COVID-19 Updates

Countries across the world are in the process of closing and reopening schools to contain the spread of COVID-19. Should there be universal testing and quarantining of sick school children and their classmates?

miodrag ignjatovic/E+

In a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Andreea M. Panciu, MD, from the National Institute of Infectious Diseases in Bucharest, argued for routine testing and quarantining of all school children. Her opposite number, Danilo Buonsenso, MD, from the Centre for Global Health Research and Studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Rome, made the case for a more selective approach.
 

Should children be sent to school?

“Risk-reduction strategies and detection of cases must be in place to allow children to return safely to school,” stated Dr. Panciu as she started the debate by explaining the challenges faced by schools in adhering to key mitigation strategies. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that students keep 1.8 m (6 feet) distance from one another. “In many school settings this is not feasible without drastically limiting the number of students,” she explained. “This is a massive challenge for many schools that are already overcrowded.”

The use of facemasks also is a challenge in classrooms. Children have a lower tolerance or may not be able to use the mask properly. There also are concerns regarding impaired learning, speech development, social development, and facial recognition. “We need to look at the evidence; preventive measures work,” responded Dr. Buonsenso. If distance can be implemented, the more distance the lower the transmission of infection, with 1.5-2 meters having the best effects. “Distance can be difficult when school buildings do not allow it, however, governments have had time to plan, and this should not be a limitation to education for kids.”

A recent review clearly showed that children and adolescents aged under 20 years have a much lower risk of susceptibility to COVID-19 infection, compared with adults. This is especially the case for children younger than 14 years. “There is no excuse, let’s bring the children back to school,” argued Dr. Buonsenso.

Dr. Panciu responded with several studies that have tried to quantify the amount of SARS-CoV-2 virus that is carried by infected children. Viral load in the nasopharynx in children under 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms was higher than that of both children over 5 as well as adults. The viral load in young children did not seem to differ by age or symptom severity. “There doesn’t appear to be a significant difference in viral load between symptomatic children and symptomatic adults,” she stated.

“But the question is: ‘How infectious are children?’ ” reacted Dr. Buonsenso. Data from South Korea showed that, for children, particularly those under 10 years, the number of secondary cases of contacts was very low, suggesting that children are rarely spreading the virus.

Dr. Buonsenso and colleagues assessed 30 households containing children aged under 18 years where an adult had been infected with COVID-19 in Rome during the peak of the pandemic. In no cases was it found that a child was the index case. This was supported by data from China, also obtained during the peak of the pandemic, which showed that the number of children infected was very low, but more importantly the number of secondary attacks from contact with children was also very low.
 

What about children who are sick at school?

The debate moved to discussing what should be done when a child is sick at school. Dr. Panciu clarified recommendations by the CDC regarding what steps to take if a student displays signs of infection consistent with COVID-19: Should they test positive, they are to stay at home for 10 days from the time signs and symptoms first appeared. Further, any teachers or students identified as close contacts are advised to stay at home for 14 days. (Since the ESPID meeting, the CDC has made changes in quarantine times for COVID-19. People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.)

A significant problem is the overlap between COVID-19 symptoms and those associated with other common illnesses because of a range of viruses. This is particularly true in younger children who often suffer from viral infections. “It is common for children to have up to eight respiratory illnesses a year,” explained Dr. Panciu, “and some may have symptoms so mild that they don’t notice them.”

“We need to be a little bit more children focused, otherwise we are going to be isolating children all the time,” said Dr. Buonsenso. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health state that a child with a simple runny nose or sporadic cough without a fever, who would have attended school in other times, should not be tested for COVID-19. He moved on to then cite several studies that show little or no evidence of COVID-19 transmission between school children. This included a prospective cohort study in Australia showing that child-to-child transmission occurred in 0.3%. “To date, the advantages from routine quarantine and over testing seem too low to balance the social consequences on children and families,” he concluded.

As the debate drew to a close, Dr. Panciu reported several studies that did demonstrate transmission between school-age children. Data from an overnight camp in Georgia where the median age was 12 years showed the attack rate was 44% for ages 11-17 years and 51% for ages 6-10 years. Similar conclusions were reached in an Israeli study looking at a large COVID-19 outbreak in a school. This occurred 10 days after reopening, in spite of preventive measures being in place. “Opening safely isn’t just about the adjustments a school makes,” she said, “it’s also about how much of the virus is circulating in the community, which affects the likelihood that students and staff will bring COVID-19 into their classrooms.”

Damian Roland, consultant and honorary associate professor in pediatric emergency medicine at the University of Leicester (England), commented: “Maximizing educational potential while reducing the spread of COVID19 is a challenge laden with scientific equipoise while simultaneously infused with emotion. The evidence of transmission between, and infectivity from, children is not complete, as this debate has demonstrated. It is important scientists, clinicians, educators, and policy makers make collaborative decisions, aware there is not one perfect answer, and willing to understand and incorporate others views and objectives rather than holding onto single beliefs or approaches.”

No financial conflicts of interest were declared.

Countries across the world are in the process of closing and reopening schools to contain the spread of COVID-19. Should there be universal testing and quarantining of sick school children and their classmates?

miodrag ignjatovic/E+

In a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Andreea M. Panciu, MD, from the National Institute of Infectious Diseases in Bucharest, argued for routine testing and quarantining of all school children. Her opposite number, Danilo Buonsenso, MD, from the Centre for Global Health Research and Studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Rome, made the case for a more selective approach.
 

Should children be sent to school?

“Risk-reduction strategies and detection of cases must be in place to allow children to return safely to school,” stated Dr. Panciu as she started the debate by explaining the challenges faced by schools in adhering to key mitigation strategies. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that students keep 1.8 m (6 feet) distance from one another. “In many school settings this is not feasible without drastically limiting the number of students,” she explained. “This is a massive challenge for many schools that are already overcrowded.”

The use of facemasks also is a challenge in classrooms. Children have a lower tolerance or may not be able to use the mask properly. There also are concerns regarding impaired learning, speech development, social development, and facial recognition. “We need to look at the evidence; preventive measures work,” responded Dr. Buonsenso. If distance can be implemented, the more distance the lower the transmission of infection, with 1.5-2 meters having the best effects. “Distance can be difficult when school buildings do not allow it, however, governments have had time to plan, and this should not be a limitation to education for kids.”

A recent review clearly showed that children and adolescents aged under 20 years have a much lower risk of susceptibility to COVID-19 infection, compared with adults. This is especially the case for children younger than 14 years. “There is no excuse, let’s bring the children back to school,” argued Dr. Buonsenso.

Dr. Panciu responded with several studies that have tried to quantify the amount of SARS-CoV-2 virus that is carried by infected children. Viral load in the nasopharynx in children under 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms was higher than that of both children over 5 as well as adults. The viral load in young children did not seem to differ by age or symptom severity. “There doesn’t appear to be a significant difference in viral load between symptomatic children and symptomatic adults,” she stated.

“But the question is: ‘How infectious are children?’ ” reacted Dr. Buonsenso. Data from South Korea showed that, for children, particularly those under 10 years, the number of secondary cases of contacts was very low, suggesting that children are rarely spreading the virus.

Dr. Buonsenso and colleagues assessed 30 households containing children aged under 18 years where an adult had been infected with COVID-19 in Rome during the peak of the pandemic. In no cases was it found that a child was the index case. This was supported by data from China, also obtained during the peak of the pandemic, which showed that the number of children infected was very low, but more importantly the number of secondary attacks from contact with children was also very low.
 

What about children who are sick at school?

The debate moved to discussing what should be done when a child is sick at school. Dr. Panciu clarified recommendations by the CDC regarding what steps to take if a student displays signs of infection consistent with COVID-19: Should they test positive, they are to stay at home for 10 days from the time signs and symptoms first appeared. Further, any teachers or students identified as close contacts are advised to stay at home for 14 days. (Since the ESPID meeting, the CDC has made changes in quarantine times for COVID-19. People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.)

A significant problem is the overlap between COVID-19 symptoms and those associated with other common illnesses because of a range of viruses. This is particularly true in younger children who often suffer from viral infections. “It is common for children to have up to eight respiratory illnesses a year,” explained Dr. Panciu, “and some may have symptoms so mild that they don’t notice them.”

“We need to be a little bit more children focused, otherwise we are going to be isolating children all the time,” said Dr. Buonsenso. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health state that a child with a simple runny nose or sporadic cough without a fever, who would have attended school in other times, should not be tested for COVID-19. He moved on to then cite several studies that show little or no evidence of COVID-19 transmission between school children. This included a prospective cohort study in Australia showing that child-to-child transmission occurred in 0.3%. “To date, the advantages from routine quarantine and over testing seem too low to balance the social consequences on children and families,” he concluded.

As the debate drew to a close, Dr. Panciu reported several studies that did demonstrate transmission between school-age children. Data from an overnight camp in Georgia where the median age was 12 years showed the attack rate was 44% for ages 11-17 years and 51% for ages 6-10 years. Similar conclusions were reached in an Israeli study looking at a large COVID-19 outbreak in a school. This occurred 10 days after reopening, in spite of preventive measures being in place. “Opening safely isn’t just about the adjustments a school makes,” she said, “it’s also about how much of the virus is circulating in the community, which affects the likelihood that students and staff will bring COVID-19 into their classrooms.”

Damian Roland, consultant and honorary associate professor in pediatric emergency medicine at the University of Leicester (England), commented: “Maximizing educational potential while reducing the spread of COVID19 is a challenge laden with scientific equipoise while simultaneously infused with emotion. The evidence of transmission between, and infectivity from, children is not complete, as this debate has demonstrated. It is important scientists, clinicians, educators, and policy makers make collaborative decisions, aware there is not one perfect answer, and willing to understand and incorporate others views and objectives rather than holding onto single beliefs or approaches.”

No financial conflicts of interest were declared.

Countries across the world are in the process of closing and reopening schools to contain the spread of COVID-19. Should there be universal testing and quarantining of sick school children and their classmates?

miodrag ignjatovic/E+

In a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Andreea M. Panciu, MD, from the National Institute of Infectious Diseases in Bucharest, argued for routine testing and quarantining of all school children. Her opposite number, Danilo Buonsenso, MD, from the Centre for Global Health Research and Studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Rome, made the case for a more selective approach.
 

Should children be sent to school?

“Risk-reduction strategies and detection of cases must be in place to allow children to return safely to school,” stated Dr. Panciu as she started the debate by explaining the challenges faced by schools in adhering to key mitigation strategies. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that students keep 1.8 m (6 feet) distance from one another. “In many school settings this is not feasible without drastically limiting the number of students,” she explained. “This is a massive challenge for many schools that are already overcrowded.”

The use of facemasks also is a challenge in classrooms. Children have a lower tolerance or may not be able to use the mask properly. There also are concerns regarding impaired learning, speech development, social development, and facial recognition. “We need to look at the evidence; preventive measures work,” responded Dr. Buonsenso. If distance can be implemented, the more distance the lower the transmission of infection, with 1.5-2 meters having the best effects. “Distance can be difficult when school buildings do not allow it, however, governments have had time to plan, and this should not be a limitation to education for kids.”

A recent review clearly showed that children and adolescents aged under 20 years have a much lower risk of susceptibility to COVID-19 infection, compared with adults. This is especially the case for children younger than 14 years. “There is no excuse, let’s bring the children back to school,” argued Dr. Buonsenso.

Dr. Panciu responded with several studies that have tried to quantify the amount of SARS-CoV-2 virus that is carried by infected children. Viral load in the nasopharynx in children under 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms was higher than that of both children over 5 as well as adults. The viral load in young children did not seem to differ by age or symptom severity. “There doesn’t appear to be a significant difference in viral load between symptomatic children and symptomatic adults,” she stated.

“But the question is: ‘How infectious are children?’ ” reacted Dr. Buonsenso. Data from South Korea showed that, for children, particularly those under 10 years, the number of secondary cases of contacts was very low, suggesting that children are rarely spreading the virus.

Dr. Buonsenso and colleagues assessed 30 households containing children aged under 18 years where an adult had been infected with COVID-19 in Rome during the peak of the pandemic. In no cases was it found that a child was the index case. This was supported by data from China, also obtained during the peak of the pandemic, which showed that the number of children infected was very low, but more importantly the number of secondary attacks from contact with children was also very low.
 

What about children who are sick at school?

The debate moved to discussing what should be done when a child is sick at school. Dr. Panciu clarified recommendations by the CDC regarding what steps to take if a student displays signs of infection consistent with COVID-19: Should they test positive, they are to stay at home for 10 days from the time signs and symptoms first appeared. Further, any teachers or students identified as close contacts are advised to stay at home for 14 days. (Since the ESPID meeting, the CDC has made changes in quarantine times for COVID-19. People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.)

A significant problem is the overlap between COVID-19 symptoms and those associated with other common illnesses because of a range of viruses. This is particularly true in younger children who often suffer from viral infections. “It is common for children to have up to eight respiratory illnesses a year,” explained Dr. Panciu, “and some may have symptoms so mild that they don’t notice them.”

“We need to be a little bit more children focused, otherwise we are going to be isolating children all the time,” said Dr. Buonsenso. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health state that a child with a simple runny nose or sporadic cough without a fever, who would have attended school in other times, should not be tested for COVID-19. He moved on to then cite several studies that show little or no evidence of COVID-19 transmission between school children. This included a prospective cohort study in Australia showing that child-to-child transmission occurred in 0.3%. “To date, the advantages from routine quarantine and over testing seem too low to balance the social consequences on children and families,” he concluded.

As the debate drew to a close, Dr. Panciu reported several studies that did demonstrate transmission between school-age children. Data from an overnight camp in Georgia where the median age was 12 years showed the attack rate was 44% for ages 11-17 years and 51% for ages 6-10 years. Similar conclusions were reached in an Israeli study looking at a large COVID-19 outbreak in a school. This occurred 10 days after reopening, in spite of preventive measures being in place. “Opening safely isn’t just about the adjustments a school makes,” she said, “it’s also about how much of the virus is circulating in the community, which affects the likelihood that students and staff will bring COVID-19 into their classrooms.”

Damian Roland, consultant and honorary associate professor in pediatric emergency medicine at the University of Leicester (England), commented: “Maximizing educational potential while reducing the spread of COVID19 is a challenge laden with scientific equipoise while simultaneously infused with emotion. The evidence of transmission between, and infectivity from, children is not complete, as this debate has demonstrated. It is important scientists, clinicians, educators, and policy makers make collaborative decisions, aware there is not one perfect answer, and willing to understand and incorporate others views and objectives rather than holding onto single beliefs or approaches.”

No financial conflicts of interest were declared.

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with type 1 diabetes appears similar to that of type 2 diabetes, contrary to some official advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new finding indicates that people with both types should be priority for receiving a vaccine, investigators say.

The study is the first to prospectively evaluate both inpatients and outpatients and to examine COVID-19 severity factors in addition to death in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, and was published online Dec. 2 in Diabetes Care. 

Among the patients, who were seen at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., between March and August of 2020, those with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes had between a three- and fourfold greater risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and greater illness severity compared with people without diabetes after adjustments for age, race, and a number of other risk factors.

This finding is important since as of Dec. 1, 2020, the CDC has classified the diabetes types differently in terms of underlying medical conditions that increase the risk for severe COVID-19.

Adults of any age with type 2 diabetes are considered “at increased risk of severe illness” from the virus that causes COVID-19 whereas the CDC says those with type 1 “might be at an increased risk.”

Lead author of the new paper Justin M. Gregory, MD, said in an interview: “I think this needs revision based on the current evidence. I think the data presented in our study and that of Barron et al. in Lancet Endocrinology 2020 indicate the need to place type 1 diabetes at parity with type 2 diabetes.

“These studies indicate both conditions carry an adjusted odds ratio of three to four when compared with people without diabetes for hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality,” he stressed.
 

Vaccines look promising for patients with diabetes

There were no phase 3 vaccine data available for the vaccine at the time that Dr. Gregory, of the Ian M. Burr Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues were writing their manuscript in late summer, so the article does not mention this.

But now, Dr. Gregory said, “Based on the initial press releases from Pfizer and Moderna, I am now optimistic that these vaccines might mitigate the excess morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 experienced by patients with diabetes.

“I am eager to see what we learn on December 10 and 17 [the scheduled dates for the meetings of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to review the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively].”

But with the winter pandemic surge in the meantime, “Our investigation suggests that as COVID-19 hospitalizations rise, patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes will comprise a disproportionately higher number of those admissions and, once hospitalized, demonstrate a greater degree of illness severity,” he and his colleagues said.

“In light of these data, we call on our colleagues to emphasize the importance of social distancing measures and hand hygiene, with particular emphasis on patients with diabetes, including those in the most vulnerable communities whom our study affirms will face the most severe impact.”
 

After adjustments, excess severity risk similar for both diabetes types

The new study data came from electronic health records at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, comprising 137 primary care, urgent care, and hospital facilities where patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the reason for their visit.

Between March 17 and August 7, 2020, 6,451 patients tested positive for COVID-19. Of those, 273 had type 2 diabetes and 40 had type 1 diabetes.

Children younger than 18 years accounted for 20% of those with type 1 diabetes and 9.4% of those without diabetes, but none of the type 2 group. The group with type 2 diabetes was considerably older than the type 1 diabetes and no-diabetes groups, 58 years versus 37 and 33 years, respectively. 

Before adjustment for baseline characteristics that differed between groups, patients with type 1 diabetes appeared to have a risk for hospitalization and greater illness severity that was intermediate between the group with no diabetes and the group with type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

But after adjustment for age, race, sex, hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, people with type 1 diabetes had odds ratios of 3.90 for hospitalization and 3.35 for greater illness severity, which was similar to risk in type 2 diabetes (3.36 and 3.42, respectively), compared to those without diabetes.
 

Deep dive explores COVID-19 severity risk factors in type 1 diabetes

The investigators then conducted a detailed chart review for 37 of the 40 patients with type 1 diabetes and phone surveys with 15 of them.

The majority (28) had not been hospitalized, and only one was hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) within 14 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

This contrasts with a report from the T1D Exchange, in which nearly half of 33 patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 had been hospitalized with DKA. The reason for the discrepancy may be that more severe patients would more likely be referred to the T1D Exchange Registry, Dr. Gregory and colleagues hypothesized.

Clinical factors associated with COVID-19 severity (P < .05) in their study included a prior hypertension diagnosis, higher hemoglobin A1c, at least one prior DKA admission in the past year, and not using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 

Hospitalizations were twice as likely and illness severity nearly twice as great among those with type 1 diabetes who were Black versus White. Just 8% of those with private insurance were hospitalized, compared with 60% of those with public insurance and 67% with no insurance (P = .001).

“Whereas previous reports have indicated proportionally higher rates of hospitalizations from COVID-19 among Black patients and those with public insurance, this study is the first to show a similar finding in the population with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gregory and colleagues wrote.

Only 9% of patients using a CGM were hospitalized versus 47% who used blood glucose meters (P < .016). Similarly, hospitalizations occurred in 6% using an insulin pump versus 33% using multiple daily injections (P < .085).

“Our analysis cannot exclude the possibility that greater amounts of diabetes technology use are a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status,” they noted.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, JDRF, and the Appleby Foundation. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with type 1 diabetes appears similar to that of type 2 diabetes, contrary to some official advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new finding indicates that people with both types should be priority for receiving a vaccine, investigators say.

The study is the first to prospectively evaluate both inpatients and outpatients and to examine COVID-19 severity factors in addition to death in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, and was published online Dec. 2 in Diabetes Care. 

Among the patients, who were seen at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., between March and August of 2020, those with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes had between a three- and fourfold greater risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and greater illness severity compared with people without diabetes after adjustments for age, race, and a number of other risk factors.

This finding is important since as of Dec. 1, 2020, the CDC has classified the diabetes types differently in terms of underlying medical conditions that increase the risk for severe COVID-19.

Adults of any age with type 2 diabetes are considered “at increased risk of severe illness” from the virus that causes COVID-19 whereas the CDC says those with type 1 “might be at an increased risk.”

Lead author of the new paper Justin M. Gregory, MD, said in an interview: “I think this needs revision based on the current evidence. I think the data presented in our study and that of Barron et al. in Lancet Endocrinology 2020 indicate the need to place type 1 diabetes at parity with type 2 diabetes.

“These studies indicate both conditions carry an adjusted odds ratio of three to four when compared with people without diabetes for hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality,” he stressed.
 

Vaccines look promising for patients with diabetes

There were no phase 3 vaccine data available for the vaccine at the time that Dr. Gregory, of the Ian M. Burr Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues were writing their manuscript in late summer, so the article does not mention this.

But now, Dr. Gregory said, “Based on the initial press releases from Pfizer and Moderna, I am now optimistic that these vaccines might mitigate the excess morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 experienced by patients with diabetes.

“I am eager to see what we learn on December 10 and 17 [the scheduled dates for the meetings of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to review the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively].”

But with the winter pandemic surge in the meantime, “Our investigation suggests that as COVID-19 hospitalizations rise, patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes will comprise a disproportionately higher number of those admissions and, once hospitalized, demonstrate a greater degree of illness severity,” he and his colleagues said.

“In light of these data, we call on our colleagues to emphasize the importance of social distancing measures and hand hygiene, with particular emphasis on patients with diabetes, including those in the most vulnerable communities whom our study affirms will face the most severe impact.”
 

After adjustments, excess severity risk similar for both diabetes types

The new study data came from electronic health records at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, comprising 137 primary care, urgent care, and hospital facilities where patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the reason for their visit.

Between March 17 and August 7, 2020, 6,451 patients tested positive for COVID-19. Of those, 273 had type 2 diabetes and 40 had type 1 diabetes.

Children younger than 18 years accounted for 20% of those with type 1 diabetes and 9.4% of those without diabetes, but none of the type 2 group. The group with type 2 diabetes was considerably older than the type 1 diabetes and no-diabetes groups, 58 years versus 37 and 33 years, respectively. 

Before adjustment for baseline characteristics that differed between groups, patients with type 1 diabetes appeared to have a risk for hospitalization and greater illness severity that was intermediate between the group with no diabetes and the group with type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

But after adjustment for age, race, sex, hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, people with type 1 diabetes had odds ratios of 3.90 for hospitalization and 3.35 for greater illness severity, which was similar to risk in type 2 diabetes (3.36 and 3.42, respectively), compared to those without diabetes.
 

Deep dive explores COVID-19 severity risk factors in type 1 diabetes

The investigators then conducted a detailed chart review for 37 of the 40 patients with type 1 diabetes and phone surveys with 15 of them.

The majority (28) had not been hospitalized, and only one was hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) within 14 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

This contrasts with a report from the T1D Exchange, in which nearly half of 33 patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 had been hospitalized with DKA. The reason for the discrepancy may be that more severe patients would more likely be referred to the T1D Exchange Registry, Dr. Gregory and colleagues hypothesized.

Clinical factors associated with COVID-19 severity (P < .05) in their study included a prior hypertension diagnosis, higher hemoglobin A1c, at least one prior DKA admission in the past year, and not using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 

Hospitalizations were twice as likely and illness severity nearly twice as great among those with type 1 diabetes who were Black versus White. Just 8% of those with private insurance were hospitalized, compared with 60% of those with public insurance and 67% with no insurance (P = .001).

“Whereas previous reports have indicated proportionally higher rates of hospitalizations from COVID-19 among Black patients and those with public insurance, this study is the first to show a similar finding in the population with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gregory and colleagues wrote.

Only 9% of patients using a CGM were hospitalized versus 47% who used blood glucose meters (P < .016). Similarly, hospitalizations occurred in 6% using an insulin pump versus 33% using multiple daily injections (P < .085).

“Our analysis cannot exclude the possibility that greater amounts of diabetes technology use are a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status,” they noted.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, JDRF, and the Appleby Foundation. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with type 1 diabetes appears similar to that of type 2 diabetes, contrary to some official advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new finding indicates that people with both types should be priority for receiving a vaccine, investigators say.

The study is the first to prospectively evaluate both inpatients and outpatients and to examine COVID-19 severity factors in addition to death in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, and was published online Dec. 2 in Diabetes Care. 

Among the patients, who were seen at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., between March and August of 2020, those with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes had between a three- and fourfold greater risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and greater illness severity compared with people without diabetes after adjustments for age, race, and a number of other risk factors.

This finding is important since as of Dec. 1, 2020, the CDC has classified the diabetes types differently in terms of underlying medical conditions that increase the risk for severe COVID-19.

Adults of any age with type 2 diabetes are considered “at increased risk of severe illness” from the virus that causes COVID-19 whereas the CDC says those with type 1 “might be at an increased risk.”

Lead author of the new paper Justin M. Gregory, MD, said in an interview: “I think this needs revision based on the current evidence. I think the data presented in our study and that of Barron et al. in Lancet Endocrinology 2020 indicate the need to place type 1 diabetes at parity with type 2 diabetes.

“These studies indicate both conditions carry an adjusted odds ratio of three to four when compared with people without diabetes for hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality,” he stressed.
 

Vaccines look promising for patients with diabetes

There were no phase 3 vaccine data available for the vaccine at the time that Dr. Gregory, of the Ian M. Burr Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues were writing their manuscript in late summer, so the article does not mention this.

But now, Dr. Gregory said, “Based on the initial press releases from Pfizer and Moderna, I am now optimistic that these vaccines might mitigate the excess morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 experienced by patients with diabetes.

“I am eager to see what we learn on December 10 and 17 [the scheduled dates for the meetings of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to review the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively].”

But with the winter pandemic surge in the meantime, “Our investigation suggests that as COVID-19 hospitalizations rise, patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes will comprise a disproportionately higher number of those admissions and, once hospitalized, demonstrate a greater degree of illness severity,” he and his colleagues said.

“In light of these data, we call on our colleagues to emphasize the importance of social distancing measures and hand hygiene, with particular emphasis on patients with diabetes, including those in the most vulnerable communities whom our study affirms will face the most severe impact.”
 

After adjustments, excess severity risk similar for both diabetes types

The new study data came from electronic health records at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, comprising 137 primary care, urgent care, and hospital facilities where patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the reason for their visit.

Between March 17 and August 7, 2020, 6,451 patients tested positive for COVID-19. Of those, 273 had type 2 diabetes and 40 had type 1 diabetes.

Children younger than 18 years accounted for 20% of those with type 1 diabetes and 9.4% of those without diabetes, but none of the type 2 group. The group with type 2 diabetes was considerably older than the type 1 diabetes and no-diabetes groups, 58 years versus 37 and 33 years, respectively. 

Before adjustment for baseline characteristics that differed between groups, patients with type 1 diabetes appeared to have a risk for hospitalization and greater illness severity that was intermediate between the group with no diabetes and the group with type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

But after adjustment for age, race, sex, hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, people with type 1 diabetes had odds ratios of 3.90 for hospitalization and 3.35 for greater illness severity, which was similar to risk in type 2 diabetes (3.36 and 3.42, respectively), compared to those without diabetes.
 

Deep dive explores COVID-19 severity risk factors in type 1 diabetes

The investigators then conducted a detailed chart review for 37 of the 40 patients with type 1 diabetes and phone surveys with 15 of them.

The majority (28) had not been hospitalized, and only one was hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) within 14 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

This contrasts with a report from the T1D Exchange, in which nearly half of 33 patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 had been hospitalized with DKA. The reason for the discrepancy may be that more severe patients would more likely be referred to the T1D Exchange Registry, Dr. Gregory and colleagues hypothesized.

Clinical factors associated with COVID-19 severity (P < .05) in their study included a prior hypertension diagnosis, higher hemoglobin A1c, at least one prior DKA admission in the past year, and not using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 

Hospitalizations were twice as likely and illness severity nearly twice as great among those with type 1 diabetes who were Black versus White. Just 8% of those with private insurance were hospitalized, compared with 60% of those with public insurance and 67% with no insurance (P = .001).

“Whereas previous reports have indicated proportionally higher rates of hospitalizations from COVID-19 among Black patients and those with public insurance, this study is the first to show a similar finding in the population with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gregory and colleagues wrote.

Only 9% of patients using a CGM were hospitalized versus 47% who used blood glucose meters (P < .016). Similarly, hospitalizations occurred in 6% using an insulin pump versus 33% using multiple daily injections (P < .085).

“Our analysis cannot exclude the possibility that greater amounts of diabetes technology use are a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status,” they noted.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, JDRF, and the Appleby Foundation. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

After a patient’s face was burned in the outline of a mask worn during a 3-Tesla MRI neck scan, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned that face masks containing metal can heat to unsafe temperatures during scanning.

Clinicians have known for years to ask patients to remove all metal jewelry and other objects prior to an MRI. The widespread wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, adds one more consideration to the list.

The FDA’s December 7 safety communication applies to surgical and nonsurgical face masks and respirators.

The injury risk relates to rapid heating of metal components. Many face masks contain a nose wire or metal clip that helps the product conform to the face. Some masks contain metal nanoparticles, while others feature antimicrobial coatings with silver or copper. Each of these products should be avoided during MRI scanning. Also watch out for staples on headbands, the FDA warned.

If the metal content of a face mask is unknown, the FDA suggests providing the patient with a facial covering that is known not to contain any metal.

Robert E. Watson Jr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Committee on MR Safety, agreed. He recommended that facilities “provide patients with masks known to be MRI-safe and not permit patient-owned masks in the MRI.”

Watson suggested this strategy at a time when face masks are required.

“COVID-19 safety protocols require that patients wear masks when being scanned, to decrease infection risk to MRI staff, decrease risk of contaminating the MRI scanner, and to protect themselves from infection,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Any conducting metal that enters the MRI machine is at risk of heating due to the radiofrequency fields inherent to image generation.”

Adverse events related to the metal components of a face mask should be reported to the FDA using the MedWatch voluntary reporting form. In addition, healthcare providers subject to the FDA user facility reporting requirements should follow procedures at their facilities to report such events.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After a patient’s face was burned in the outline of a mask worn during a 3-Tesla MRI neck scan, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned that face masks containing metal can heat to unsafe temperatures during scanning.

Clinicians have known for years to ask patients to remove all metal jewelry and other objects prior to an MRI. The widespread wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, adds one more consideration to the list.

The FDA’s December 7 safety communication applies to surgical and nonsurgical face masks and respirators.

The injury risk relates to rapid heating of metal components. Many face masks contain a nose wire or metal clip that helps the product conform to the face. Some masks contain metal nanoparticles, while others feature antimicrobial coatings with silver or copper. Each of these products should be avoided during MRI scanning. Also watch out for staples on headbands, the FDA warned.

If the metal content of a face mask is unknown, the FDA suggests providing the patient with a facial covering that is known not to contain any metal.

Robert E. Watson Jr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Committee on MR Safety, agreed. He recommended that facilities “provide patients with masks known to be MRI-safe and not permit patient-owned masks in the MRI.”

Watson suggested this strategy at a time when face masks are required.

“COVID-19 safety protocols require that patients wear masks when being scanned, to decrease infection risk to MRI staff, decrease risk of contaminating the MRI scanner, and to protect themselves from infection,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Any conducting metal that enters the MRI machine is at risk of heating due to the radiofrequency fields inherent to image generation.”

Adverse events related to the metal components of a face mask should be reported to the FDA using the MedWatch voluntary reporting form. In addition, healthcare providers subject to the FDA user facility reporting requirements should follow procedures at their facilities to report such events.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After a patient’s face was burned in the outline of a mask worn during a 3-Tesla MRI neck scan, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned that face masks containing metal can heat to unsafe temperatures during scanning.

Clinicians have known for years to ask patients to remove all metal jewelry and other objects prior to an MRI. The widespread wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, adds one more consideration to the list.

The FDA’s December 7 safety communication applies to surgical and nonsurgical face masks and respirators.

The injury risk relates to rapid heating of metal components. Many face masks contain a nose wire or metal clip that helps the product conform to the face. Some masks contain metal nanoparticles, while others feature antimicrobial coatings with silver or copper. Each of these products should be avoided during MRI scanning. Also watch out for staples on headbands, the FDA warned.

If the metal content of a face mask is unknown, the FDA suggests providing the patient with a facial covering that is known not to contain any metal.

Robert E. Watson Jr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Committee on MR Safety, agreed. He recommended that facilities “provide patients with masks known to be MRI-safe and not permit patient-owned masks in the MRI.”

Watson suggested this strategy at a time when face masks are required.

“COVID-19 safety protocols require that patients wear masks when being scanned, to decrease infection risk to MRI staff, decrease risk of contaminating the MRI scanner, and to protect themselves from infection,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Any conducting metal that enters the MRI machine is at risk of heating due to the radiofrequency fields inherent to image generation.”

Adverse events related to the metal components of a face mask should be reported to the FDA using the MedWatch voluntary reporting form. In addition, healthcare providers subject to the FDA user facility reporting requirements should follow procedures at their facilities to report such events.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Americans have made no secret of their skepticism of COVID-19 vaccines this year, with fears of political interference and a “warp speed” timeline blunting confidence in the shots. As recently as September, nearly half of U.S. adults said they didn’t intend to be inoculated.

But with two promising vaccines primed for release, likely within weeks, experts in ethics and immunization behavior say they expect attitudes to shift quickly from widespread hesitancy to urgent, even heated demand.

“People talk about the antivaccine people being able to kind of squelch uptake. I don’t see that happening,” Dr. Paul Offit, MD, a vaccinologist with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told viewers of a recent JAMA Network webinar. “This, to me, is more like the Beanie Baby phenomenon. The attractiveness of a limited edition.”

Reports that vaccines produced by drugmakers Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna appear to be safe and effective, along with the deliberate emphasis on science-based guidance from the incoming Biden administration, are likely to reverse uncertainty in a big way, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.

“I think that’s going to flip the trust issue,” he said.

The shift is already apparent. A new poll by the Pew Research Center found that by the end of November 60% of Americans said they would get a vaccine for the coronavirus. This month, even as a federal advisory group met to hash out guidelines for vaccine distribution, a long list of advocacy groups – from those representing home-based health workers and community health centers to patients with kidney disease – were lobbying state and federal officials in hopes their constituents would be prioritized for the first scarce doses.

“As we get closer to the vaccine being a reality, there’s a lot of jockeying, to be sure,” said Katie Smith Sloan, chief executive of LeadingAge, a nonprofit organization pushing for staff and patients at long-term care centers to be included in the highest-priority category.

Certainly, some consumers remain wary, said Rupali Limaye, PhD, a social and behavioral health scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. Fears that drugmakers and regulators might cut corners to speed a vaccine linger, even as details of the trials become public and the review process is made more transparent. Some health care workers, who are at the front of the line for the shots, are not eager to go first.

“There will be people who will say, ‘I will wait a little bit more for safety data,” Dr. Limaye said.

But those doubts likely will recede once the vaccines are approved for use and begin to circulate broadly, said Dr. Offit, who sits on the Food and Drug Administration advisory panel set to review the requests for emergency authorization Pfizer and Moderna have submitted.

He predicted demand for the COVID vaccines could rival the clamor that occurred in 2004, when production problems caused a severe shortage of flu shots just as influenza season began. That led to long lines, rationed doses and ethical debates over distribution.

“That was a highly desired vaccine,” Dr. Offit said. “I think in many ways that might happen here.”

Initially, vaccine supplies will be tight, with federal officials planning to ship 6.4 million doses within 24 hours of FDA authorization and up to 40 million doses by the end of the year. The CDC panel recommended that the first shots go to the 21 million health care workers in the United States and 3 million nursing home staff and residents, before being rolled out to other groups based on a hierarchy of risk factors.

Even before any vaccine is available, some people are trying to boost their chances of access, said Allison Kempe, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, and expert in vaccine dissemination. “People have called me and said, ‘How can I get the vaccine?’” she said. “I think that not everyone will be happy to wait, that’s for sure. I don’t think there will be rioting in the streets, but there may be pressure brought to bear.”

That likely will include emotional debates over how, when, and to whom next doses should be distributed, said Dr. Caplan. Under the CDC recommendations, vulnerable groups next in line include 87 million workers whose jobs are deemed “essential” – a broad and ill-defined category – as well as 53 million adults age 65 and older.

“We’re going to have some fights about high-risk groups,” Dr. Caplan said.

The conversations will be complicated. Should prisoners, who have little control over their COVID exposure, get vaccine priority? How about professional sports teams, whose performance could bolster society’s overall morale? And what about residents of facilities providing care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who are three times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the general population?

Control over vaccination allocation rests with the states, so that’s where the biggest conflicts will occur, Dr. Caplan said. “It’s a short fight, I hope, in the sense in which it gets done in a few months, but I think it will be pretty vocal.”

Once vaccine supplies become more plentiful, perhaps by May or June, another consideration is sure to boost demand: requirements for proof of COVID vaccination for work and travel.

“It’s inevitable that you’re going to see immunity passports or that you’re required to show a certificate on the train, airplane, bus, or subway,” Dr. Caplan predicted. “Probably also to enter certain hospitals, probably to enter certain restaurants and government facilities.”

But with a grueling winter surge ahead, and new predictions that COVID-19 will fell as many as 450,000 Americans by February, the tragic reality of the disease will no doubt fuel ample demand for vaccination.

“People now know someone who has gotten COVID, who has been hospitalized or has unfortunately died,” Dr. Limaye said.

“We’re all seeing this now,” said Dr. Kempe. “Even deniers are beginning to see what this illness can do.”

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.

Americans have made no secret of their skepticism of COVID-19 vaccines this year, with fears of political interference and a “warp speed” timeline blunting confidence in the shots. As recently as September, nearly half of U.S. adults said they didn’t intend to be inoculated.

But with two promising vaccines primed for release, likely within weeks, experts in ethics and immunization behavior say they expect attitudes to shift quickly from widespread hesitancy to urgent, even heated demand.

“People talk about the antivaccine people being able to kind of squelch uptake. I don’t see that happening,” Dr. Paul Offit, MD, a vaccinologist with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told viewers of a recent JAMA Network webinar. “This, to me, is more like the Beanie Baby phenomenon. The attractiveness of a limited edition.”

Reports that vaccines produced by drugmakers Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna appear to be safe and effective, along with the deliberate emphasis on science-based guidance from the incoming Biden administration, are likely to reverse uncertainty in a big way, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.

“I think that’s going to flip the trust issue,” he said.

The shift is already apparent. A new poll by the Pew Research Center found that by the end of November 60% of Americans said they would get a vaccine for the coronavirus. This month, even as a federal advisory group met to hash out guidelines for vaccine distribution, a long list of advocacy groups – from those representing home-based health workers and community health centers to patients with kidney disease – were lobbying state and federal officials in hopes their constituents would be prioritized for the first scarce doses.

“As we get closer to the vaccine being a reality, there’s a lot of jockeying, to be sure,” said Katie Smith Sloan, chief executive of LeadingAge, a nonprofit organization pushing for staff and patients at long-term care centers to be included in the highest-priority category.

Certainly, some consumers remain wary, said Rupali Limaye, PhD, a social and behavioral health scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. Fears that drugmakers and regulators might cut corners to speed a vaccine linger, even as details of the trials become public and the review process is made more transparent. Some health care workers, who are at the front of the line for the shots, are not eager to go first.

“There will be people who will say, ‘I will wait a little bit more for safety data,” Dr. Limaye said.

But those doubts likely will recede once the vaccines are approved for use and begin to circulate broadly, said Dr. Offit, who sits on the Food and Drug Administration advisory panel set to review the requests for emergency authorization Pfizer and Moderna have submitted.

He predicted demand for the COVID vaccines could rival the clamor that occurred in 2004, when production problems caused a severe shortage of flu shots just as influenza season began. That led to long lines, rationed doses and ethical debates over distribution.

“That was a highly desired vaccine,” Dr. Offit said. “I think in many ways that might happen here.”

Initially, vaccine supplies will be tight, with federal officials planning to ship 6.4 million doses within 24 hours of FDA authorization and up to 40 million doses by the end of the year. The CDC panel recommended that the first shots go to the 21 million health care workers in the United States and 3 million nursing home staff and residents, before being rolled out to other groups based on a hierarchy of risk factors.

Even before any vaccine is available, some people are trying to boost their chances of access, said Allison Kempe, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, and expert in vaccine dissemination. “People have called me and said, ‘How can I get the vaccine?’” she said. “I think that not everyone will be happy to wait, that’s for sure. I don’t think there will be rioting in the streets, but there may be pressure brought to bear.”

That likely will include emotional debates over how, when, and to whom next doses should be distributed, said Dr. Caplan. Under the CDC recommendations, vulnerable groups next in line include 87 million workers whose jobs are deemed “essential” – a broad and ill-defined category – as well as 53 million adults age 65 and older.

“We’re going to have some fights about high-risk groups,” Dr. Caplan said.

The conversations will be complicated. Should prisoners, who have little control over their COVID exposure, get vaccine priority? How about professional sports teams, whose performance could bolster society’s overall morale? And what about residents of facilities providing care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who are three times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the general population?

Control over vaccination allocation rests with the states, so that’s where the biggest conflicts will occur, Dr. Caplan said. “It’s a short fight, I hope, in the sense in which it gets done in a few months, but I think it will be pretty vocal.”

Once vaccine supplies become more plentiful, perhaps by May or June, another consideration is sure to boost demand: requirements for proof of COVID vaccination for work and travel.

“It’s inevitable that you’re going to see immunity passports or that you’re required to show a certificate on the train, airplane, bus, or subway,” Dr. Caplan predicted. “Probably also to enter certain hospitals, probably to enter certain restaurants and government facilities.”

But with a grueling winter surge ahead, and new predictions that COVID-19 will fell as many as 450,000 Americans by February, the tragic reality of the disease will no doubt fuel ample demand for vaccination.

“People now know someone who has gotten COVID, who has been hospitalized or has unfortunately died,” Dr. Limaye said.

“We’re all seeing this now,” said Dr. Kempe. “Even deniers are beginning to see what this illness can do.”

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.

Americans have made no secret of their skepticism of COVID-19 vaccines this year, with fears of political interference and a “warp speed” timeline blunting confidence in the shots. As recently as September, nearly half of U.S. adults said they didn’t intend to be inoculated.

But with two promising vaccines primed for release, likely within weeks, experts in ethics and immunization behavior say they expect attitudes to shift quickly from widespread hesitancy to urgent, even heated demand.

“People talk about the antivaccine people being able to kind of squelch uptake. I don’t see that happening,” Dr. Paul Offit, MD, a vaccinologist with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told viewers of a recent JAMA Network webinar. “This, to me, is more like the Beanie Baby phenomenon. The attractiveness of a limited edition.”

Reports that vaccines produced by drugmakers Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna appear to be safe and effective, along with the deliberate emphasis on science-based guidance from the incoming Biden administration, are likely to reverse uncertainty in a big way, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.

“I think that’s going to flip the trust issue,” he said.

The shift is already apparent. A new poll by the Pew Research Center found that by the end of November 60% of Americans said they would get a vaccine for the coronavirus. This month, even as a federal advisory group met to hash out guidelines for vaccine distribution, a long list of advocacy groups – from those representing home-based health workers and community health centers to patients with kidney disease – were lobbying state and federal officials in hopes their constituents would be prioritized for the first scarce doses.

“As we get closer to the vaccine being a reality, there’s a lot of jockeying, to be sure,” said Katie Smith Sloan, chief executive of LeadingAge, a nonprofit organization pushing for staff and patients at long-term care centers to be included in the highest-priority category.

Certainly, some consumers remain wary, said Rupali Limaye, PhD, a social and behavioral health scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. Fears that drugmakers and regulators might cut corners to speed a vaccine linger, even as details of the trials become public and the review process is made more transparent. Some health care workers, who are at the front of the line for the shots, are not eager to go first.

“There will be people who will say, ‘I will wait a little bit more for safety data,” Dr. Limaye said.

But those doubts likely will recede once the vaccines are approved for use and begin to circulate broadly, said Dr. Offit, who sits on the Food and Drug Administration advisory panel set to review the requests for emergency authorization Pfizer and Moderna have submitted.

He predicted demand for the COVID vaccines could rival the clamor that occurred in 2004, when production problems caused a severe shortage of flu shots just as influenza season began. That led to long lines, rationed doses and ethical debates over distribution.

“That was a highly desired vaccine,” Dr. Offit said. “I think in many ways that might happen here.”

Initially, vaccine supplies will be tight, with federal officials planning to ship 6.4 million doses within 24 hours of FDA authorization and up to 40 million doses by the end of the year. The CDC panel recommended that the first shots go to the 21 million health care workers in the United States and 3 million nursing home staff and residents, before being rolled out to other groups based on a hierarchy of risk factors.

Even before any vaccine is available, some people are trying to boost their chances of access, said Allison Kempe, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, and expert in vaccine dissemination. “People have called me and said, ‘How can I get the vaccine?’” she said. “I think that not everyone will be happy to wait, that’s for sure. I don’t think there will be rioting in the streets, but there may be pressure brought to bear.”

That likely will include emotional debates over how, when, and to whom next doses should be distributed, said Dr. Caplan. Under the CDC recommendations, vulnerable groups next in line include 87 million workers whose jobs are deemed “essential” – a broad and ill-defined category – as well as 53 million adults age 65 and older.

“We’re going to have some fights about high-risk groups,” Dr. Caplan said.

The conversations will be complicated. Should prisoners, who have little control over their COVID exposure, get vaccine priority? How about professional sports teams, whose performance could bolster society’s overall morale? And what about residents of facilities providing care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who are three times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the general population?

Control over vaccination allocation rests with the states, so that’s where the biggest conflicts will occur, Dr. Caplan said. “It’s a short fight, I hope, in the sense in which it gets done in a few months, but I think it will be pretty vocal.”

Once vaccine supplies become more plentiful, perhaps by May or June, another consideration is sure to boost demand: requirements for proof of COVID vaccination for work and travel.

“It’s inevitable that you’re going to see immunity passports or that you’re required to show a certificate on the train, airplane, bus, or subway,” Dr. Caplan predicted. “Probably also to enter certain hospitals, probably to enter certain restaurants and government facilities.”

But with a grueling winter surge ahead, and new predictions that COVID-19 will fell as many as 450,000 Americans by February, the tragic reality of the disease will no doubt fuel ample demand for vaccination.

“People now know someone who has gotten COVID, who has been hospitalized or has unfortunately died,” Dr. Limaye said.

“We’re all seeing this now,” said Dr. Kempe. “Even deniers are beginning to see what this illness can do.”

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.

A tiny bit of light may have broken though the COVID-19 storm clouds.

The number of new cases in children in the United States did not set a new weekly high for the first time in months and the cumulative proportion of COVID-19 cases occurring in children did not go up for the first time since the pandemic started, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total number of reported COVID-19 cases in children is now up to 1.46 million, and the overall rate is 1,941 per 100,000 children. Comparable figures for states show that California has the most cumulative cases at over 139,000 and that North Dakota has the highest rate at over 6,800 per 100,000 children. Vermont, the state with the smallest child population, has the fewest cases (687) and the lowest rate (511 per 100,000), the report said.

The total number of COVID-19–related deaths in children has reached 154 in the 44 jurisdictions (43 states and New York City) reporting such data. That number represents 0.06% of all coronavirus deaths, a proportion that has changed little – ranging from 0.04% to 0.07% – over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

A tiny bit of light may have broken though the COVID-19 storm clouds.

The number of new cases in children in the United States did not set a new weekly high for the first time in months and the cumulative proportion of COVID-19 cases occurring in children did not go up for the first time since the pandemic started, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total number of reported COVID-19 cases in children is now up to 1.46 million, and the overall rate is 1,941 per 100,000 children. Comparable figures for states show that California has the most cumulative cases at over 139,000 and that North Dakota has the highest rate at over 6,800 per 100,000 children. Vermont, the state with the smallest child population, has the fewest cases (687) and the lowest rate (511 per 100,000), the report said.

The total number of COVID-19–related deaths in children has reached 154 in the 44 jurisdictions (43 states and New York City) reporting such data. That number represents 0.06% of all coronavirus deaths, a proportion that has changed little – ranging from 0.04% to 0.07% – over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

A tiny bit of light may have broken though the COVID-19 storm clouds.

The number of new cases in children in the United States did not set a new weekly high for the first time in months and the cumulative proportion of COVID-19 cases occurring in children did not go up for the first time since the pandemic started, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total number of reported COVID-19 cases in children is now up to 1.46 million, and the overall rate is 1,941 per 100,000 children. Comparable figures for states show that California has the most cumulative cases at over 139,000 and that North Dakota has the highest rate at over 6,800 per 100,000 children. Vermont, the state with the smallest child population, has the fewest cases (687) and the lowest rate (511 per 100,000), the report said.

The total number of COVID-19–related deaths in children has reached 154 in the 44 jurisdictions (43 states and New York City) reporting such data. That number represents 0.06% of all coronavirus deaths, a proportion that has changed little – ranging from 0.04% to 0.07% – over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

There has been a sharp increase in overdose-related cardiac arrests in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new analysis shows.

Overall rates in 2020 were elevated above the baseline from 2018 and 2019 by about 50%, the data show.

“Our results suggest that overdoses may be strongly on the rise in 2020, and efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic have not been effective at reducing overdoses,” Joseph Friedman, MPH, MD/PhD student, medical scientist training program, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“We need to invest heavily in substance use treatment, harm reduction, and the structural drivers of overdose as core elements of the COVID-19 response,” said Mr. Friedman, who coauthored the study with UCLA colleague David Schriger, MD, MPH, and Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH, Northeastern University, Boston.

The study was published as a research letter Dec. 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Social isolation a key driver

Emergency medical services (EMS) data are available in near real time, providing a novel source of up-to-date information to monitor epidemiological shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the study, the researchers leveraged data from the National EMS Information System, a large registry of more than 10,000 EMS agencies in 47 states that represent over 80% of all EMS calls nationally in 2020. They used the data to track shifts in overdose-related cardiac arrests observed by EMS.

They found clear evidence of a large-scale uptick in overdose-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends observed during 2018 and 2019, including a maximum peak of 123% above baseline reached in early May.

All overdose-related incidents (fatal and nonfatal) were elevated in 2020, by about 17% above baseline. However, there were larger increases in fatal overdose-related incidents, compared to all incidents, which may suggest a rising case fatality rate, the authors noted.

The observed trends line up in time with reductions in mobility (a metric of social interaction), as measured using cell phone data, they wrote.

“Many of the trends predicted by experts at the beginning of the pandemic could cause these shifts. Increases in social isolation likely play an important role, as people using [drugs] alone are less likely to receive help when they need it. Also shifts in the drug supply, and reduced access to healthcare and treatment,” said Mr. Friedman.

“We need to undertake short- and long-term strategies to combat the rising tide of overdose mortality in the United States,” he added.

In the short term, Mr. Friedman suggested reducing financial and logistical barriers for accessing a safe opioid supply. Such measures include allowing pharmacies to dispense methadone, allowing all physicians to prescribe buprenorphine without a special waiver, and releasing emergency funds to make these medications universally affordable.

“In the longer term, we should acknowledge that overdose is a symptom of structural problems in the U.S. We need to invest in making employment, housing, education, and health care accessible to all to address the upstream drivers of overdose,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a sharp increase in overdose-related cardiac arrests in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new analysis shows.

Overall rates in 2020 were elevated above the baseline from 2018 and 2019 by about 50%, the data show.

“Our results suggest that overdoses may be strongly on the rise in 2020, and efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic have not been effective at reducing overdoses,” Joseph Friedman, MPH, MD/PhD student, medical scientist training program, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“We need to invest heavily in substance use treatment, harm reduction, and the structural drivers of overdose as core elements of the COVID-19 response,” said Mr. Friedman, who coauthored the study with UCLA colleague David Schriger, MD, MPH, and Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH, Northeastern University, Boston.

The study was published as a research letter Dec. 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Social isolation a key driver

Emergency medical services (EMS) data are available in near real time, providing a novel source of up-to-date information to monitor epidemiological shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the study, the researchers leveraged data from the National EMS Information System, a large registry of more than 10,000 EMS agencies in 47 states that represent over 80% of all EMS calls nationally in 2020. They used the data to track shifts in overdose-related cardiac arrests observed by EMS.

They found clear evidence of a large-scale uptick in overdose-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends observed during 2018 and 2019, including a maximum peak of 123% above baseline reached in early May.

All overdose-related incidents (fatal and nonfatal) were elevated in 2020, by about 17% above baseline. However, there were larger increases in fatal overdose-related incidents, compared to all incidents, which may suggest a rising case fatality rate, the authors noted.

The observed trends line up in time with reductions in mobility (a metric of social interaction), as measured using cell phone data, they wrote.

“Many of the trends predicted by experts at the beginning of the pandemic could cause these shifts. Increases in social isolation likely play an important role, as people using [drugs] alone are less likely to receive help when they need it. Also shifts in the drug supply, and reduced access to healthcare and treatment,” said Mr. Friedman.

“We need to undertake short- and long-term strategies to combat the rising tide of overdose mortality in the United States,” he added.

In the short term, Mr. Friedman suggested reducing financial and logistical barriers for accessing a safe opioid supply. Such measures include allowing pharmacies to dispense methadone, allowing all physicians to prescribe buprenorphine without a special waiver, and releasing emergency funds to make these medications universally affordable.

“In the longer term, we should acknowledge that overdose is a symptom of structural problems in the U.S. We need to invest in making employment, housing, education, and health care accessible to all to address the upstream drivers of overdose,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a sharp increase in overdose-related cardiac arrests in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new analysis shows.

Overall rates in 2020 were elevated above the baseline from 2018 and 2019 by about 50%, the data show.

“Our results suggest that overdoses may be strongly on the rise in 2020, and efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic have not been effective at reducing overdoses,” Joseph Friedman, MPH, MD/PhD student, medical scientist training program, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“We need to invest heavily in substance use treatment, harm reduction, and the structural drivers of overdose as core elements of the COVID-19 response,” said Mr. Friedman, who coauthored the study with UCLA colleague David Schriger, MD, MPH, and Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH, Northeastern University, Boston.

The study was published as a research letter Dec. 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Social isolation a key driver

Emergency medical services (EMS) data are available in near real time, providing a novel source of up-to-date information to monitor epidemiological shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the study, the researchers leveraged data from the National EMS Information System, a large registry of more than 10,000 EMS agencies in 47 states that represent over 80% of all EMS calls nationally in 2020. They used the data to track shifts in overdose-related cardiac arrests observed by EMS.

They found clear evidence of a large-scale uptick in overdose-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends observed during 2018 and 2019, including a maximum peak of 123% above baseline reached in early May.

All overdose-related incidents (fatal and nonfatal) were elevated in 2020, by about 17% above baseline. However, there were larger increases in fatal overdose-related incidents, compared to all incidents, which may suggest a rising case fatality rate, the authors noted.

The observed trends line up in time with reductions in mobility (a metric of social interaction), as measured using cell phone data, they wrote.

“Many of the trends predicted by experts at the beginning of the pandemic could cause these shifts. Increases in social isolation likely play an important role, as people using [drugs] alone are less likely to receive help when they need it. Also shifts in the drug supply, and reduced access to healthcare and treatment,” said Mr. Friedman.

“We need to undertake short- and long-term strategies to combat the rising tide of overdose mortality in the United States,” he added.

In the short term, Mr. Friedman suggested reducing financial and logistical barriers for accessing a safe opioid supply. Such measures include allowing pharmacies to dispense methadone, allowing all physicians to prescribe buprenorphine without a special waiver, and releasing emergency funds to make these medications universally affordable.

“In the longer term, we should acknowledge that overdose is a symptom of structural problems in the U.S. We need to invest in making employment, housing, education, and health care accessible to all to address the upstream drivers of overdose,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinical question: Is early glucocorticoid therapy associated with reduced mortality or need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection?

Background: Glucocorticoids have been used as adjunctive treatment in some infections with inflammatory responses, but their efficacy in COVID-19 infections had not been entirely clear. The RECOVERY trial found a subset of patients with COVID-19 who may benefit from treatment with glucocorticoids. The ideal role of steroids in this infection, and who the subset of patients might be for whom they would benefit, is so far unclear.

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: Large academic health center in New York.

Synopsis: Researchers analyzed admissions of COVID-19 positive patients hospitalized between March 11, 2020 and April 13, 2020 who did not die or become mechanically ventilated within the first 48 hours of admission. Patients treated with glucocorticoids within 48 hours of admission were compared with patients who were not treated with glucocorticoids during this time frame. In total, 2,998 patients were examined, of whom 1,806 met inclusion criteria, and 140 (7.7%) were treated with glucocorticoids within 48 hours of admission. These treated patients were more likely to have an underlying pulmonary or rheumatologic comorbidity. Early use of glucocorticoids was not associated with in-hospital mortality or mechanical ventilation in either adjusted or unadjusted models. However, if the initial C-reactive protein (CRP) was >20mg/dL, this was associated with a reduced risk of mortality or mechanical ventilation in unadjusted (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.70) and adjusted analyses for clinical characteristics (adjusted OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.67). Conversely, treatment in patients with CRP <10mg/dL was associated with significantly increased risk of mortality or ventilation during analysis.

Bottom line: Glucocorticoids can benefit patients with significantly elevated CRP but may be harmful to those with lower CRPs.

Citation: Keller MJ et al. Effect of systemic glucocorticoids on mortality or mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19. J Hosp Med. 2020;8;489-493. Published online first. 2020 Jul 22. doi:10.12788/jhm.3497.
 

Dr. Halpern is a med-peds hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Clinical question: Is early glucocorticoid therapy associated with reduced mortality or need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection?

Background: Glucocorticoids have been used as adjunctive treatment in some infections with inflammatory responses, but their efficacy in COVID-19 infections had not been entirely clear. The RECOVERY trial found a subset of patients with COVID-19 who may benefit from treatment with glucocorticoids. The ideal role of steroids in this infection, and who the subset of patients might be for whom they would benefit, is so far unclear.

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: Large academic health center in New York.

Synopsis: Researchers analyzed admissions of COVID-19 positive patients hospitalized between March 11, 2020 and April 13, 2020 who did not die or become mechanically ventilated within the first 48 hours of admission. Patients treated with glucocorticoids within 48 hours of admission were compared with patients who were not treated with glucocorticoids during this time frame. In total, 2,998 patients were examined, of whom 1,806 met inclusion criteria, and 140 (7.7%) were treated with glucocorticoids within 48 hours of admission. These treated patients were more likely to have an underlying pulmonary or rheumatologic comorbidity. Early use of glucocorticoids was not associated with in-hospital mortality or mechanical ventilation in either adjusted or unadjusted models. However, if the initial C-reactive protein (CRP) was >20mg/dL, this was associated with a reduced risk of mortality or mechanical ventilation in unadjusted (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.70) and adjusted analyses for clinical characteristics (adjusted OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.67). Conversely, treatment in patients with CRP <10mg/dL was associated with significantly increased risk of mortality or ventilation during analysis.

Bottom line: Glucocorticoids can benefit patients with significantly elevated CRP but may be harmful to those with lower CRPs.

Citation: Keller MJ et al. Effect of systemic glucocorticoids on mortality or mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19. J Hosp Med. 2020;8;489-493. Published online first. 2020 Jul 22. doi:10.12788/jhm.3497.
 

Dr. Halpern is a med-peds hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Clinical question: Is early glucocorticoid therapy associated with reduced mortality or need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection?

Background: Glucocorticoids have been used as adjunctive treatment in some infections with inflammatory responses, but their efficacy in COVID-19 infections had not been entirely clear. The RECOVERY trial found a subset of patients with COVID-19 who may benefit from treatment with glucocorticoids. The ideal role of steroids in this infection, and who the subset of patients might be for whom they would benefit, is so far unclear.

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: Large academic health center in New York.

Synopsis: Researchers analyzed admissions of COVID-19 positive patients hospitalized between March 11, 2020 and April 13, 2020 who did not die or become mechanically ventilated within the first 48 hours of admission. Patients treated with glucocorticoids within 48 hours of admission were compared with patients who were not treated with glucocorticoids during this time frame. In total, 2,998 patients were examined, of whom 1,806 met inclusion criteria, and 140 (7.7%) were treated with glucocorticoids within 48 hours of admission. These treated patients were more likely to have an underlying pulmonary or rheumatologic comorbidity. Early use of glucocorticoids was not associated with in-hospital mortality or mechanical ventilation in either adjusted or unadjusted models. However, if the initial C-reactive protein (CRP) was >20mg/dL, this was associated with a reduced risk of mortality or mechanical ventilation in unadjusted (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.70) and adjusted analyses for clinical characteristics (adjusted OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.67). Conversely, treatment in patients with CRP <10mg/dL was associated with significantly increased risk of mortality or ventilation during analysis.

Bottom line: Glucocorticoids can benefit patients with significantly elevated CRP but may be harmful to those with lower CRPs.

Citation: Keller MJ et al. Effect of systemic glucocorticoids on mortality or mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19. J Hosp Med. 2020;8;489-493. Published online first. 2020 Jul 22. doi:10.12788/jhm.3497.
 

Dr. Halpern is a med-peds hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

A majority of hospitals and health care facilities surveyed report operating according to “crisis standards of care” as they struggle to provide sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE).

For example, in a national survey, 73% of 1,083 infection prevention experts said respirator shortages related to care for patients with COVID-19 drove their facility to move beyond conventional standards of care. Furthermore, 69% of facilities are using crisis standards of care (CSC) to provide masks, and 76% are apportioning face shields or eye protection.

Almost 76% of respondents who report reusing respirators said their facility allows them to use each respirator either five times or as many times as possible before replacement; 74% allow similar reuse of masks.

Although the majority of institutions remain in this crisis mode, many health care providers have better access to PPE than they did in the spring 2020, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) noted in its latest national survey.

“It is disheartening to see our healthcare system strained and implementing PPE crisis standards of care more than eight months into the pandemic,” APIC President Connie Steed, MSN, RN, said in a December 3 news release.

The association surveyed experts online between Oct. 22 and Nov. 5. The survey was timed to gauge the extent of resource shortages as COVID-19 cases increase and the 2020-2021 flu season begins.

“Many of us on the front lines are waiting for the other shoe to drop. With the upcoming flu season, we implore people to do what they can to keep safe, protect our healthcare personnel, and lessen the strain on our health care system,” Ms. Steed said.
 

COVID-19 linked to more infections, too

APIC also asked infection prevention specialists about changes in health care–associated infection rates since the onset of the pandemic. The experts reported an almost 28% increase in central line–associated bloodstream infections and 21% more catheter-associated urinary tract infections. They also reported an 18% rise in ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilator-associated events, compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is the second PPE survey the APIC has conducted during the pandemic. The organization first reported a dire situation in March. For example, the initial survey found that 48% of facilities were almost out or were out of respirators used to care for patients with COVID-19.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A majority of hospitals and health care facilities surveyed report operating according to “crisis standards of care” as they struggle to provide sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE).

For example, in a national survey, 73% of 1,083 infection prevention experts said respirator shortages related to care for patients with COVID-19 drove their facility to move beyond conventional standards of care. Furthermore, 69% of facilities are using crisis standards of care (CSC) to provide masks, and 76% are apportioning face shields or eye protection.

Almost 76% of respondents who report reusing respirators said their facility allows them to use each respirator either five times or as many times as possible before replacement; 74% allow similar reuse of masks.

Although the majority of institutions remain in this crisis mode, many health care providers have better access to PPE than they did in the spring 2020, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) noted in its latest national survey.

“It is disheartening to see our healthcare system strained and implementing PPE crisis standards of care more than eight months into the pandemic,” APIC President Connie Steed, MSN, RN, said in a December 3 news release.

The association surveyed experts online between Oct. 22 and Nov. 5. The survey was timed to gauge the extent of resource shortages as COVID-19 cases increase and the 2020-2021 flu season begins.

“Many of us on the front lines are waiting for the other shoe to drop. With the upcoming flu season, we implore people to do what they can to keep safe, protect our healthcare personnel, and lessen the strain on our health care system,” Ms. Steed said.
 

COVID-19 linked to more infections, too

APIC also asked infection prevention specialists about changes in health care–associated infection rates since the onset of the pandemic. The experts reported an almost 28% increase in central line–associated bloodstream infections and 21% more catheter-associated urinary tract infections. They also reported an 18% rise in ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilator-associated events, compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is the second PPE survey the APIC has conducted during the pandemic. The organization first reported a dire situation in March. For example, the initial survey found that 48% of facilities were almost out or were out of respirators used to care for patients with COVID-19.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A majority of hospitals and health care facilities surveyed report operating according to “crisis standards of care” as they struggle to provide sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE).

For example, in a national survey, 73% of 1,083 infection prevention experts said respirator shortages related to care for patients with COVID-19 drove their facility to move beyond conventional standards of care. Furthermore, 69% of facilities are using crisis standards of care (CSC) to provide masks, and 76% are apportioning face shields or eye protection.

Almost 76% of respondents who report reusing respirators said their facility allows them to use each respirator either five times or as many times as possible before replacement; 74% allow similar reuse of masks.

Although the majority of institutions remain in this crisis mode, many health care providers have better access to PPE than they did in the spring 2020, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) noted in its latest national survey.

“It is disheartening to see our healthcare system strained and implementing PPE crisis standards of care more than eight months into the pandemic,” APIC President Connie Steed, MSN, RN, said in a December 3 news release.

The association surveyed experts online between Oct. 22 and Nov. 5. The survey was timed to gauge the extent of resource shortages as COVID-19 cases increase and the 2020-2021 flu season begins.

“Many of us on the front lines are waiting for the other shoe to drop. With the upcoming flu season, we implore people to do what they can to keep safe, protect our healthcare personnel, and lessen the strain on our health care system,” Ms. Steed said.
 

COVID-19 linked to more infections, too

APIC also asked infection prevention specialists about changes in health care–associated infection rates since the onset of the pandemic. The experts reported an almost 28% increase in central line–associated bloodstream infections and 21% more catheter-associated urinary tract infections. They also reported an 18% rise in ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilator-associated events, compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is the second PPE survey the APIC has conducted during the pandemic. The organization first reported a dire situation in March. For example, the initial survey found that 48% of facilities were almost out or were out of respirators used to care for patients with COVID-19.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.