephrologist, in a statement from Mount Sinai.

Nephrologists will need to prepare for a significant uptick in patients with chronic kidney disease as a result of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19, the researchers warned.

“These findings may help centers with resource planning and preparing for the increased load resulting from survivors of COVID-19–associated AKI who do not experience recovery of kidney function,” they added.
 

Analysis of patients from February to end of May 2020

“AKI among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States is not well described,” they noted in their article.

And so they analyzed data from five major hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System between Feb. 27 and May 30 of this year, during which 3,993 patients were hospitalized within the system for COVID-19. The MSHS has a patient population of racially and ethnically diverse citizens from New York.

AKI was defined using Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. AKI occurred in 46% of the overall cohort of patients, 19% of whom required dialysis.

However, among those patients who required admission to the ICU, over three-quarters (76%) developed AKI and almost one-third of ICU patients required dialysis, the investigators said.

“The median time from hospital admission until AKI diagnoses was 1 day and the median time from AKI diagnosis to dialysis was 3 days,” they explain.

The proportion of patients with stages 1, 2, or 3 AKI among those admitted to hospital were 39%, 19%, and 42%, respectively. In patients requiring admission to ICU, 28% had stage 1 AKI, 17% had stage 2, and 56% had stage 3.

And among those who required dialysis for AKI, the median peak serum creatinine was 8.2 mg/dL, compared with 2.2 mg/dL for those who did not require dialysis.
 

Predictors of AKI: male sex, potassium levels, and preexisting CKD

Almost two thirds of patients (65%) had recovered from their kidney injury by the time they left hospital but 35% had acute kidney disease. Of this latter group, on follow-up, 36% had recovered from it, the investigators noted.

Conversely, of those patients who had recovered from AKI by hospital discharge, 14% went on to develop acute kidney disease at the time of follow-up.

And 30% of patients who had required dialysis at some point during their hospital care required dialysis again within 72 hours of being discharged, the investigators noted.

Predictors of severe AKI included male sex (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46), potassium levels on admission (aOR, 1.7), and preexisting chronic kidney disease (CKD) (aOR, 2.8).

Most compellingly, “in-hospital mortality in patients who experienced AKI was 50% [versus] 8% in patients without AKI (P < .001),” Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues reported.

Among those who required ICU care, 42% of patients with AKI died, compared with 7% of those in ICU who did not develop AKI, while in patients cared for outside of ICU, 62% with AKI died compared with only 13% of those who did not develop AKI.

And after adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory values, the aOR for death was 11.4 times higher for ICU patients with AKI, compared with ICU patients without AKI, the authors emphasize.

In all patients who developed AKI, the aOR for mortality was 9.2, compared with patients who did not develop AKI, they added.

Perhaps predictably, the risk of death rose with increasing stage of AKI, and patients with stage 3 AKI who required dialysis were at highest risk of death, the authors observe.
 

Sheer number of AKI cases, need for dialysis unprecedented

“The sheer number of AKI cases and the overwhelming need for dialysis that we are seeing in the context of COVID-19 is unprecedented,” Dr. Nadkarni said.

“These findings bring clinical evidence to the hypothesis of lingering organ dysfunction among patients recovering from COVID-19 and serve as a reminder to hospitals around the country to be very strategic in the allocation of resources to care for patients who experience AKI,” he cautioned.

“We are grappling with a great deal of uncertainty as to how the virus will impact the kidneys in the long haul,” Dr. Nadkarni added. “We may be facing an epidemic of post–COVID-19 kidney disease, and that, in turn, could mean much greater numbers of patients who require kidney dialysis and even transplants.”

Dr. Nadkarni reported serving as a consultant and advisory board member for RenalytixAI and owns equity in the company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More evidence indicates that the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is associated not only with dramatically higher than usual mortality rates but also that a significant proportion of patients with AKI do not recover kidney function by the time they are discharged.

“This ... is the first study in the United States to report the persistence of kidney dysfunction (lack of recovery) in survivors of COVID-19–associated AKI [and] this is in marked contrast to other forms of AKI where over 80% of patients recover their renal function by 10 days,” Lili Chan, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues observed.

The research is a retrospective, observational cohort study published online Sept. 3 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

“We may be facing an epidemic of post–COVID-19 kidney disease and that, in turn, could mean much greater numbers of patients who require kidney dialysis and even transplants,” said senior author Girish Nadkarni, MD, a nephrologist, in a statement from Mount Sinai.

Nephrologists will need to prepare for a significant uptick in patients with chronic kidney disease as a result of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19, the researchers warned.

“These findings may help centers with resource planning and preparing for the increased load resulting from survivors of COVID-19–associated AKI who do not experience recovery of kidney function,” they added.
 

Analysis of patients from February to end of May 2020

“AKI among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States is not well described,” they noted in their article.

And so they analyzed data from five major hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System between Feb. 27 and May 30 of this year, during which 3,993 patients were hospitalized within the system for COVID-19. The MSHS has a patient population of racially and ethnically diverse citizens from New York.

AKI was defined using Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. AKI occurred in 46% of the overall cohort of patients, 19% of whom required dialysis.

However, among those patients who required admission to the ICU, over three-quarters (76%) developed AKI and almost one-third of ICU patients required dialysis, the investigators said.

“The median time from hospital admission until AKI diagnoses was 1 day and the median time from AKI diagnosis to dialysis was 3 days,” they explain.

The proportion of patients with stages 1, 2, or 3 AKI among those admitted to hospital were 39%, 19%, and 42%, respectively. In patients requiring admission to ICU, 28% had stage 1 AKI, 17% had stage 2, and 56% had stage 3.

And among those who required dialysis for AKI, the median peak serum creatinine was 8.2 mg/dL, compared with 2.2 mg/dL for those who did not require dialysis.
 

Predictors of AKI: male sex, potassium levels, and preexisting CKD

Almost two thirds of patients (65%) had recovered from their kidney injury by the time they left hospital but 35% had acute kidney disease. Of this latter group, on follow-up, 36% had recovered from it, the investigators noted.

Conversely, of those patients who had recovered from AKI by hospital discharge, 14% went on to develop acute kidney disease at the time of follow-up.

And 30% of patients who had required dialysis at some point during their hospital care required dialysis again within 72 hours of being discharged, the investigators noted.

Predictors of severe AKI included male sex (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46), potassium levels on admission (aOR, 1.7), and preexisting chronic kidney disease (CKD) (aOR, 2.8).

Most compellingly, “in-hospital mortality in patients who experienced AKI was 50% [versus] 8% in patients without AKI (P < .001),” Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues reported.

Among those who required ICU care, 42% of patients with AKI died, compared with 7% of those in ICU who did not develop AKI, while in patients cared for outside of ICU, 62% with AKI died compared with only 13% of those who did not develop AKI.

And after adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory values, the aOR for death was 11.4 times higher for ICU patients with AKI, compared with ICU patients without AKI, the authors emphasize.

In all patients who developed AKI, the aOR for mortality was 9.2, compared with patients who did not develop AKI, they added.

Perhaps predictably, the risk of death rose with increasing stage of AKI, and patients with stage 3 AKI who required dialysis were at highest risk of death, the authors observe.
 

Sheer number of AKI cases, need for dialysis unprecedented

“The sheer number of AKI cases and the overwhelming need for dialysis that we are seeing in the context of COVID-19 is unprecedented,” Dr. Nadkarni said.

“These findings bring clinical evidence to the hypothesis of lingering organ dysfunction among patients recovering from COVID-19 and serve as a reminder to hospitals around the country to be very strategic in the allocation of resources to care for patients who experience AKI,” he cautioned.

“We are grappling with a great deal of uncertainty as to how the virus will impact the kidneys in the long haul,” Dr. Nadkarni added. “We may be facing an epidemic of post–COVID-19 kidney disease, and that, in turn, could mean much greater numbers of patients who require kidney dialysis and even transplants.”

Dr. Nadkarni reported serving as a consultant and advisory board member for RenalytixAI and owns equity in the company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More evidence indicates that the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is associated not only with dramatically higher than usual mortality rates but also that a significant proportion of patients with AKI do not recover kidney function by the time they are discharged.

“This ... is the first study in the United States to report the persistence of kidney dysfunction (lack of recovery) in survivors of COVID-19–associated AKI [and] this is in marked contrast to other forms of AKI where over 80% of patients recover their renal function by 10 days,” Lili Chan, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues observed.

The research is a retrospective, observational cohort study published online Sept. 3 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

“We may be facing an epidemic of post–COVID-19 kidney disease and that, in turn, could mean much greater numbers of patients who require kidney dialysis and even transplants,” said senior author Girish Nadkarni, MD, a nephrologist, in a statement from Mount Sinai.

Nephrologists will need to prepare for a significant uptick in patients with chronic kidney disease as a result of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19, the researchers warned.

“These findings may help centers with resource planning and preparing for the increased load resulting from survivors of COVID-19–associated AKI who do not experience recovery of kidney function,” they added.
 

Analysis of patients from February to end of May 2020

“AKI among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States is not well described,” they noted in their article.

And so they analyzed data from five major hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System between Feb. 27 and May 30 of this year, during which 3,993 patients were hospitalized within the system for COVID-19. The MSHS has a patient population of racially and ethnically diverse citizens from New York.

AKI was defined using Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. AKI occurred in 46% of the overall cohort of patients, 19% of whom required dialysis.

However, among those patients who required admission to the ICU, over three-quarters (76%) developed AKI and almost one-third of ICU patients required dialysis, the investigators said.

“The median time from hospital admission until AKI diagnoses was 1 day and the median time from AKI diagnosis to dialysis was 3 days,” they explain.

The proportion of patients with stages 1, 2, or 3 AKI among those admitted to hospital were 39%, 19%, and 42%, respectively. In patients requiring admission to ICU, 28% had stage 1 AKI, 17% had stage 2, and 56% had stage 3.

And among those who required dialysis for AKI, the median peak serum creatinine was 8.2 mg/dL, compared with 2.2 mg/dL for those who did not require dialysis.
 

Predictors of AKI: male sex, potassium levels, and preexisting CKD

Almost two thirds of patients (65%) had recovered from their kidney injury by the time they left hospital but 35% had acute kidney disease. Of this latter group, on follow-up, 36% had recovered from it, the investigators noted.

Conversely, of those patients who had recovered from AKI by hospital discharge, 14% went on to develop acute kidney disease at the time of follow-up.

And 30% of patients who had required dialysis at some point during their hospital care required dialysis again within 72 hours of being discharged, the investigators noted.

Predictors of severe AKI included male sex (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46), potassium levels on admission (aOR, 1.7), and preexisting chronic kidney disease (CKD) (aOR, 2.8).

Most compellingly, “in-hospital mortality in patients who experienced AKI was 50% [versus] 8% in patients without AKI (P < .001),” Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues reported.

Among those who required ICU care, 42% of patients with AKI died, compared with 7% of those in ICU who did not develop AKI, while in patients cared for outside of ICU, 62% with AKI died compared with only 13% of those who did not develop AKI.

And after adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory values, the aOR for death was 11.4 times higher for ICU patients with AKI, compared with ICU patients without AKI, the authors emphasize.

In all patients who developed AKI, the aOR for mortality was 9.2, compared with patients who did not develop AKI, they added.

Perhaps predictably, the risk of death rose with increasing stage of AKI, and patients with stage 3 AKI who required dialysis were at highest risk of death, the authors observe.
 

Sheer number of AKI cases, need for dialysis unprecedented

“The sheer number of AKI cases and the overwhelming need for dialysis that we are seeing in the context of COVID-19 is unprecedented,” Dr. Nadkarni said.

“These findings bring clinical evidence to the hypothesis of lingering organ dysfunction among patients recovering from COVID-19 and serve as a reminder to hospitals around the country to be very strategic in the allocation of resources to care for patients who experience AKI,” he cautioned.

“We are grappling with a great deal of uncertainty as to how the virus will impact the kidneys in the long haul,” Dr. Nadkarni added. “We may be facing an epidemic of post–COVID-19 kidney disease, and that, in turn, could mean much greater numbers of patients who require kidney dialysis and even transplants.”

Dr. Nadkarni reported serving as a consultant and advisory board member for RenalytixAI and owns equity in the company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch realized that until we have a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, we would be at the mercy of this virus. He realized that the fastest and most effective way to reduce COVID-19 fatalities would be to leverage existing drugs to treat patients at the onset of infection — before they become sick. A lack of funded research in this area prompted him to establish the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) with the purpose of funding outpatient clinical trials of promising repurposed drugs.

Medscape spoke with CETF’s chief medical advisor, Lisa Danzig, MD, about the organization’s aim to fund promising research on repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19.

What is CETF trying to do?

Two things: save lives, and get control of this pandemic.

We are facing perhaps the greatest crisis of our lifetime. Doctors who have taken care of patients with COVID are really frustrated about not having anything to offer; they just watch patients die. We want to change that. CETF was founded to find treatments that, when given early, could improve outcomes and avoid catastrophic complications in patients suffering from COVID-19. That means reducing hospitalizations, which can reduce mortality, but it also can mean reducing viral load, and that can have a profound impact on transmission within communities. We are a funding organization — a Band-Aid. We shouldn’t exist, but we do, aiming to close gaps until a coordinated response can get set up.

Tell us about drug repurposing and why you think existing drugs might have a role in mitigating COVID-19 or slowing its transmission.

This disease has two components — the viral infection, and the immunopathology. So the two promising categories of drugs are classical antivirals (or repurposed drugs with antiviral activity), and the immunomodulators. We are mechanism-agnostic. It doesn’t matter what kind of drug it is if it keeps people out of the hospital and prevents chronic morbidity and mortality.

Repurposed drugs are sort of the low-hanging fruit of clinical drugs. The QBI Coronavirus Research Group identified 69 compounds that have theoretical activity against SARS-CoV-2, 29 of which are already FDA-approved drugs. We thought, why don’t we start testing them?

Some people might call this a long shot. Does drug repurposing really work?

Drugmakers don’t test their drugs on every disease they might be effective for. Drug repurposing can work, but if we don’t look, we definitely won’t find anything. The classic repurposed drug is Viagra, a failed hypertension drug. When the studies ended because it didn’t work, the drug company asked patients to send back the unused drugs. The women all returned the drugs, but the men didn’t. And the rest is history.

There’s a long list of potential drugs that can be repurposed, but few are being tested. The famous poster child of a repurposed drug — hydroxychloroquine — has been the subject of more than 250 clinical trials, but the others weren’t getting much attention.

The beauty of a repurposed drug is that if you can get funding and start enrolling patients, you could potentially find out fairly quickly, as early as a few months, if that drug has an antiviral effect or not. These data would help prioritize drugs to be tested in larger confirmatory studies.

Your focus is on early treatment. What’s the rationale for that?

We are focusing on early treatment because it has been overlooked. The attention has been on vaccines and therapeutics for hospitalized patients. But if you are spending $20 billion on potential vaccines and billions more on diagnostics, we need to give proportional resources toward drugs that might actually work, when given early, in preventing severe disease and death.

Early treatment, if successful, would allow us to avoid the severe complications that we are seeing now. If we can find an early treatment with an existing drug, it would be the fastest, most clinically- and cost-effective way to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and get us on the road to recovery.

How do you get from a potential repurposed drug for COVID-19 to having a therapeutic agent that will save lives?

Most of the studies we are funding are smaller outpatient studies with virologic endpoints. We are looking for a signal that the drug has antiviral activity. We want to know whether a drug works before we spend the money on questions that take a much larger sample size to answer, for example, a big postexposure prophylaxis study. We’d like to see a meaningful signal in proof-of-concept studies, so we can look at a small group of patients with positive tests and see whether their viral load dropped by more than half if they got the drug compared with those who took the placebo. If the drug had an impact on the viral load and shortened the period of infectivity and was safe, these findings would provide justification to spend a lot of money on a large clinical trial. That would probably encourage the NIH and ACTIV [Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines] collaboration to prioritize the drug for one of their big platform trials. That›s what we are aiming for.

CETF isn’t a drug developer — we are a funder for a good proposal to study a repurposed drug. We want to help move the dial — can we get an early yes or an early no? In drug development, we say, “fail fast and fail early.” It’s a numbers game. Only 10% of early candidates will become approved drugs. The value is in the data, whether they are positive or negative — it doesn’t matter. If the study is a definitive “no,” that is just as helpful as a definitive “yes.” Of course, we all want the definitive “yes,” but there are so many things to look at, the “no’s” will help us redirect resources toward what may really help.

You first announced these funding opportunities in April. How is it going so far?

As soon as the website went up, we got 40 applications. Our scientific advisory board, which has expertise from medicinal chemistry and coronavirology to translational and clinical trial expertise, reviewed the applications and prioritized 11 fundable proposals. We are using milestone-based funding; in other words, funding those who are ready to go.

Which drugs are being tested in the funded studies?

One of the earliest grants we supported was Dr David Boulaware’s randomized controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine (NCT 04308668) in 821 asymptomatic patients within 4 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure. That trial did not show any benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19. This trial was important for another reason. It proved the feasibility of a no-contact trial design in the setting of COVID-19, and participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.

Camostat, a transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2) inhibitor licensed for use in Japan to treat pancreatitis and esophagitis, combined with the antiandrogen bicalutamide, is being explored for early COVID-19 treatment. TMPRSS2 primes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to bind to the ACE2 receptor and gain entry to the cell, and has been shown to have antiviral activity. CETF has provided funding support to ongoing trials of Camostat at Yale University and Aarhus University in Denmark.

Another outpatient trial for fluvoxamine, a drug approved in the United States and routinely prescribed for depression, was also partially funded by a CETF grant to Washington University in St. Louis. Fluvoxamine is a serotonin regulator but also activates the sigma-1 receptor, which reduces the body’s immune response to prevent an overactive immune response or cytokine storm, a major cause of clinical deterioration, serious organ damage, and even death from COVID. This trial was recently completed, and the results have been submitted for publication.

Other promising drugs include niclosamide, doxazosin, favipiravir, leronlimab, interferon beta, interferon lambda, and other monoclonal antibodies. New compounds considered to have potential against COVID include a flu drug (MK-4482/EIDD-2801) and GS-441524, a metabolite of the antiviral drug, remdesivir.

Why not just put all of our resources into vaccine development?

We absolutely need a vaccine to control the outbreak and stop the pandemic. However, it’s a long road to finding an effective vaccine, and in the meantime, we need tools to keep people alive. If we can find an antiviral drug that acts early, we can reduce transmission and contribute to outbreak control. All these tools help us get back to normal while we are waiting for a vaccine. The vaccine is only good if we can give it to every susceptible person in the world — which will take longer than 3 years. And there are no guarantees. Remember, we are still waiting for an HIV vaccine.

You are calling on Americans to help. What do you want them to do?

Everyone must participate in the behavioral changes designed to control the outbreak — physical distancing, face-covering, and paying attention to case counts in local areas to enable them to take appropriate precautions. I know people are bored of that message, but we are going to repeat it until we have a vaccine or herd immunity.

This organism is ripping like wildfire through our unimmunized population. Personal behaviors might slow it down, but finding a drug that can be given to people after they’ve been exposed and test positive will have a meaningful impact on helping us get back to normal.

There’s a great spirit of volunteerism — people are constantly asking how they can help. Through us at CETF, we offer three ways that people can help. They can participate as subjects in clinical trials, many of which are ongoing, including clinical trials, surveillance studies, and follow-up studies. They can donate to our fund and help support the research needed to find an effective early treatment. We have a link on our website, TreatEarly.org. And finally, researchers can apply for funding. We think everybody can help in one of these ways by participating in trials, donating, or applying for funding. It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment for our country.

Danzig is the chief medical advisor of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. She has spent more than 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry developing vaccines, diagnostics, and drugs and is currently advising companies and investors.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch realized that until we have a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, we would be at the mercy of this virus. He realized that the fastest and most effective way to reduce COVID-19 fatalities would be to leverage existing drugs to treat patients at the onset of infection — before they become sick. A lack of funded research in this area prompted him to establish the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) with the purpose of funding outpatient clinical trials of promising repurposed drugs.

Medscape spoke with CETF’s chief medical advisor, Lisa Danzig, MD, about the organization’s aim to fund promising research on repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19.

What is CETF trying to do?

Two things: save lives, and get control of this pandemic.

We are facing perhaps the greatest crisis of our lifetime. Doctors who have taken care of patients with COVID are really frustrated about not having anything to offer; they just watch patients die. We want to change that. CETF was founded to find treatments that, when given early, could improve outcomes and avoid catastrophic complications in patients suffering from COVID-19. That means reducing hospitalizations, which can reduce mortality, but it also can mean reducing viral load, and that can have a profound impact on transmission within communities. We are a funding organization — a Band-Aid. We shouldn’t exist, but we do, aiming to close gaps until a coordinated response can get set up.

Tell us about drug repurposing and why you think existing drugs might have a role in mitigating COVID-19 or slowing its transmission.

This disease has two components — the viral infection, and the immunopathology. So the two promising categories of drugs are classical antivirals (or repurposed drugs with antiviral activity), and the immunomodulators. We are mechanism-agnostic. It doesn’t matter what kind of drug it is if it keeps people out of the hospital and prevents chronic morbidity and mortality.

Repurposed drugs are sort of the low-hanging fruit of clinical drugs. The QBI Coronavirus Research Group identified 69 compounds that have theoretical activity against SARS-CoV-2, 29 of which are already FDA-approved drugs. We thought, why don’t we start testing them?

Some people might call this a long shot. Does drug repurposing really work?

Drugmakers don’t test their drugs on every disease they might be effective for. Drug repurposing can work, but if we don’t look, we definitely won’t find anything. The classic repurposed drug is Viagra, a failed hypertension drug. When the studies ended because it didn’t work, the drug company asked patients to send back the unused drugs. The women all returned the drugs, but the men didn’t. And the rest is history.

There’s a long list of potential drugs that can be repurposed, but few are being tested. The famous poster child of a repurposed drug — hydroxychloroquine — has been the subject of more than 250 clinical trials, but the others weren’t getting much attention.

The beauty of a repurposed drug is that if you can get funding and start enrolling patients, you could potentially find out fairly quickly, as early as a few months, if that drug has an antiviral effect or not. These data would help prioritize drugs to be tested in larger confirmatory studies.

Your focus is on early treatment. What’s the rationale for that?

We are focusing on early treatment because it has been overlooked. The attention has been on vaccines and therapeutics for hospitalized patients. But if you are spending $20 billion on potential vaccines and billions more on diagnostics, we need to give proportional resources toward drugs that might actually work, when given early, in preventing severe disease and death.

Early treatment, if successful, would allow us to avoid the severe complications that we are seeing now. If we can find an early treatment with an existing drug, it would be the fastest, most clinically- and cost-effective way to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and get us on the road to recovery.

How do you get from a potential repurposed drug for COVID-19 to having a therapeutic agent that will save lives?

Most of the studies we are funding are smaller outpatient studies with virologic endpoints. We are looking for a signal that the drug has antiviral activity. We want to know whether a drug works before we spend the money on questions that take a much larger sample size to answer, for example, a big postexposure prophylaxis study. We’d like to see a meaningful signal in proof-of-concept studies, so we can look at a small group of patients with positive tests and see whether their viral load dropped by more than half if they got the drug compared with those who took the placebo. If the drug had an impact on the viral load and shortened the period of infectivity and was safe, these findings would provide justification to spend a lot of money on a large clinical trial. That would probably encourage the NIH and ACTIV [Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines] collaboration to prioritize the drug for one of their big platform trials. That›s what we are aiming for.

CETF isn’t a drug developer — we are a funder for a good proposal to study a repurposed drug. We want to help move the dial — can we get an early yes or an early no? In drug development, we say, “fail fast and fail early.” It’s a numbers game. Only 10% of early candidates will become approved drugs. The value is in the data, whether they are positive or negative — it doesn’t matter. If the study is a definitive “no,” that is just as helpful as a definitive “yes.” Of course, we all want the definitive “yes,” but there are so many things to look at, the “no’s” will help us redirect resources toward what may really help.

You first announced these funding opportunities in April. How is it going so far?

As soon as the website went up, we got 40 applications. Our scientific advisory board, which has expertise from medicinal chemistry and coronavirology to translational and clinical trial expertise, reviewed the applications and prioritized 11 fundable proposals. We are using milestone-based funding; in other words, funding those who are ready to go.

Which drugs are being tested in the funded studies?

One of the earliest grants we supported was Dr David Boulaware’s randomized controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine (NCT 04308668) in 821 asymptomatic patients within 4 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure. That trial did not show any benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19. This trial was important for another reason. It proved the feasibility of a no-contact trial design in the setting of COVID-19, and participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.

Camostat, a transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2) inhibitor licensed for use in Japan to treat pancreatitis and esophagitis, combined with the antiandrogen bicalutamide, is being explored for early COVID-19 treatment. TMPRSS2 primes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to bind to the ACE2 receptor and gain entry to the cell, and has been shown to have antiviral activity. CETF has provided funding support to ongoing trials of Camostat at Yale University and Aarhus University in Denmark.

Another outpatient trial for fluvoxamine, a drug approved in the United States and routinely prescribed for depression, was also partially funded by a CETF grant to Washington University in St. Louis. Fluvoxamine is a serotonin regulator but also activates the sigma-1 receptor, which reduces the body’s immune response to prevent an overactive immune response or cytokine storm, a major cause of clinical deterioration, serious organ damage, and even death from COVID. This trial was recently completed, and the results have been submitted for publication.

Other promising drugs include niclosamide, doxazosin, favipiravir, leronlimab, interferon beta, interferon lambda, and other monoclonal antibodies. New compounds considered to have potential against COVID include a flu drug (MK-4482/EIDD-2801) and GS-441524, a metabolite of the antiviral drug, remdesivir.

Why not just put all of our resources into vaccine development?

We absolutely need a vaccine to control the outbreak and stop the pandemic. However, it’s a long road to finding an effective vaccine, and in the meantime, we need tools to keep people alive. If we can find an antiviral drug that acts early, we can reduce transmission and contribute to outbreak control. All these tools help us get back to normal while we are waiting for a vaccine. The vaccine is only good if we can give it to every susceptible person in the world — which will take longer than 3 years. And there are no guarantees. Remember, we are still waiting for an HIV vaccine.

You are calling on Americans to help. What do you want them to do?

Everyone must participate in the behavioral changes designed to control the outbreak — physical distancing, face-covering, and paying attention to case counts in local areas to enable them to take appropriate precautions. I know people are bored of that message, but we are going to repeat it until we have a vaccine or herd immunity.

This organism is ripping like wildfire through our unimmunized population. Personal behaviors might slow it down, but finding a drug that can be given to people after they’ve been exposed and test positive will have a meaningful impact on helping us get back to normal.

There’s a great spirit of volunteerism — people are constantly asking how they can help. Through us at CETF, we offer three ways that people can help. They can participate as subjects in clinical trials, many of which are ongoing, including clinical trials, surveillance studies, and follow-up studies. They can donate to our fund and help support the research needed to find an effective early treatment. We have a link on our website, TreatEarly.org. And finally, researchers can apply for funding. We think everybody can help in one of these ways by participating in trials, donating, or applying for funding. It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment for our country.

Danzig is the chief medical advisor of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. She has spent more than 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry developing vaccines, diagnostics, and drugs and is currently advising companies and investors.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch realized that until we have a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, we would be at the mercy of this virus. He realized that the fastest and most effective way to reduce COVID-19 fatalities would be to leverage existing drugs to treat patients at the onset of infection — before they become sick. A lack of funded research in this area prompted him to establish the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) with the purpose of funding outpatient clinical trials of promising repurposed drugs.

Medscape spoke with CETF’s chief medical advisor, Lisa Danzig, MD, about the organization’s aim to fund promising research on repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19.

What is CETF trying to do?

Two things: save lives, and get control of this pandemic.

We are facing perhaps the greatest crisis of our lifetime. Doctors who have taken care of patients with COVID are really frustrated about not having anything to offer; they just watch patients die. We want to change that. CETF was founded to find treatments that, when given early, could improve outcomes and avoid catastrophic complications in patients suffering from COVID-19. That means reducing hospitalizations, which can reduce mortality, but it also can mean reducing viral load, and that can have a profound impact on transmission within communities. We are a funding organization — a Band-Aid. We shouldn’t exist, but we do, aiming to close gaps until a coordinated response can get set up.

Tell us about drug repurposing and why you think existing drugs might have a role in mitigating COVID-19 or slowing its transmission.

This disease has two components — the viral infection, and the immunopathology. So the two promising categories of drugs are classical antivirals (or repurposed drugs with antiviral activity), and the immunomodulators. We are mechanism-agnostic. It doesn’t matter what kind of drug it is if it keeps people out of the hospital and prevents chronic morbidity and mortality.

Repurposed drugs are sort of the low-hanging fruit of clinical drugs. The QBI Coronavirus Research Group identified 69 compounds that have theoretical activity against SARS-CoV-2, 29 of which are already FDA-approved drugs. We thought, why don’t we start testing them?

Some people might call this a long shot. Does drug repurposing really work?

Drugmakers don’t test their drugs on every disease they might be effective for. Drug repurposing can work, but if we don’t look, we definitely won’t find anything. The classic repurposed drug is Viagra, a failed hypertension drug. When the studies ended because it didn’t work, the drug company asked patients to send back the unused drugs. The women all returned the drugs, but the men didn’t. And the rest is history.

There’s a long list of potential drugs that can be repurposed, but few are being tested. The famous poster child of a repurposed drug — hydroxychloroquine — has been the subject of more than 250 clinical trials, but the others weren’t getting much attention.

The beauty of a repurposed drug is that if you can get funding and start enrolling patients, you could potentially find out fairly quickly, as early as a few months, if that drug has an antiviral effect or not. These data would help prioritize drugs to be tested in larger confirmatory studies.

Your focus is on early treatment. What’s the rationale for that?

We are focusing on early treatment because it has been overlooked. The attention has been on vaccines and therapeutics for hospitalized patients. But if you are spending $20 billion on potential vaccines and billions more on diagnostics, we need to give proportional resources toward drugs that might actually work, when given early, in preventing severe disease and death.

Early treatment, if successful, would allow us to avoid the severe complications that we are seeing now. If we can find an early treatment with an existing drug, it would be the fastest, most clinically- and cost-effective way to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and get us on the road to recovery.

How do you get from a potential repurposed drug for COVID-19 to having a therapeutic agent that will save lives?

Most of the studies we are funding are smaller outpatient studies with virologic endpoints. We are looking for a signal that the drug has antiviral activity. We want to know whether a drug works before we spend the money on questions that take a much larger sample size to answer, for example, a big postexposure prophylaxis study. We’d like to see a meaningful signal in proof-of-concept studies, so we can look at a small group of patients with positive tests and see whether their viral load dropped by more than half if they got the drug compared with those who took the placebo. If the drug had an impact on the viral load and shortened the period of infectivity and was safe, these findings would provide justification to spend a lot of money on a large clinical trial. That would probably encourage the NIH and ACTIV [Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines] collaboration to prioritize the drug for one of their big platform trials. That›s what we are aiming for.

CETF isn’t a drug developer — we are a funder for a good proposal to study a repurposed drug. We want to help move the dial — can we get an early yes or an early no? In drug development, we say, “fail fast and fail early.” It’s a numbers game. Only 10% of early candidates will become approved drugs. The value is in the data, whether they are positive or negative — it doesn’t matter. If the study is a definitive “no,” that is just as helpful as a definitive “yes.” Of course, we all want the definitive “yes,” but there are so many things to look at, the “no’s” will help us redirect resources toward what may really help.

You first announced these funding opportunities in April. How is it going so far?

As soon as the website went up, we got 40 applications. Our scientific advisory board, which has expertise from medicinal chemistry and coronavirology to translational and clinical trial expertise, reviewed the applications and prioritized 11 fundable proposals. We are using milestone-based funding; in other words, funding those who are ready to go.

Which drugs are being tested in the funded studies?

One of the earliest grants we supported was Dr David Boulaware’s randomized controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine (NCT 04308668) in 821 asymptomatic patients within 4 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure. That trial did not show any benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19. This trial was important for another reason. It proved the feasibility of a no-contact trial design in the setting of COVID-19, and participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.

Camostat, a transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2) inhibitor licensed for use in Japan to treat pancreatitis and esophagitis, combined with the antiandrogen bicalutamide, is being explored for early COVID-19 treatment. TMPRSS2 primes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to bind to the ACE2 receptor and gain entry to the cell, and has been shown to have antiviral activity. CETF has provided funding support to ongoing trials of Camostat at Yale University and Aarhus University in Denmark.

Another outpatient trial for fluvoxamine, a drug approved in the United States and routinely prescribed for depression, was also partially funded by a CETF grant to Washington University in St. Louis. Fluvoxamine is a serotonin regulator but also activates the sigma-1 receptor, which reduces the body’s immune response to prevent an overactive immune response or cytokine storm, a major cause of clinical deterioration, serious organ damage, and even death from COVID. This trial was recently completed, and the results have been submitted for publication.

Other promising drugs include niclosamide, doxazosin, favipiravir, leronlimab, interferon beta, interferon lambda, and other monoclonal antibodies. New compounds considered to have potential against COVID include a flu drug (MK-4482/EIDD-2801) and GS-441524, a metabolite of the antiviral drug, remdesivir.

Why not just put all of our resources into vaccine development?

We absolutely need a vaccine to control the outbreak and stop the pandemic. However, it’s a long road to finding an effective vaccine, and in the meantime, we need tools to keep people alive. If we can find an antiviral drug that acts early, we can reduce transmission and contribute to outbreak control. All these tools help us get back to normal while we are waiting for a vaccine. The vaccine is only good if we can give it to every susceptible person in the world — which will take longer than 3 years. And there are no guarantees. Remember, we are still waiting for an HIV vaccine.

You are calling on Americans to help. What do you want them to do?

Everyone must participate in the behavioral changes designed to control the outbreak — physical distancing, face-covering, and paying attention to case counts in local areas to enable them to take appropriate precautions. I know people are bored of that message, but we are going to repeat it until we have a vaccine or herd immunity.

This organism is ripping like wildfire through our unimmunized population. Personal behaviors might slow it down, but finding a drug that can be given to people after they’ve been exposed and test positive will have a meaningful impact on helping us get back to normal.

There’s a great spirit of volunteerism — people are constantly asking how they can help. Through us at CETF, we offer three ways that people can help. They can participate as subjects in clinical trials, many of which are ongoing, including clinical trials, surveillance studies, and follow-up studies. They can donate to our fund and help support the research needed to find an effective early treatment. We have a link on our website, TreatEarly.org. And finally, researchers can apply for funding. We think everybody can help in one of these ways by participating in trials, donating, or applying for funding. It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment for our country.

Danzig is the chief medical advisor of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. She has spent more than 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry developing vaccines, diagnostics, and drugs and is currently advising companies and investors.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome caused by COVID-19 typically seem to avoid coronary artery dilation early on, but they may be prone to cardiac injury and dysfunction longer term that requires a more discerning diagnostic approach to sort out.

The findings were revealed in a study of 28 children with COVID-19–related multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The study reported that cardiac injury and dysfunction are common in these patients – even those who have preserved ejection fraction – and that diastolic dysfunction is persistent. For comparison, the study also included 20 healthy controls and 20 patients with classic Kawasaki disease (KD).

The study analyzed echocardiography findings in the patients, reporting left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function were worse than in classic Kawasaki disease (KD), which MIS-C mimics. Lead author Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported that four markers – LV global longitudinal strain, LV circumferential strain rate, right ventricular strain, and left atrial strain – were the strongest predictors of myocardial injury in these patients. After the acute phase, systolic function tended to recover, but diastolic dysfunction persisted.
 

‘Strain’ measurement boosts accuracy

While echocardiography has been reported to be valuable in evaluating coronary artery function in MIS-C patients, Dr. Matsubara of the division of cardiology at CHOP, said in an interview that study is the first to use the newer echocardiography indexes, known as “strain,” to assess heart function.

“Strain is a more sensitive tool than more conventional indexes and can detect subtle decrease in heart function, even when ejection fraction is preserved,” he said. “Numerous publications have reached conclusions that strain improves the prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography in a wide variety of cardiac pathologies causing LV dysfunction.”

Dr. Matsubara noted that the coronary arteries were mostly unaffected in the acute stage of MIS-C, as only one patient in their MIS-C cohort had coronary artery involvement, which normalized during early follow-up. “On the other hand, 20% of our classic KD patients had coronary abnormalities, including two with aneurysms.”

By using positive troponin I or elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) to assess cardiac injury, they found a “high” (60%) incidence of myocardial injury in their MIS-C cohort. During early follow-up, most of the MIS-C patients showed normalization of systolic function, although diastolic dysfunction persisted.

When compared with the classic KD group, MIS-C patients had higher rates of mitral regurgitation (46% vs. 15%, P = .06), more pericardial effusion (32% vs. 15%, P = 0.46), and more pleural effusion (39% vs. 0%, P = .004). MIS-C patients with suspected myocardial injury show these findings more frequently than those with actual myocardial injury.

Compared with the healthy controls, the MIS-C patients showed both LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction as well as significantly lower left atrium (LA) strain and peak right ventricle (RV) free-wall longitudinal strain.

“In addition to the left ventricle, two other chambers of the heart, the LA and the RV that are often labeled as the ‘forgotten chambers’ of the heart, were also affected by MIS-C,” Dr. Matsubara said. “Both LA and RV strains were markedly reduced in MIS-C patients, compared to normal and KD patients.”

The study also indicates that elevated troponin I levels may not be as dire in children as they are in adults. Dr. Matsubara cited a study of more than 2,700 adult COVID-19 patients that found that even mild increases in troponin I level were associated with increased death during hospitalization (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:533-46).

However, most of the patients in the CHOP study, even those with elevated troponin I levels, recovered systolic function quickly. “We speculate that the elevation in cardiac troponins may have less dire implications in children, likely due to a more transient type of cardiac injury and less comorbidities in children,” he said. “Clearly further studies are needed before a definitive statement can be made.”

Dr. Matsubara added that recovered COVID-19 patients may be able to participate in sports as some schools reopen. “We are not saying restrict sport participation, but we are merely urging caution.”

Comprehensive LV evaluation needed

The findings reinforce that myocardial involvement is more frequent and sometimes more severe in MIS-C than previously thought, said Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital. “We are underestimating it by using just traditional measures like ejection fraction. It requires a comprehensive evaluation of left ventricular function; it really affects all aspects of the ventricle, both the systolic function and the diastolic function.”

This study supports that MIS-C patients should have a more detailed analysis than EF on echocardiography, including strain imaging. “Probably these patients should all be followed at centers where they can evaluate a more detailed analysis of the LV and RV function,” he said. Patients with ongoing CA enlargement and LV dysfunction should have follow-up cardiac care indefinitely. Patients who have no cardiac symptoms during the acute phase probably don’t need long-term follow-up.

“We’re just trying to learn more about this disease, and it’s certainly concerning that so many kids are having cardiac involvement,” Dr. Friedman said. “Fortunately they’re getting better; we’re just trying to find out what this means for the long term.”

Dr. Matsubara and Dr. Friedman have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Matsubara D et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.056.

Patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome caused by COVID-19 typically seem to avoid coronary artery dilation early on, but they may be prone to cardiac injury and dysfunction longer term that requires a more discerning diagnostic approach to sort out.

The findings were revealed in a study of 28 children with COVID-19–related multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The study reported that cardiac injury and dysfunction are common in these patients – even those who have preserved ejection fraction – and that diastolic dysfunction is persistent. For comparison, the study also included 20 healthy controls and 20 patients with classic Kawasaki disease (KD).

The study analyzed echocardiography findings in the patients, reporting left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function were worse than in classic Kawasaki disease (KD), which MIS-C mimics. Lead author Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported that four markers – LV global longitudinal strain, LV circumferential strain rate, right ventricular strain, and left atrial strain – were the strongest predictors of myocardial injury in these patients. After the acute phase, systolic function tended to recover, but diastolic dysfunction persisted.
 

‘Strain’ measurement boosts accuracy

While echocardiography has been reported to be valuable in evaluating coronary artery function in MIS-C patients, Dr. Matsubara of the division of cardiology at CHOP, said in an interview that study is the first to use the newer echocardiography indexes, known as “strain,” to assess heart function.

“Strain is a more sensitive tool than more conventional indexes and can detect subtle decrease in heart function, even when ejection fraction is preserved,” he said. “Numerous publications have reached conclusions that strain improves the prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography in a wide variety of cardiac pathologies causing LV dysfunction.”

Dr. Matsubara noted that the coronary arteries were mostly unaffected in the acute stage of MIS-C, as only one patient in their MIS-C cohort had coronary artery involvement, which normalized during early follow-up. “On the other hand, 20% of our classic KD patients had coronary abnormalities, including two with aneurysms.”

By using positive troponin I or elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) to assess cardiac injury, they found a “high” (60%) incidence of myocardial injury in their MIS-C cohort. During early follow-up, most of the MIS-C patients showed normalization of systolic function, although diastolic dysfunction persisted.

When compared with the classic KD group, MIS-C patients had higher rates of mitral regurgitation (46% vs. 15%, P = .06), more pericardial effusion (32% vs. 15%, P = 0.46), and more pleural effusion (39% vs. 0%, P = .004). MIS-C patients with suspected myocardial injury show these findings more frequently than those with actual myocardial injury.

Compared with the healthy controls, the MIS-C patients showed both LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction as well as significantly lower left atrium (LA) strain and peak right ventricle (RV) free-wall longitudinal strain.

“In addition to the left ventricle, two other chambers of the heart, the LA and the RV that are often labeled as the ‘forgotten chambers’ of the heart, were also affected by MIS-C,” Dr. Matsubara said. “Both LA and RV strains were markedly reduced in MIS-C patients, compared to normal and KD patients.”

The study also indicates that elevated troponin I levels may not be as dire in children as they are in adults. Dr. Matsubara cited a study of more than 2,700 adult COVID-19 patients that found that even mild increases in troponin I level were associated with increased death during hospitalization (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:533-46).

However, most of the patients in the CHOP study, even those with elevated troponin I levels, recovered systolic function quickly. “We speculate that the elevation in cardiac troponins may have less dire implications in children, likely due to a more transient type of cardiac injury and less comorbidities in children,” he said. “Clearly further studies are needed before a definitive statement can be made.”

Dr. Matsubara added that recovered COVID-19 patients may be able to participate in sports as some schools reopen. “We are not saying restrict sport participation, but we are merely urging caution.”

Comprehensive LV evaluation needed

The findings reinforce that myocardial involvement is more frequent and sometimes more severe in MIS-C than previously thought, said Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital. “We are underestimating it by using just traditional measures like ejection fraction. It requires a comprehensive evaluation of left ventricular function; it really affects all aspects of the ventricle, both the systolic function and the diastolic function.”

This study supports that MIS-C patients should have a more detailed analysis than EF on echocardiography, including strain imaging. “Probably these patients should all be followed at centers where they can evaluate a more detailed analysis of the LV and RV function,” he said. Patients with ongoing CA enlargement and LV dysfunction should have follow-up cardiac care indefinitely. Patients who have no cardiac symptoms during the acute phase probably don’t need long-term follow-up.

“We’re just trying to learn more about this disease, and it’s certainly concerning that so many kids are having cardiac involvement,” Dr. Friedman said. “Fortunately they’re getting better; we’re just trying to find out what this means for the long term.”

Dr. Matsubara and Dr. Friedman have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Matsubara D et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.056.

Patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome caused by COVID-19 typically seem to avoid coronary artery dilation early on, but they may be prone to cardiac injury and dysfunction longer term that requires a more discerning diagnostic approach to sort out.

The findings were revealed in a study of 28 children with COVID-19–related multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The study reported that cardiac injury and dysfunction are common in these patients – even those who have preserved ejection fraction – and that diastolic dysfunction is persistent. For comparison, the study also included 20 healthy controls and 20 patients with classic Kawasaki disease (KD).

The study analyzed echocardiography findings in the patients, reporting left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function were worse than in classic Kawasaki disease (KD), which MIS-C mimics. Lead author Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported that four markers – LV global longitudinal strain, LV circumferential strain rate, right ventricular strain, and left atrial strain – were the strongest predictors of myocardial injury in these patients. After the acute phase, systolic function tended to recover, but diastolic dysfunction persisted.
 

‘Strain’ measurement boosts accuracy

While echocardiography has been reported to be valuable in evaluating coronary artery function in MIS-C patients, Dr. Matsubara of the division of cardiology at CHOP, said in an interview that study is the first to use the newer echocardiography indexes, known as “strain,” to assess heart function.

“Strain is a more sensitive tool than more conventional indexes and can detect subtle decrease in heart function, even when ejection fraction is preserved,” he said. “Numerous publications have reached conclusions that strain improves the prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography in a wide variety of cardiac pathologies causing LV dysfunction.”

Dr. Matsubara noted that the coronary arteries were mostly unaffected in the acute stage of MIS-C, as only one patient in their MIS-C cohort had coronary artery involvement, which normalized during early follow-up. “On the other hand, 20% of our classic KD patients had coronary abnormalities, including two with aneurysms.”

By using positive troponin I or elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) to assess cardiac injury, they found a “high” (60%) incidence of myocardial injury in their MIS-C cohort. During early follow-up, most of the MIS-C patients showed normalization of systolic function, although diastolic dysfunction persisted.

When compared with the classic KD group, MIS-C patients had higher rates of mitral regurgitation (46% vs. 15%, P = .06), more pericardial effusion (32% vs. 15%, P = 0.46), and more pleural effusion (39% vs. 0%, P = .004). MIS-C patients with suspected myocardial injury show these findings more frequently than those with actual myocardial injury.

Compared with the healthy controls, the MIS-C patients showed both LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction as well as significantly lower left atrium (LA) strain and peak right ventricle (RV) free-wall longitudinal strain.

“In addition to the left ventricle, two other chambers of the heart, the LA and the RV that are often labeled as the ‘forgotten chambers’ of the heart, were also affected by MIS-C,” Dr. Matsubara said. “Both LA and RV strains were markedly reduced in MIS-C patients, compared to normal and KD patients.”

The study also indicates that elevated troponin I levels may not be as dire in children as they are in adults. Dr. Matsubara cited a study of more than 2,700 adult COVID-19 patients that found that even mild increases in troponin I level were associated with increased death during hospitalization (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:533-46).

However, most of the patients in the CHOP study, even those with elevated troponin I levels, recovered systolic function quickly. “We speculate that the elevation in cardiac troponins may have less dire implications in children, likely due to a more transient type of cardiac injury and less comorbidities in children,” he said. “Clearly further studies are needed before a definitive statement can be made.”

Dr. Matsubara added that recovered COVID-19 patients may be able to participate in sports as some schools reopen. “We are not saying restrict sport participation, but we are merely urging caution.”

Comprehensive LV evaluation needed

The findings reinforce that myocardial involvement is more frequent and sometimes more severe in MIS-C than previously thought, said Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital. “We are underestimating it by using just traditional measures like ejection fraction. It requires a comprehensive evaluation of left ventricular function; it really affects all aspects of the ventricle, both the systolic function and the diastolic function.”

This study supports that MIS-C patients should have a more detailed analysis than EF on echocardiography, including strain imaging. “Probably these patients should all be followed at centers where they can evaluate a more detailed analysis of the LV and RV function,” he said. Patients with ongoing CA enlargement and LV dysfunction should have follow-up cardiac care indefinitely. Patients who have no cardiac symptoms during the acute phase probably don’t need long-term follow-up.

“We’re just trying to learn more about this disease, and it’s certainly concerning that so many kids are having cardiac involvement,” Dr. Friedman said. “Fortunately they’re getting better; we’re just trying to find out what this means for the long term.”

Dr. Matsubara and Dr. Friedman have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Matsubara D et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.056.

The immune system overactivation known as a “cytokine storm” does not play a major role in more severe COVID-19 outcomes, according to unexpected findings in new research. The findings stand in direct contrast to many previous reports.

“We were indeed surprised by the results of our study,” senior study author Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

In a unique approach, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues compared cytokine levels in critically ill people with COVID-19 with those in patients with bacterial sepsis, trauma, and after cardiac arrest.

“For the first time, we measured the cytokines in different diseases using the same methods. Our results convincingly show that the circulating cytokine concentrations are not higher, but lower, compared to other diseases,” said Dr. Pickkers, who is affiliated with the department of intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The team’s research was published online on Sept. 3 in a letter in JAMA.
 

Cytokines lower than expected

Normally, cytokines trigger inflammation and promote healing after trauma, infection, or other conditions.

Although a cytokine storm remains ill defined, the authors noted, many researchers have implicated a hyperinflammatory response involving these small proteins in the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

The question remains, however, whether all cytokine storms strike people with different conditions the same way.

Dr. Pickkers, lead author Matthijs Kox, PhD, and colleagues studied 46 people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were admitted to the ICU at Radboud University Medical Center. All participants underwent mechanical ventilation and were treated between March 11 and April 27, 2020.

The investigators measured plasma levels of cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-6, and IL-8. They compared results in this group with those in 51 patients who experienced septic shock and ARDS, 15 patients with septic shock without ARDS, 30 people with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 62 people who experienced multiple traumas. They used historical data for the non–COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Conditional findings

Compared with patients with septic shock and ARDS, the COVID-19 cohort had lower levels of TNF, IL-6, and IL-8. The differences were statistically significant for TNF (P < .01), as well as for IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations (for both, P < .001).

In addition, the COVID-19 group had significantly lower IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations compared with the patients who had septic shock without ARDS.

The researchers likewise found lower concentrations of IL-8 in patients with COVID-19, compared with the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. IL-8 levels did not differ between the COVID-19 and trauma groups.

Furthermore, the researchers found no differences in IL-6 concentrations between patients with COVID-19 and those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma.

However, levels of TNF in people with COVID-19 were higher than in trauma patients.

The small sample sizes and single-center study design are limitations.

“The findings of this preliminary analysis suggest COVID-19 may not be characterized by cytokine storm,” the researchers noted. However, they added, “whether anticytokine therapies will benefit patients with COVID-19 remains to be determined.”

Going forward, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues are investigating the effectiveness of different treatments to lower cytokine levels. They are treating people with COVID-19, for example, with the IL-1 cytokine inhibitor anakinra and steroids.

They also plan to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the immune system. “Following an infection, it is known that the immune system may be suppressed for a longer period of time, and we are determining to what extent this is also present in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Pickkers said.
 

Enough to cause a storm?

The study “is quite interesting, and data in this paper are consistent with our data,” Tadamitsu Kishimoto, MD, PhD, of the department of immune regulation at the Immunology Frontier Research Center at Osaka (Japan) University, said in an interview.

His study, published online August 21 in PNAS, also revealed lower serum IL-6 levels among people with COVID-19, compared with patients with bacterial ARDS or sepsis.

Dr. Kishimoto drew a distinction, however: COVID-19 patients can develop severe respiratory failure, suggesting a distinct immune reaction, compared with patients with bacterial sepsis. SARS-CoV-2 directly infects and activates endothelial cells rather than macrophages, as occurs in sepsis.

For this reason, Dr. Kishimoto said, “SARS-CoV-2 infection causes critical illness and severe dysfunction in respiratory organs and induces a cytokine storm,” even in the setting of lower but still elevated serum IL-6 levels.

Dr. Pickkers and Dr. Kishimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The immune system overactivation known as a “cytokine storm” does not play a major role in more severe COVID-19 outcomes, according to unexpected findings in new research. The findings stand in direct contrast to many previous reports.

“We were indeed surprised by the results of our study,” senior study author Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

In a unique approach, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues compared cytokine levels in critically ill people with COVID-19 with those in patients with bacterial sepsis, trauma, and after cardiac arrest.

“For the first time, we measured the cytokines in different diseases using the same methods. Our results convincingly show that the circulating cytokine concentrations are not higher, but lower, compared to other diseases,” said Dr. Pickkers, who is affiliated with the department of intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The team’s research was published online on Sept. 3 in a letter in JAMA.
 

Cytokines lower than expected

Normally, cytokines trigger inflammation and promote healing after trauma, infection, or other conditions.

Although a cytokine storm remains ill defined, the authors noted, many researchers have implicated a hyperinflammatory response involving these small proteins in the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

The question remains, however, whether all cytokine storms strike people with different conditions the same way.

Dr. Pickkers, lead author Matthijs Kox, PhD, and colleagues studied 46 people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were admitted to the ICU at Radboud University Medical Center. All participants underwent mechanical ventilation and were treated between March 11 and April 27, 2020.

The investigators measured plasma levels of cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-6, and IL-8. They compared results in this group with those in 51 patients who experienced septic shock and ARDS, 15 patients with septic shock without ARDS, 30 people with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 62 people who experienced multiple traumas. They used historical data for the non–COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Conditional findings

Compared with patients with septic shock and ARDS, the COVID-19 cohort had lower levels of TNF, IL-6, and IL-8. The differences were statistically significant for TNF (P < .01), as well as for IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations (for both, P < .001).

In addition, the COVID-19 group had significantly lower IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations compared with the patients who had septic shock without ARDS.

The researchers likewise found lower concentrations of IL-8 in patients with COVID-19, compared with the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. IL-8 levels did not differ between the COVID-19 and trauma groups.

Furthermore, the researchers found no differences in IL-6 concentrations between patients with COVID-19 and those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma.

However, levels of TNF in people with COVID-19 were higher than in trauma patients.

The small sample sizes and single-center study design are limitations.

“The findings of this preliminary analysis suggest COVID-19 may not be characterized by cytokine storm,” the researchers noted. However, they added, “whether anticytokine therapies will benefit patients with COVID-19 remains to be determined.”

Going forward, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues are investigating the effectiveness of different treatments to lower cytokine levels. They are treating people with COVID-19, for example, with the IL-1 cytokine inhibitor anakinra and steroids.

They also plan to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the immune system. “Following an infection, it is known that the immune system may be suppressed for a longer period of time, and we are determining to what extent this is also present in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Pickkers said.
 

Enough to cause a storm?

The study “is quite interesting, and data in this paper are consistent with our data,” Tadamitsu Kishimoto, MD, PhD, of the department of immune regulation at the Immunology Frontier Research Center at Osaka (Japan) University, said in an interview.

His study, published online August 21 in PNAS, also revealed lower serum IL-6 levels among people with COVID-19, compared with patients with bacterial ARDS or sepsis.

Dr. Kishimoto drew a distinction, however: COVID-19 patients can develop severe respiratory failure, suggesting a distinct immune reaction, compared with patients with bacterial sepsis. SARS-CoV-2 directly infects and activates endothelial cells rather than macrophages, as occurs in sepsis.

For this reason, Dr. Kishimoto said, “SARS-CoV-2 infection causes critical illness and severe dysfunction in respiratory organs and induces a cytokine storm,” even in the setting of lower but still elevated serum IL-6 levels.

Dr. Pickkers and Dr. Kishimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The immune system overactivation known as a “cytokine storm” does not play a major role in more severe COVID-19 outcomes, according to unexpected findings in new research. The findings stand in direct contrast to many previous reports.

“We were indeed surprised by the results of our study,” senior study author Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

In a unique approach, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues compared cytokine levels in critically ill people with COVID-19 with those in patients with bacterial sepsis, trauma, and after cardiac arrest.

“For the first time, we measured the cytokines in different diseases using the same methods. Our results convincingly show that the circulating cytokine concentrations are not higher, but lower, compared to other diseases,” said Dr. Pickkers, who is affiliated with the department of intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The team’s research was published online on Sept. 3 in a letter in JAMA.
 

Cytokines lower than expected

Normally, cytokines trigger inflammation and promote healing after trauma, infection, or other conditions.

Although a cytokine storm remains ill defined, the authors noted, many researchers have implicated a hyperinflammatory response involving these small proteins in the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

The question remains, however, whether all cytokine storms strike people with different conditions the same way.

Dr. Pickkers, lead author Matthijs Kox, PhD, and colleagues studied 46 people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were admitted to the ICU at Radboud University Medical Center. All participants underwent mechanical ventilation and were treated between March 11 and April 27, 2020.

The investigators measured plasma levels of cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-6, and IL-8. They compared results in this group with those in 51 patients who experienced septic shock and ARDS, 15 patients with septic shock without ARDS, 30 people with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 62 people who experienced multiple traumas. They used historical data for the non–COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Conditional findings

Compared with patients with septic shock and ARDS, the COVID-19 cohort had lower levels of TNF, IL-6, and IL-8. The differences were statistically significant for TNF (P < .01), as well as for IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations (for both, P < .001).

In addition, the COVID-19 group had significantly lower IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations compared with the patients who had septic shock without ARDS.

The researchers likewise found lower concentrations of IL-8 in patients with COVID-19, compared with the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. IL-8 levels did not differ between the COVID-19 and trauma groups.

Furthermore, the researchers found no differences in IL-6 concentrations between patients with COVID-19 and those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma.

However, levels of TNF in people with COVID-19 were higher than in trauma patients.

The small sample sizes and single-center study design are limitations.

“The findings of this preliminary analysis suggest COVID-19 may not be characterized by cytokine storm,” the researchers noted. However, they added, “whether anticytokine therapies will benefit patients with COVID-19 remains to be determined.”

Going forward, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues are investigating the effectiveness of different treatments to lower cytokine levels. They are treating people with COVID-19, for example, with the IL-1 cytokine inhibitor anakinra and steroids.

They also plan to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the immune system. “Following an infection, it is known that the immune system may be suppressed for a longer period of time, and we are determining to what extent this is also present in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Pickkers said.
 

Enough to cause a storm?

The study “is quite interesting, and data in this paper are consistent with our data,” Tadamitsu Kishimoto, MD, PhD, of the department of immune regulation at the Immunology Frontier Research Center at Osaka (Japan) University, said in an interview.

His study, published online August 21 in PNAS, also revealed lower serum IL-6 levels among people with COVID-19, compared with patients with bacterial ARDS or sepsis.

Dr. Kishimoto drew a distinction, however: COVID-19 patients can develop severe respiratory failure, suggesting a distinct immune reaction, compared with patients with bacterial sepsis. SARS-CoV-2 directly infects and activates endothelial cells rather than macrophages, as occurs in sepsis.

For this reason, Dr. Kishimoto said, “SARS-CoV-2 infection causes critical illness and severe dysfunction in respiratory organs and induces a cytokine storm,” even in the setting of lower but still elevated serum IL-6 levels.

Dr. Pickkers and Dr. Kishimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.