COVID-19 Updates

From the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroscience Intensive Care, Jackson, MS.

Abstract

Objective: To test a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) screening tool to identify patients who qualify for testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction who are unable to answer the usual screening questions, which could help to prevent unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers to COVID-19.

Methods: The Neuro-COVID-19 Time-out Process and Checklist (NCOT-PC) was implemented at our institution for 1 week as a quality improvement project to improve the pathway for COVID-19 screening and testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction.

Results: A total of 14 new patients were admitted into the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) service during the pilot period. The NCOT-PC was utilized on 9 (64%) patients with neurologic dysfunction; 7 of these patients were found to have a likelihood of requiring testing based on the NCOT-PC and were subsequently screened for COVID-19 testing by contacting the institution’s COVID-19 testing hotline (Med-Com). All these patients were subsequently transitioned into person-under-investigation status based on the determination from Med-Com. The NSICU staff involved were able to utilize NCOT-PC without issues. The NCOT-PC was immediately adopted into the NSICU process.

Conclusion: Use of the NCOT-PC tool was found to be feasible and improved the screening methodology of patients with neurologic dysfunction.

Keywords: coronavirus; health care planning; quality improvement; patient safety; medical decision-making; neuroscience intensive care unit. 

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered various standard emergent care pathways. Current recommendations regarding COVID-19 screening for testing involve asking patients about their symptoms, including fever, cough, chest pain, and dyspnea.¹ This standard screening method poses a problem when caring for patients with neurologic dysfunction. COVID-19 patients may pre-sent with conditions that affect their ability to answer questions, such as stroke, encephalitis, neuromuscular disorders, or headache, and that may preclude the use of standard screening for testing.² Patients with acute neurologic dysfunction who cannot undergo standard screening may leave the emergency department (ED) and transition into the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) or any intensive care unit (ICU) without a reliable COVID-19 screening test.

The Protected Code Stroke pathway offers protection in the emergent setting for patients with stroke when their COVID-19 status is unknown.³ A similar process has been applied at our institution for emergent management of patients with cerebrovascular disease (stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage). However, the process from the ED after designating “difficult to screen” patients as persons under investigation (PUI) is unclear. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has delineated the priorities for testing, with not all declared PUIs requiring testing.⁴ This poses a great challenge, because patients designated as PUIs require the same management as a COVID-19-positive patient, with negative-pressure isolation rooms as well as use of protective personal equipment (PPE), which may not be readily available. It was also recognized that, because the ED staff can be overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients, there may not be enough time to perform detailed screening of patients with neurologic dysfunction and that “reverse masking” may not be done consistently for nonintubated patients. This may place patients and health care workers at risk of unprotected exposure.

Recognizing these challenges, we created a Neuro-COVID-19 Time-out Process and Checklist (NCOT-PC) as a quality improvement project. The aim of this project was to improve and standardize the current process of identifying patients with neurologic dysfunction who require COVID-19 testing to decrease the risk of unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers.

Methods

Patients and Definitions

This quality improvement project was undertaken at the University of Mississippi Medical Center NSICU. Because this was a quality improvement project, an Institutional Review Board exemption was granted.

The NCOT-PC was utilized in consecutive patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted to the NSICU during a period of 1 week. “Neurologic dysfunction” encompasses any neurologic illness affecting the mental status and/or level of alertness, subsequently precluding the ability to reliably screen the patient utilizing standard COVID-19 screening. “Med-Com” at our institution is the equivalent of the national COVID-19 testing hotline, where our institution’s infectious diseases experts screen calls for testing and determine whether testing is warranted. “Unprotected exposure” means exposure to COVID-19 without adequate and appropriate PPE.

Quality Improvement Process

As more PUIs were being admitted to the institution, we used the Plan-Do-Study-Act method for process improvements in the NSICU.⁵ NSICU stakeholders, including attendings, the nurse manager, and nurse practitioners (NPs), developed an algorithm to facilitate the coordination of the NSICU staff in screening patients to identify those with a high likelihood of needing COVID-19 testing upon arrival in the NSICU (Figure 1). Once the NCOT-PC was finalized, NSICU stakeholders were educated regarding the use of this screening tool.

The checklist clinicians review when screening patients is shown in Figure 2. The risk factors comprising the checklist include patient history and clinical and radiographic characteristics that have been shown to be relevant for identifying patients with COVID-19.^6,7 The imaging criteria utilize imaging that is part of the standard of care for NSICU patients. For example, computed tomography angiogram of the head and neck performed as part of the acute stroke protocol captures the upper part of the chest. These images are utilized for their incidental findings, such as apical ground-glass opacities and tree-in-bud formation. The risk factors applicable to the patient determine whether the clinician will call Med-Com for testing approval. Institutional COVID-19 processes were then followed accordingly.⁸ The decision from Med-Com was considered final, and no deviation from institutional policies was allowed.

NCOT-PC was utilized for consecutive days for 1 week before re-evaluation of its feasibility and adaptability.

Data Collection and Analysis

Consecutive patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted into the NSICU were assigned nonlinkable patient numbers. No identifiers were collected for the purpose of this project. The primary diagnosis for admission, the neurologic dysfunction that precluded standard screening, and checklist components that the patient fulfilled were collected.

To assess the tool’s feasibility, feedback regarding the ease of use of the NCOT-PC was gathered from the nurses, NPs, charge nurses, fellows, and other attendings. To assess the utility of the NCOT-PC in identifying patients who will be approved for COVID-19 testing, we calculated the proportion of patients who were deemed to have a high likelihood of testing and the proportion of patients who were approved for testing. Descriptive statistics were used, as applicable for the project, to summarize the utility of the NCOT-PC.

Results

We found that the NCOT-PC can be easily used by clinicians. The NSICU staff did not communicate any implementation issues, and since the NCOT-PC was implemented, no problems have been identified.

During the pilot period of the NCOT-PC, 14 new patients were admitted to the NSICU service. Nine (64%) of these had neurologic dysfunction, and the NCOT-PC was used to determine whether Med-Com should be called based on the patients’ likelihood (high vs low) of needing a COVID-19 test. Of those patients with neurologic dysfunction, 7 (78%) were deemed to have a high likelihood of needing a COVID-19 test based on the NCOT-PC. Med-Com was contacted regarding these patients, and all were deemed to require the COVID-19 test by Med-Com and were transitioned into PUI status per institutional policy (Table).

Discussion

The NCOT-PC project improved and standardized the process of identifying and screening patients with neurologic dysfunction for COVID-19 testing. The screening tool is feasible to use, and it decreased inadvertent unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers.

The NCOT-PC was easy to administer. Educating the staff regarding the new process took only a few minutes and involved a meeting with the nurse manager, NPs, fellows, residents, and attendings. We found that this process works well in tandem with the standard institutional processes in place in terms of Protected Code Stroke pathway, PUI isolation, PPE use, and Med-Com screening for COVID-19 testing. Med-Com was called only if the patient fulfilled the checklist criteria. In addition, no extra cost was attributed to implementing the NCOT-PC, since we utilized imaging that was already done as part of the standard of care for patients with neurologic dysfunction.

The standardization of the process of screening for COVID-19 testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction improved patient selection. Before the NCOT-PC, there was no consistency in terms of who should get tested and the reason for testing patients with neurologic dysfunction. Patients can pass through the ED and arrive in the NSICU with an unclear screening status, which may cause inadvertent patient and health care worker exposure to COVID-19. With the NCOT-PC, we have avoided instances of inadvertent staff or patient exposure in the NSICU.

The NCOT-PC was adopted into the NSICU process after the first week it was piloted. Beyond the NSICU, the application of the NCOT-PC can be extended to any patient presentation that precludes standard screening, such as ED and interhospital transfers for stroke codes, trauma codes, code blue, or myocardial infarction codes. In our department, as we started the process of PCS for stroke codes, we included NCOT-PC for stroke patients with neurologic dysfunction.

The results of our initiative are largely limited by the decision-making process of Med-Com when patients are called in for testing. At the time of our project, there were no specific criteria used for patients with altered mental status, except for the standard screening methods, and it was through clinician-to-clinician discussion that testing decisions were made. Another limitation is the short period of time that the NCOT-PC was applied before adoption.

In summary, the NCOT-PC tool improved the screening process for COVID-19 testing in patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted to the NSICU. It was feasible and prevented unprotected staff and patient exposure to COVID-19. The NCOT-PC functionality was compatible with institutional COVID-19 policies in place, which contributed to its overall sustainability.

The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) were utilized in preparing this manuscript.⁹

Acknowledgment: The authors thank the University of Mississippi Medical Center NSICU staff for their input with implementation of the NCOT-PC. 

Corresponding author: Prashant A. Natteru, MD, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Department of Neurology, 2500 North State St., Jackson, MS 39216; pnatteru@umc.edu. 

Financial disclosures: None.

From the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroscience Intensive Care, Jackson, MS.

Abstract

Objective: To test a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) screening tool to identify patients who qualify for testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction who are unable to answer the usual screening questions, which could help to prevent unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers to COVID-19.

Methods: The Neuro-COVID-19 Time-out Process and Checklist (NCOT-PC) was implemented at our institution for 1 week as a quality improvement project to improve the pathway for COVID-19 screening and testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction.

Results: A total of 14 new patients were admitted into the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) service during the pilot period. The NCOT-PC was utilized on 9 (64%) patients with neurologic dysfunction; 7 of these patients were found to have a likelihood of requiring testing based on the NCOT-PC and were subsequently screened for COVID-19 testing by contacting the institution’s COVID-19 testing hotline (Med-Com). All these patients were subsequently transitioned into person-under-investigation status based on the determination from Med-Com. The NSICU staff involved were able to utilize NCOT-PC without issues. The NCOT-PC was immediately adopted into the NSICU process.

Conclusion: Use of the NCOT-PC tool was found to be feasible and improved the screening methodology of patients with neurologic dysfunction.

Keywords: coronavirus; health care planning; quality improvement; patient safety; medical decision-making; neuroscience intensive care unit. 

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered various standard emergent care pathways. Current recommendations regarding COVID-19 screening for testing involve asking patients about their symptoms, including fever, cough, chest pain, and dyspnea.¹ This standard screening method poses a problem when caring for patients with neurologic dysfunction. COVID-19 patients may pre-sent with conditions that affect their ability to answer questions, such as stroke, encephalitis, neuromuscular disorders, or headache, and that may preclude the use of standard screening for testing.² Patients with acute neurologic dysfunction who cannot undergo standard screening may leave the emergency department (ED) and transition into the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) or any intensive care unit (ICU) without a reliable COVID-19 screening test.

The Protected Code Stroke pathway offers protection in the emergent setting for patients with stroke when their COVID-19 status is unknown.³ A similar process has been applied at our institution for emergent management of patients with cerebrovascular disease (stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage). However, the process from the ED after designating “difficult to screen” patients as persons under investigation (PUI) is unclear. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has delineated the priorities for testing, with not all declared PUIs requiring testing.⁴ This poses a great challenge, because patients designated as PUIs require the same management as a COVID-19-positive patient, with negative-pressure isolation rooms as well as use of protective personal equipment (PPE), which may not be readily available. It was also recognized that, because the ED staff can be overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients, there may not be enough time to perform detailed screening of patients with neurologic dysfunction and that “reverse masking” may not be done consistently for nonintubated patients. This may place patients and health care workers at risk of unprotected exposure.

Recognizing these challenges, we created a Neuro-COVID-19 Time-out Process and Checklist (NCOT-PC) as a quality improvement project. The aim of this project was to improve and standardize the current process of identifying patients with neurologic dysfunction who require COVID-19 testing to decrease the risk of unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers.

Methods

Patients and Definitions

This quality improvement project was undertaken at the University of Mississippi Medical Center NSICU. Because this was a quality improvement project, an Institutional Review Board exemption was granted.

The NCOT-PC was utilized in consecutive patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted to the NSICU during a period of 1 week. “Neurologic dysfunction” encompasses any neurologic illness affecting the mental status and/or level of alertness, subsequently precluding the ability to reliably screen the patient utilizing standard COVID-19 screening. “Med-Com” at our institution is the equivalent of the national COVID-19 testing hotline, where our institution’s infectious diseases experts screen calls for testing and determine whether testing is warranted. “Unprotected exposure” means exposure to COVID-19 without adequate and appropriate PPE.

Quality Improvement Process

As more PUIs were being admitted to the institution, we used the Plan-Do-Study-Act method for process improvements in the NSICU.⁵ NSICU stakeholders, including attendings, the nurse manager, and nurse practitioners (NPs), developed an algorithm to facilitate the coordination of the NSICU staff in screening patients to identify those with a high likelihood of needing COVID-19 testing upon arrival in the NSICU (Figure 1). Once the NCOT-PC was finalized, NSICU stakeholders were educated regarding the use of this screening tool.

The checklist clinicians review when screening patients is shown in Figure 2. The risk factors comprising the checklist include patient history and clinical and radiographic characteristics that have been shown to be relevant for identifying patients with COVID-19.^6,7 The imaging criteria utilize imaging that is part of the standard of care for NSICU patients. For example, computed tomography angiogram of the head and neck performed as part of the acute stroke protocol captures the upper part of the chest. These images are utilized for their incidental findings, such as apical ground-glass opacities and tree-in-bud formation. The risk factors applicable to the patient determine whether the clinician will call Med-Com for testing approval. Institutional COVID-19 processes were then followed accordingly.⁸ The decision from Med-Com was considered final, and no deviation from institutional policies was allowed.

NCOT-PC was utilized for consecutive days for 1 week before re-evaluation of its feasibility and adaptability.

Data Collection and Analysis

Consecutive patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted into the NSICU were assigned nonlinkable patient numbers. No identifiers were collected for the purpose of this project. The primary diagnosis for admission, the neurologic dysfunction that precluded standard screening, and checklist components that the patient fulfilled were collected.

To assess the tool’s feasibility, feedback regarding the ease of use of the NCOT-PC was gathered from the nurses, NPs, charge nurses, fellows, and other attendings. To assess the utility of the NCOT-PC in identifying patients who will be approved for COVID-19 testing, we calculated the proportion of patients who were deemed to have a high likelihood of testing and the proportion of patients who were approved for testing. Descriptive statistics were used, as applicable for the project, to summarize the utility of the NCOT-PC.

Results

We found that the NCOT-PC can be easily used by clinicians. The NSICU staff did not communicate any implementation issues, and since the NCOT-PC was implemented, no problems have been identified.

During the pilot period of the NCOT-PC, 14 new patients were admitted to the NSICU service. Nine (64%) of these had neurologic dysfunction, and the NCOT-PC was used to determine whether Med-Com should be called based on the patients’ likelihood (high vs low) of needing a COVID-19 test. Of those patients with neurologic dysfunction, 7 (78%) were deemed to have a high likelihood of needing a COVID-19 test based on the NCOT-PC. Med-Com was contacted regarding these patients, and all were deemed to require the COVID-19 test by Med-Com and were transitioned into PUI status per institutional policy (Table).

Discussion

The NCOT-PC project improved and standardized the process of identifying and screening patients with neurologic dysfunction for COVID-19 testing. The screening tool is feasible to use, and it decreased inadvertent unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers.

The NCOT-PC was easy to administer. Educating the staff regarding the new process took only a few minutes and involved a meeting with the nurse manager, NPs, fellows, residents, and attendings. We found that this process works well in tandem with the standard institutional processes in place in terms of Protected Code Stroke pathway, PUI isolation, PPE use, and Med-Com screening for COVID-19 testing. Med-Com was called only if the patient fulfilled the checklist criteria. In addition, no extra cost was attributed to implementing the NCOT-PC, since we utilized imaging that was already done as part of the standard of care for patients with neurologic dysfunction.

The standardization of the process of screening for COVID-19 testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction improved patient selection. Before the NCOT-PC, there was no consistency in terms of who should get tested and the reason for testing patients with neurologic dysfunction. Patients can pass through the ED and arrive in the NSICU with an unclear screening status, which may cause inadvertent patient and health care worker exposure to COVID-19. With the NCOT-PC, we have avoided instances of inadvertent staff or patient exposure in the NSICU.

The NCOT-PC was adopted into the NSICU process after the first week it was piloted. Beyond the NSICU, the application of the NCOT-PC can be extended to any patient presentation that precludes standard screening, such as ED and interhospital transfers for stroke codes, trauma codes, code blue, or myocardial infarction codes. In our department, as we started the process of PCS for stroke codes, we included NCOT-PC for stroke patients with neurologic dysfunction.

The results of our initiative are largely limited by the decision-making process of Med-Com when patients are called in for testing. At the time of our project, there were no specific criteria used for patients with altered mental status, except for the standard screening methods, and it was through clinician-to-clinician discussion that testing decisions were made. Another limitation is the short period of time that the NCOT-PC was applied before adoption.

In summary, the NCOT-PC tool improved the screening process for COVID-19 testing in patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted to the NSICU. It was feasible and prevented unprotected staff and patient exposure to COVID-19. The NCOT-PC functionality was compatible with institutional COVID-19 policies in place, which contributed to its overall sustainability.

The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) were utilized in preparing this manuscript.⁹

Acknowledgment: The authors thank the University of Mississippi Medical Center NSICU staff for their input with implementation of the NCOT-PC. 

Corresponding author: Prashant A. Natteru, MD, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Department of Neurology, 2500 North State St., Jackson, MS 39216; pnatteru@umc.edu. 

Financial disclosures: None.

From the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroscience Intensive Care, Jackson, MS.

Abstract

Objective: To test a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) screening tool to identify patients who qualify for testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction who are unable to answer the usual screening questions, which could help to prevent unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers to COVID-19.

Methods: The Neuro-COVID-19 Time-out Process and Checklist (NCOT-PC) was implemented at our institution for 1 week as a quality improvement project to improve the pathway for COVID-19 screening and testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction.

Results: A total of 14 new patients were admitted into the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) service during the pilot period. The NCOT-PC was utilized on 9 (64%) patients with neurologic dysfunction; 7 of these patients were found to have a likelihood of requiring testing based on the NCOT-PC and were subsequently screened for COVID-19 testing by contacting the institution’s COVID-19 testing hotline (Med-Com). All these patients were subsequently transitioned into person-under-investigation status based on the determination from Med-Com. The NSICU staff involved were able to utilize NCOT-PC without issues. The NCOT-PC was immediately adopted into the NSICU process.

Conclusion: Use of the NCOT-PC tool was found to be feasible and improved the screening methodology of patients with neurologic dysfunction.

Keywords: coronavirus; health care planning; quality improvement; patient safety; medical decision-making; neuroscience intensive care unit. 

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered various standard emergent care pathways. Current recommendations regarding COVID-19 screening for testing involve asking patients about their symptoms, including fever, cough, chest pain, and dyspnea.¹ This standard screening method poses a problem when caring for patients with neurologic dysfunction. COVID-19 patients may pre-sent with conditions that affect their ability to answer questions, such as stroke, encephalitis, neuromuscular disorders, or headache, and that may preclude the use of standard screening for testing.² Patients with acute neurologic dysfunction who cannot undergo standard screening may leave the emergency department (ED) and transition into the neuroscience intensive care unit (NSICU) or any intensive care unit (ICU) without a reliable COVID-19 screening test.

The Protected Code Stroke pathway offers protection in the emergent setting for patients with stroke when their COVID-19 status is unknown.³ A similar process has been applied at our institution for emergent management of patients with cerebrovascular disease (stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage). However, the process from the ED after designating “difficult to screen” patients as persons under investigation (PUI) is unclear. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has delineated the priorities for testing, with not all declared PUIs requiring testing.⁴ This poses a great challenge, because patients designated as PUIs require the same management as a COVID-19-positive patient, with negative-pressure isolation rooms as well as use of protective personal equipment (PPE), which may not be readily available. It was also recognized that, because the ED staff can be overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients, there may not be enough time to perform detailed screening of patients with neurologic dysfunction and that “reverse masking” may not be done consistently for nonintubated patients. This may place patients and health care workers at risk of unprotected exposure.

Recognizing these challenges, we created a Neuro-COVID-19 Time-out Process and Checklist (NCOT-PC) as a quality improvement project. The aim of this project was to improve and standardize the current process of identifying patients with neurologic dysfunction who require COVID-19 testing to decrease the risk of unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers.

Methods

Patients and Definitions

This quality improvement project was undertaken at the University of Mississippi Medical Center NSICU. Because this was a quality improvement project, an Institutional Review Board exemption was granted.

The NCOT-PC was utilized in consecutive patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted to the NSICU during a period of 1 week. “Neurologic dysfunction” encompasses any neurologic illness affecting the mental status and/or level of alertness, subsequently precluding the ability to reliably screen the patient utilizing standard COVID-19 screening. “Med-Com” at our institution is the equivalent of the national COVID-19 testing hotline, where our institution’s infectious diseases experts screen calls for testing and determine whether testing is warranted. “Unprotected exposure” means exposure to COVID-19 without adequate and appropriate PPE.

Quality Improvement Process

As more PUIs were being admitted to the institution, we used the Plan-Do-Study-Act method for process improvements in the NSICU.⁵ NSICU stakeholders, including attendings, the nurse manager, and nurse practitioners (NPs), developed an algorithm to facilitate the coordination of the NSICU staff in screening patients to identify those with a high likelihood of needing COVID-19 testing upon arrival in the NSICU (Figure 1). Once the NCOT-PC was finalized, NSICU stakeholders were educated regarding the use of this screening tool.

The checklist clinicians review when screening patients is shown in Figure 2. The risk factors comprising the checklist include patient history and clinical and radiographic characteristics that have been shown to be relevant for identifying patients with COVID-19.^6,7 The imaging criteria utilize imaging that is part of the standard of care for NSICU patients. For example, computed tomography angiogram of the head and neck performed as part of the acute stroke protocol captures the upper part of the chest. These images are utilized for their incidental findings, such as apical ground-glass opacities and tree-in-bud formation. The risk factors applicable to the patient determine whether the clinician will call Med-Com for testing approval. Institutional COVID-19 processes were then followed accordingly.⁸ The decision from Med-Com was considered final, and no deviation from institutional policies was allowed.

NCOT-PC was utilized for consecutive days for 1 week before re-evaluation of its feasibility and adaptability.

Data Collection and Analysis

Consecutive patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted into the NSICU were assigned nonlinkable patient numbers. No identifiers were collected for the purpose of this project. The primary diagnosis for admission, the neurologic dysfunction that precluded standard screening, and checklist components that the patient fulfilled were collected.

To assess the tool’s feasibility, feedback regarding the ease of use of the NCOT-PC was gathered from the nurses, NPs, charge nurses, fellows, and other attendings. To assess the utility of the NCOT-PC in identifying patients who will be approved for COVID-19 testing, we calculated the proportion of patients who were deemed to have a high likelihood of testing and the proportion of patients who were approved for testing. Descriptive statistics were used, as applicable for the project, to summarize the utility of the NCOT-PC.

Results

We found that the NCOT-PC can be easily used by clinicians. The NSICU staff did not communicate any implementation issues, and since the NCOT-PC was implemented, no problems have been identified.

During the pilot period of the NCOT-PC, 14 new patients were admitted to the NSICU service. Nine (64%) of these had neurologic dysfunction, and the NCOT-PC was used to determine whether Med-Com should be called based on the patients’ likelihood (high vs low) of needing a COVID-19 test. Of those patients with neurologic dysfunction, 7 (78%) were deemed to have a high likelihood of needing a COVID-19 test based on the NCOT-PC. Med-Com was contacted regarding these patients, and all were deemed to require the COVID-19 test by Med-Com and were transitioned into PUI status per institutional policy (Table).

Discussion

The NCOT-PC project improved and standardized the process of identifying and screening patients with neurologic dysfunction for COVID-19 testing. The screening tool is feasible to use, and it decreased inadvertent unprotected exposure of patients and health care workers.

The NCOT-PC was easy to administer. Educating the staff regarding the new process took only a few minutes and involved a meeting with the nurse manager, NPs, fellows, residents, and attendings. We found that this process works well in tandem with the standard institutional processes in place in terms of Protected Code Stroke pathway, PUI isolation, PPE use, and Med-Com screening for COVID-19 testing. Med-Com was called only if the patient fulfilled the checklist criteria. In addition, no extra cost was attributed to implementing the NCOT-PC, since we utilized imaging that was already done as part of the standard of care for patients with neurologic dysfunction.

The standardization of the process of screening for COVID-19 testing among patients with neurologic dysfunction improved patient selection. Before the NCOT-PC, there was no consistency in terms of who should get tested and the reason for testing patients with neurologic dysfunction. Patients can pass through the ED and arrive in the NSICU with an unclear screening status, which may cause inadvertent patient and health care worker exposure to COVID-19. With the NCOT-PC, we have avoided instances of inadvertent staff or patient exposure in the NSICU.

The NCOT-PC was adopted into the NSICU process after the first week it was piloted. Beyond the NSICU, the application of the NCOT-PC can be extended to any patient presentation that precludes standard screening, such as ED and interhospital transfers for stroke codes, trauma codes, code blue, or myocardial infarction codes. In our department, as we started the process of PCS for stroke codes, we included NCOT-PC for stroke patients with neurologic dysfunction.

The results of our initiative are largely limited by the decision-making process of Med-Com when patients are called in for testing. At the time of our project, there were no specific criteria used for patients with altered mental status, except for the standard screening methods, and it was through clinician-to-clinician discussion that testing decisions were made. Another limitation is the short period of time that the NCOT-PC was applied before adoption.

In summary, the NCOT-PC tool improved the screening process for COVID-19 testing in patients with neurologic dysfunction admitted to the NSICU. It was feasible and prevented unprotected staff and patient exposure to COVID-19. The NCOT-PC functionality was compatible with institutional COVID-19 policies in place, which contributed to its overall sustainability.

The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) were utilized in preparing this manuscript.⁹

Acknowledgment: The authors thank the University of Mississippi Medical Center NSICU staff for their input with implementation of the NCOT-PC. 

Corresponding author: Prashant A. Natteru, MD, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Department of Neurology, 2500 North State St., Jackson, MS 39216; pnatteru@umc.edu. 

Financial disclosures: None.

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.

The effects of COVID-19 on children’s health are multifaceted. In comparison to adults, children typically experience far milder physical consequences when infected with the virus. A notable exception is the newly described multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19 (MIS-C), which has proven to be a source of significant morbidity among the children it affects.¹ Nevertheless, even those children not infected with COVID-19 have suffered due to the disease. School closures have deprived children of opportunities for social and academic growth and, in some cases, the provision of food, social services, medication administration, and many different therapies. Social distancing rules have limited play among children, which is crucial to their development and mental health. The impact on children who have lost family members, including parents, is monumental. Amidst all of this observable suffering, however, the pandemic poses a less visible threat to the health of children.

It is well documented that concern about exposure to COVID-19 has led many adults to avoid emergency departments (EDs) around the world. We believe parents may be avoiding ED visits for their children for the same reason. In the United States, ED volumes dropped approximately 50% during spring 2020.² While EDs saw increasing, and at times overwhelming, numbers of patients with COVID-19, the number of patients presenting with other life-threatening medical issues, including heart attacks and strokes, declined.^3,4 Data from the National Center for Health Statistics this past spring revealed nationwide increases in deaths due to nonrespiratory causes such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.⁵ ED avoidance and unprecedented lack of access to outpatient care, though with the intent to reduce overall risk, are likely significant contributors to these deaths.

Pediatric patients, especially the most vulnerable, are similarly at risk for deleterious health-related consequences from ED avoidance and from limited access to primary and outpatient specialty care. Data from Europe indicate dramatic drops in pediatric ED (PED) volumes, as well as an increase in the proportion of ED visits leading to hospitalization.^6,7 These studies suggest that when patients do ultimately present to the PED, they may be more seriously ill.

At our institution, we have seen many COVID-19-negative patients whose medical care has been negatively influenced by the pandemic. A few months ago, a 1-month-old infant with an underlying health condition presented to the PED in extremis after weeks of progressively worsening feeding issues. The infant had been closely followed by the primary care provider (PCP) and subspecialty team via phone calls, televisits, and some office visits. Both physicians and parents had tried to resolve the feeding issues within the outpatient context, explicitly hoping to avoid potential exposure of this fragile patient to COVID-19 in the hospital. On eventual presentation to the PED, the infant was profoundly dehydrated, with significant electrolyte derangement and an acute abdomen, requiring admission to the intensive care unit. Ultimately, a new diagnosis of Hirschsprung disease was made, and the infant was hospitalized for several weeks for weight gain.

Later this summer, a school-aged child with a history of poorly controlled type 1 diabetes presented to an affiliated community hospital comatose and with Kussmaul respirations. Prior to the pandemic, a school nurse administered the child’s morning insulin. Since school closed, the patient had been responsible for administering this dose of insulin while the parents worked outside the home. Despite close and frequent communication between the patient’s endocrinology team and the family, the patient’s glucose and ketone levels began to rise. The parent administered repeated boluses of insulin at home in an attempt to avoid the perceived exposure risk associated with an ED visit. On presentation to the PED, the patient was profoundly altered, with a pH of 7.0. When transfer to a tertiary care center was recommended, the patient’s parent expressed persistent concerns about COVID-19 exposure in the larger hospital, although ultimately consent to transfer was given.

A third case from this summer provides an example of a different type of patient affected by COVID-19: the neonate whose birth circumstances were altered due to the virus. A 3-day-old, full-term infant presented to the ED with hypothermia after PCP referral. The parents had considered both home birth and hospital delivery earlier in the pregnancy, ultimately opting for home birth due to concerns about COVID-19 exposure in the hospital. The pregnancy and delivery were uncomplicated. The neonate did not receive the first hepatitis B vaccine, erythromycin eye ointment, or vitamin K after delivery. In the first 3 days of life, the patient had voided once and stooled once per day. The patient’s mother, inexperienced with breastfeeding and without access to a lactation consultant, was unsure about latch or emptying of her breasts. At the first pediatrician visit, the infant was noted to be hypothermic to 35°C, intermittently bradycardic to the 80s, and with diminished arousal. In the PED, a full sepsis work-up was initiated. Though multiple attempts were made by different providers, only a minimal amount of blood could be drawn, presumably due to dehydration. Of note, the neonate received vitamin K subcutaneously prior to lumbar puncture.

Pediatricians across the country have gone to great lengths to protect their patients and to provide high-quality care both inside and outside the office during this unprecedented time. Nevertheless, these 3 cases illustrate the detrimental effects of COVID-19 on the delivery of pediatric health care. The first 2 cases in particular demonstrate the limitations of even close and consistent phone and televisit follow-up. Telehealth has provided a lifeline for patients and families during the pandemic, and, in most cases, has provided an excellent temporary substitution for office visits. There are, however, limitations to care without physical evaluation. Had the children in the first 2 cases been evaluated in person sooner, they may have been referred to a higher level of care more expediently. Likewise, in all 3 cases, parental reservations about exposing their children to COVID-19 through a trip to the hospital, however well-intentioned, likely played a role in the eventual severity of illness with which each child presented to the hospital.

If we are encountering children in the PED with severe illness due to delayed presentation to care, what about the children we aren’t seeing? As COVID-19 cases rise daily in the United States, we must be aware of the possibility of ED avoidance. We propose a multimodal approach to combat this dangerous phenomenon. Inpatient and ED-based pediatricians must maintain clear and open lines of communication with outpatient colleagues so that we can partner in considering which cases warrant prompt ED evaluation, even in the midst of a pandemic. All pediatricians must remind families that our hospitals remain open and ready to treat children safely. We must promote community awareness of the numerous safety precautions we take every day so that patients and families can feel comfortable seeking care at the hospital; the message of ED and hospital safety must be even more robust for caregivers of our particularly vulnerable children. As always, how we communicate with patients and their families matters. Validating and addressing concerns about COVID-19 exposure, while providing reassurance about the safety of our hospitals, could save children’s lives.

Acknowledgment: Thank you to Dr. Cynthia Mollen and Dr. Kathy Shaw for their reviews of the manuscript.

Corresponding author: Regina L. Toto, MD, Department of Pediatrics, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19104; totor@email.chop.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

Keywords: coronavirus; pediatric; children; access to care; emergency department.

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.

The effects of COVID-19 on children’s health are multifaceted. In comparison to adults, children typically experience far milder physical consequences when infected with the virus. A notable exception is the newly described multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19 (MIS-C), which has proven to be a source of significant morbidity among the children it affects.¹ Nevertheless, even those children not infected with COVID-19 have suffered due to the disease. School closures have deprived children of opportunities for social and academic growth and, in some cases, the provision of food, social services, medication administration, and many different therapies. Social distancing rules have limited play among children, which is crucial to their development and mental health. The impact on children who have lost family members, including parents, is monumental. Amidst all of this observable suffering, however, the pandemic poses a less visible threat to the health of children.

It is well documented that concern about exposure to COVID-19 has led many adults to avoid emergency departments (EDs) around the world. We believe parents may be avoiding ED visits for their children for the same reason. In the United States, ED volumes dropped approximately 50% during spring 2020.² While EDs saw increasing, and at times overwhelming, numbers of patients with COVID-19, the number of patients presenting with other life-threatening medical issues, including heart attacks and strokes, declined.^3,4 Data from the National Center for Health Statistics this past spring revealed nationwide increases in deaths due to nonrespiratory causes such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.⁵ ED avoidance and unprecedented lack of access to outpatient care, though with the intent to reduce overall risk, are likely significant contributors to these deaths.

Pediatric patients, especially the most vulnerable, are similarly at risk for deleterious health-related consequences from ED avoidance and from limited access to primary and outpatient specialty care. Data from Europe indicate dramatic drops in pediatric ED (PED) volumes, as well as an increase in the proportion of ED visits leading to hospitalization.^6,7 These studies suggest that when patients do ultimately present to the PED, they may be more seriously ill.

At our institution, we have seen many COVID-19-negative patients whose medical care has been negatively influenced by the pandemic. A few months ago, a 1-month-old infant with an underlying health condition presented to the PED in extremis after weeks of progressively worsening feeding issues. The infant had been closely followed by the primary care provider (PCP) and subspecialty team via phone calls, televisits, and some office visits. Both physicians and parents had tried to resolve the feeding issues within the outpatient context, explicitly hoping to avoid potential exposure of this fragile patient to COVID-19 in the hospital. On eventual presentation to the PED, the infant was profoundly dehydrated, with significant electrolyte derangement and an acute abdomen, requiring admission to the intensive care unit. Ultimately, a new diagnosis of Hirschsprung disease was made, and the infant was hospitalized for several weeks for weight gain.

Later this summer, a school-aged child with a history of poorly controlled type 1 diabetes presented to an affiliated community hospital comatose and with Kussmaul respirations. Prior to the pandemic, a school nurse administered the child’s morning insulin. Since school closed, the patient had been responsible for administering this dose of insulin while the parents worked outside the home. Despite close and frequent communication between the patient’s endocrinology team and the family, the patient’s glucose and ketone levels began to rise. The parent administered repeated boluses of insulin at home in an attempt to avoid the perceived exposure risk associated with an ED visit. On presentation to the PED, the patient was profoundly altered, with a pH of 7.0. When transfer to a tertiary care center was recommended, the patient’s parent expressed persistent concerns about COVID-19 exposure in the larger hospital, although ultimately consent to transfer was given.

A third case from this summer provides an example of a different type of patient affected by COVID-19: the neonate whose birth circumstances were altered due to the virus. A 3-day-old, full-term infant presented to the ED with hypothermia after PCP referral. The parents had considered both home birth and hospital delivery earlier in the pregnancy, ultimately opting for home birth due to concerns about COVID-19 exposure in the hospital. The pregnancy and delivery were uncomplicated. The neonate did not receive the first hepatitis B vaccine, erythromycin eye ointment, or vitamin K after delivery. In the first 3 days of life, the patient had voided once and stooled once per day. The patient’s mother, inexperienced with breastfeeding and without access to a lactation consultant, was unsure about latch or emptying of her breasts. At the first pediatrician visit, the infant was noted to be hypothermic to 35°C, intermittently bradycardic to the 80s, and with diminished arousal. In the PED, a full sepsis work-up was initiated. Though multiple attempts were made by different providers, only a minimal amount of blood could be drawn, presumably due to dehydration. Of note, the neonate received vitamin K subcutaneously prior to lumbar puncture.

Pediatricians across the country have gone to great lengths to protect their patients and to provide high-quality care both inside and outside the office during this unprecedented time. Nevertheless, these 3 cases illustrate the detrimental effects of COVID-19 on the delivery of pediatric health care. The first 2 cases in particular demonstrate the limitations of even close and consistent phone and televisit follow-up. Telehealth has provided a lifeline for patients and families during the pandemic, and, in most cases, has provided an excellent temporary substitution for office visits. There are, however, limitations to care without physical evaluation. Had the children in the first 2 cases been evaluated in person sooner, they may have been referred to a higher level of care more expediently. Likewise, in all 3 cases, parental reservations about exposing their children to COVID-19 through a trip to the hospital, however well-intentioned, likely played a role in the eventual severity of illness with which each child presented to the hospital.

If we are encountering children in the PED with severe illness due to delayed presentation to care, what about the children we aren’t seeing? As COVID-19 cases rise daily in the United States, we must be aware of the possibility of ED avoidance. We propose a multimodal approach to combat this dangerous phenomenon. Inpatient and ED-based pediatricians must maintain clear and open lines of communication with outpatient colleagues so that we can partner in considering which cases warrant prompt ED evaluation, even in the midst of a pandemic. All pediatricians must remind families that our hospitals remain open and ready to treat children safely. We must promote community awareness of the numerous safety precautions we take every day so that patients and families can feel comfortable seeking care at the hospital; the message of ED and hospital safety must be even more robust for caregivers of our particularly vulnerable children. As always, how we communicate with patients and their families matters. Validating and addressing concerns about COVID-19 exposure, while providing reassurance about the safety of our hospitals, could save children’s lives.

Acknowledgment: Thank you to Dr. Cynthia Mollen and Dr. Kathy Shaw for their reviews of the manuscript.

Corresponding author: Regina L. Toto, MD, Department of Pediatrics, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19104; totor@email.chop.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

Keywords: coronavirus; pediatric; children; access to care; emergency department.

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.

The effects of COVID-19 on children’s health are multifaceted. In comparison to adults, children typically experience far milder physical consequences when infected with the virus. A notable exception is the newly described multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19 (MIS-C), which has proven to be a source of significant morbidity among the children it affects.¹ Nevertheless, even those children not infected with COVID-19 have suffered due to the disease. School closures have deprived children of opportunities for social and academic growth and, in some cases, the provision of food, social services, medication administration, and many different therapies. Social distancing rules have limited play among children, which is crucial to their development and mental health. The impact on children who have lost family members, including parents, is monumental. Amidst all of this observable suffering, however, the pandemic poses a less visible threat to the health of children.

It is well documented that concern about exposure to COVID-19 has led many adults to avoid emergency departments (EDs) around the world. We believe parents may be avoiding ED visits for their children for the same reason. In the United States, ED volumes dropped approximately 50% during spring 2020.² While EDs saw increasing, and at times overwhelming, numbers of patients with COVID-19, the number of patients presenting with other life-threatening medical issues, including heart attacks and strokes, declined.^3,4 Data from the National Center for Health Statistics this past spring revealed nationwide increases in deaths due to nonrespiratory causes such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.⁵ ED avoidance and unprecedented lack of access to outpatient care, though with the intent to reduce overall risk, are likely significant contributors to these deaths.

Pediatric patients, especially the most vulnerable, are similarly at risk for deleterious health-related consequences from ED avoidance and from limited access to primary and outpatient specialty care. Data from Europe indicate dramatic drops in pediatric ED (PED) volumes, as well as an increase in the proportion of ED visits leading to hospitalization.^6,7 These studies suggest that when patients do ultimately present to the PED, they may be more seriously ill.

At our institution, we have seen many COVID-19-negative patients whose medical care has been negatively influenced by the pandemic. A few months ago, a 1-month-old infant with an underlying health condition presented to the PED in extremis after weeks of progressively worsening feeding issues. The infant had been closely followed by the primary care provider (PCP) and subspecialty team via phone calls, televisits, and some office visits. Both physicians and parents had tried to resolve the feeding issues within the outpatient context, explicitly hoping to avoid potential exposure of this fragile patient to COVID-19 in the hospital. On eventual presentation to the PED, the infant was profoundly dehydrated, with significant electrolyte derangement and an acute abdomen, requiring admission to the intensive care unit. Ultimately, a new diagnosis of Hirschsprung disease was made, and the infant was hospitalized for several weeks for weight gain.

Later this summer, a school-aged child with a history of poorly controlled type 1 diabetes presented to an affiliated community hospital comatose and with Kussmaul respirations. Prior to the pandemic, a school nurse administered the child’s morning insulin. Since school closed, the patient had been responsible for administering this dose of insulin while the parents worked outside the home. Despite close and frequent communication between the patient’s endocrinology team and the family, the patient’s glucose and ketone levels began to rise. The parent administered repeated boluses of insulin at home in an attempt to avoid the perceived exposure risk associated with an ED visit. On presentation to the PED, the patient was profoundly altered, with a pH of 7.0. When transfer to a tertiary care center was recommended, the patient’s parent expressed persistent concerns about COVID-19 exposure in the larger hospital, although ultimately consent to transfer was given.

A third case from this summer provides an example of a different type of patient affected by COVID-19: the neonate whose birth circumstances were altered due to the virus. A 3-day-old, full-term infant presented to the ED with hypothermia after PCP referral. The parents had considered both home birth and hospital delivery earlier in the pregnancy, ultimately opting for home birth due to concerns about COVID-19 exposure in the hospital. The pregnancy and delivery were uncomplicated. The neonate did not receive the first hepatitis B vaccine, erythromycin eye ointment, or vitamin K after delivery. In the first 3 days of life, the patient had voided once and stooled once per day. The patient’s mother, inexperienced with breastfeeding and without access to a lactation consultant, was unsure about latch or emptying of her breasts. At the first pediatrician visit, the infant was noted to be hypothermic to 35°C, intermittently bradycardic to the 80s, and with diminished arousal. In the PED, a full sepsis work-up was initiated. Though multiple attempts were made by different providers, only a minimal amount of blood could be drawn, presumably due to dehydration. Of note, the neonate received vitamin K subcutaneously prior to lumbar puncture.

Pediatricians across the country have gone to great lengths to protect their patients and to provide high-quality care both inside and outside the office during this unprecedented time. Nevertheless, these 3 cases illustrate the detrimental effects of COVID-19 on the delivery of pediatric health care. The first 2 cases in particular demonstrate the limitations of even close and consistent phone and televisit follow-up. Telehealth has provided a lifeline for patients and families during the pandemic, and, in most cases, has provided an excellent temporary substitution for office visits. There are, however, limitations to care without physical evaluation. Had the children in the first 2 cases been evaluated in person sooner, they may have been referred to a higher level of care more expediently. Likewise, in all 3 cases, parental reservations about exposing their children to COVID-19 through a trip to the hospital, however well-intentioned, likely played a role in the eventual severity of illness with which each child presented to the hospital.

If we are encountering children in the PED with severe illness due to delayed presentation to care, what about the children we aren’t seeing? As COVID-19 cases rise daily in the United States, we must be aware of the possibility of ED avoidance. We propose a multimodal approach to combat this dangerous phenomenon. Inpatient and ED-based pediatricians must maintain clear and open lines of communication with outpatient colleagues so that we can partner in considering which cases warrant prompt ED evaluation, even in the midst of a pandemic. All pediatricians must remind families that our hospitals remain open and ready to treat children safely. We must promote community awareness of the numerous safety precautions we take every day so that patients and families can feel comfortable seeking care at the hospital; the message of ED and hospital safety must be even more robust for caregivers of our particularly vulnerable children. As always, how we communicate with patients and their families matters. Validating and addressing concerns about COVID-19 exposure, while providing reassurance about the safety of our hospitals, could save children’s lives.

Acknowledgment: Thank you to Dr. Cynthia Mollen and Dr. Kathy Shaw for their reviews of the manuscript.

Corresponding author: Regina L. Toto, MD, Department of Pediatrics, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19104; totor@email.chop.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

Keywords: coronavirus; pediatric; children; access to care; emergency department.

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the association between administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, and 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design. Prospective meta-analysis with data from 7 randomized clinical trials conducted in 12 countries.

Setting and participants. This prospective meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials conducted between February 26, 2020, and June 9, 2020, that examined the clinical efficacy of administration of corticosteroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were critically ill. Trials were systematically identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, using the search terms COVID-19, corticosteroids, and steroids. Additional trials were identified by experts from the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Senior investigators of these identified trials were asked to participate in weekly calls to develop a protocol for the prospective meta-analysis.¹ Subsequently, trials that had randomly assigned critically ill patients to receive corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo were invited to participate in this meta-analysis. Data were pooled from patients recruited to the participating trials through June 9, 2020, and aggregated in overall and in predefined subgroups.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days after randomization. Because 5 of the included trials reported mortality at 28 days after randomization, the primary outcome was reported as 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was serious adverse events (SAEs). The authors also gathered data on the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the number of patients lost to follow-up, and outcomes according to intervention group, overall, and in subgroups (ie, patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or vasoactive medication; age ≤ 60 years or > 60 years [the median across trials]; sex [male or female]; and the duration patients were symptomatic [≤ 7 days or > 7 days]). For each trial, the risk of bias was assessed independently by 4 investigators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for the overall effects of corticosteroids on mortality and SAEs and the effect of assignment and allocated interventions. Inconsistency between trial results was evaluated using the I² statistic. The trials were classified according to the corticosteroids used in the intervention group and the dose administered using a priori-defined cutoffs (15 mg/day of dexamethasone, 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone, and 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone). The primary analysis utilized was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for overall mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses with Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity were also performed.

Main results. Seven trials (DEXA-COVID 19, CoDEX, RECOVERY, CAPE COVID, COVID STEROID, REMAP-CAP, and Steroids-SARI) were included in the final meta-analysis. The enrolled patients were from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. The corticosteroids groups included dexamethasone at low (6 mg/day orally or intravenously [IV]) and high (20 mg/day IV) doses; low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day IV or 50 mg every 6 hr IV); and high-dose methylprednisolone (40 mg every 12 hr IV). In total, 1703 patients were randomized, with 678 assigned to the corticosteroids group and 1025 to the usual-care or placebo group. The median age of patients was 60 years (interquartile range, 52-68 years), and 29% were women. The larger number of patients in the usual-care/placebo group was a result of the 1:2 randomization (corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo) in the RECOVERY trial, which contributed 59.1% of patients included in this prospective meta-analysis. The majority of patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization (1559 patients). The administration of adjunctive treatments, such as azithromycin or antiviral agents, varied among the trials. The risk of bias was determined as low for 6 of the 7 mortality results.

A total of 222 of 678 patients in the corticosteroids group died, and 425 of 1025 patients in the usual care or placebo group died. The summary OR was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.82; P < 0.001) based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = 0.053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis, for 28-day all-cause mortality comparing all corticosteroids with usual care or placebo. There was little inconsistency between trial results (I² = 15.6%; P = 0.31). The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < 0.001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths); the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths); and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = 0.87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Moreover, in trials that administered low-dose corticosteroids, the overall fixed-effect OR for 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.78; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the overall fixed-effect OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86) in patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization, and the OR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.88) in patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization.

Six trials (all except the RECOVERY trial) reported SAEs, with 64 events occurring among 354 patients assigned to the corticosteroids group and 80 SAEs occurring among 342 patients assigned to the usual-care or placebo group. There was no suggestion that the risk of SAEs was higher in patients who were administered corticosteroids.

Conclusion. The administration of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those who received usual care or placebo.

Commentary

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive medications that have long been used in intensive care units for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was uncertain at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns that this class of medications may cause an impaired immune response in the setting of a life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence supporting this notion included prior studies showing that corticosteroid therapy was associated with delayed viral clearance of Middle East respiratory syndrome or a higher viral load of SARS-CoV.^2,3 The uncertainty surrounding the therapeutic use of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 led to a simultaneous global effort to conduct randomized controlled trials to urgently examine this important clinical question. The open-label Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, conducted in the UK, was the first large-scale randomized clinical trial that reported the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, it showed that low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/day) administered orally or IV for up to 10 days resulted in a 2.8% absolute reduction in 28-day mortality, with the greatest benefit, an absolute risk reduction of 12.1%, conferred to patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization.⁴ In response to these findings, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommended the use of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who are on mechanical ventilation or who require supplemental oxygen, and recommended against the use of dexamethasone for those not requiring supplemental oxygen.⁵

The meta-analysis discussed in this commentary, conducted by the WHO REACT Working Group, has replicated initial findings from the RECOVERY trial. This prospective meta-analysis pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in 1703 critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar to findings from the RECOVERY trial, corticosteroids were associated with lower all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization, and this benefit was observed both in critically ill patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Interestingly, while the OR estimates were imprecise, the reduction in mortality rates was similar between patients who were administered dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, which may suggest a general drug class effect. In addition, the mortality benefit of corticosteroids appeared similar for those aged ≤ 60 years and those aged > 60 years, between female and male patients, and those who were symptomatic for ≤ 7 days or > 7 days before randomization. Moreover, the administration of corticosteroids did not appear to increase the risk of SAEs. While more data are needed, results from the RECOVERY trial and this prospective meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroids should be an essential pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19, and suggest its potential role as a standard of care for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. First, not all trials systematically identified participated in the meta-analysis. Second, long-term outcomes after hospital discharge were not captured, and thus the effect of corticosteroids on long-term mortality and other adverse outcomes, such as hospital readmission, remain unknown. Third, because children were excluded from study participation, the effect of corticosteroids on pediatric COVID-19 patients is unknown. Fourth, the RECOVERY trial contributed more than 50% of patients in the current analysis, although there was little inconsistency in the effects of corticosteroids on mortality between individual trials. Last, the meta-analysis was unable to establish the optimal dose or duration of corticosteroid intervention in critically ill COVID-19 patients, or determine its efficacy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, all of which are key clinical questions that will need to be addressed with further clinical investigations.

The development of effective treatments for COVID-19 is critical to mitigating the devastating consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several recent COVID-19 clinical trials have shown promise in this endeavor. For instance, the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1) found that intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.⁶ Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that convalescent plasma and aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ may have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.^7,8 Thus, clinical trials designed to investigate combination therapy approaches including corticosteroids, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and others are urgently needed to help identify interventions that most effectively treat COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 reduces overall mortality. This treatment is inexpensive and available in most care settings, including low-resource regions, and provides hope for better outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Katerina Oikonomou, MD, PhD
General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the association between administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, and 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design. Prospective meta-analysis with data from 7 randomized clinical trials conducted in 12 countries.

Setting and participants. This prospective meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials conducted between February 26, 2020, and June 9, 2020, that examined the clinical efficacy of administration of corticosteroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were critically ill. Trials were systematically identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, using the search terms COVID-19, corticosteroids, and steroids. Additional trials were identified by experts from the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Senior investigators of these identified trials were asked to participate in weekly calls to develop a protocol for the prospective meta-analysis.¹ Subsequently, trials that had randomly assigned critically ill patients to receive corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo were invited to participate in this meta-analysis. Data were pooled from patients recruited to the participating trials through June 9, 2020, and aggregated in overall and in predefined subgroups.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days after randomization. Because 5 of the included trials reported mortality at 28 days after randomization, the primary outcome was reported as 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was serious adverse events (SAEs). The authors also gathered data on the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the number of patients lost to follow-up, and outcomes according to intervention group, overall, and in subgroups (ie, patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or vasoactive medication; age ≤ 60 years or > 60 years [the median across trials]; sex [male or female]; and the duration patients were symptomatic [≤ 7 days or > 7 days]). For each trial, the risk of bias was assessed independently by 4 investigators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for the overall effects of corticosteroids on mortality and SAEs and the effect of assignment and allocated interventions. Inconsistency between trial results was evaluated using the I² statistic. The trials were classified according to the corticosteroids used in the intervention group and the dose administered using a priori-defined cutoffs (15 mg/day of dexamethasone, 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone, and 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone). The primary analysis utilized was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for overall mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses with Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity were also performed.

Main results. Seven trials (DEXA-COVID 19, CoDEX, RECOVERY, CAPE COVID, COVID STEROID, REMAP-CAP, and Steroids-SARI) were included in the final meta-analysis. The enrolled patients were from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. The corticosteroids groups included dexamethasone at low (6 mg/day orally or intravenously [IV]) and high (20 mg/day IV) doses; low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day IV or 50 mg every 6 hr IV); and high-dose methylprednisolone (40 mg every 12 hr IV). In total, 1703 patients were randomized, with 678 assigned to the corticosteroids group and 1025 to the usual-care or placebo group. The median age of patients was 60 years (interquartile range, 52-68 years), and 29% were women. The larger number of patients in the usual-care/placebo group was a result of the 1:2 randomization (corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo) in the RECOVERY trial, which contributed 59.1% of patients included in this prospective meta-analysis. The majority of patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization (1559 patients). The administration of adjunctive treatments, such as azithromycin or antiviral agents, varied among the trials. The risk of bias was determined as low for 6 of the 7 mortality results.

A total of 222 of 678 patients in the corticosteroids group died, and 425 of 1025 patients in the usual care or placebo group died. The summary OR was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.82; P < 0.001) based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = 0.053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis, for 28-day all-cause mortality comparing all corticosteroids with usual care or placebo. There was little inconsistency between trial results (I² = 15.6%; P = 0.31). The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < 0.001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths); the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths); and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = 0.87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Moreover, in trials that administered low-dose corticosteroids, the overall fixed-effect OR for 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.78; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the overall fixed-effect OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86) in patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization, and the OR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.88) in patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization.

Six trials (all except the RECOVERY trial) reported SAEs, with 64 events occurring among 354 patients assigned to the corticosteroids group and 80 SAEs occurring among 342 patients assigned to the usual-care or placebo group. There was no suggestion that the risk of SAEs was higher in patients who were administered corticosteroids.

Conclusion. The administration of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those who received usual care or placebo.

Commentary

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive medications that have long been used in intensive care units for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was uncertain at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns that this class of medications may cause an impaired immune response in the setting of a life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence supporting this notion included prior studies showing that corticosteroid therapy was associated with delayed viral clearance of Middle East respiratory syndrome or a higher viral load of SARS-CoV.^2,3 The uncertainty surrounding the therapeutic use of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 led to a simultaneous global effort to conduct randomized controlled trials to urgently examine this important clinical question. The open-label Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, conducted in the UK, was the first large-scale randomized clinical trial that reported the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, it showed that low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/day) administered orally or IV for up to 10 days resulted in a 2.8% absolute reduction in 28-day mortality, with the greatest benefit, an absolute risk reduction of 12.1%, conferred to patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization.⁴ In response to these findings, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommended the use of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who are on mechanical ventilation or who require supplemental oxygen, and recommended against the use of dexamethasone for those not requiring supplemental oxygen.⁵

The meta-analysis discussed in this commentary, conducted by the WHO REACT Working Group, has replicated initial findings from the RECOVERY trial. This prospective meta-analysis pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in 1703 critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar to findings from the RECOVERY trial, corticosteroids were associated with lower all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization, and this benefit was observed both in critically ill patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Interestingly, while the OR estimates were imprecise, the reduction in mortality rates was similar between patients who were administered dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, which may suggest a general drug class effect. In addition, the mortality benefit of corticosteroids appeared similar for those aged ≤ 60 years and those aged > 60 years, between female and male patients, and those who were symptomatic for ≤ 7 days or > 7 days before randomization. Moreover, the administration of corticosteroids did not appear to increase the risk of SAEs. While more data are needed, results from the RECOVERY trial and this prospective meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroids should be an essential pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19, and suggest its potential role as a standard of care for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. First, not all trials systematically identified participated in the meta-analysis. Second, long-term outcomes after hospital discharge were not captured, and thus the effect of corticosteroids on long-term mortality and other adverse outcomes, such as hospital readmission, remain unknown. Third, because children were excluded from study participation, the effect of corticosteroids on pediatric COVID-19 patients is unknown. Fourth, the RECOVERY trial contributed more than 50% of patients in the current analysis, although there was little inconsistency in the effects of corticosteroids on mortality between individual trials. Last, the meta-analysis was unable to establish the optimal dose or duration of corticosteroid intervention in critically ill COVID-19 patients, or determine its efficacy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, all of which are key clinical questions that will need to be addressed with further clinical investigations.

The development of effective treatments for COVID-19 is critical to mitigating the devastating consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several recent COVID-19 clinical trials have shown promise in this endeavor. For instance, the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1) found that intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.⁶ Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that convalescent plasma and aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ may have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.^7,8 Thus, clinical trials designed to investigate combination therapy approaches including corticosteroids, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and others are urgently needed to help identify interventions that most effectively treat COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 reduces overall mortality. This treatment is inexpensive and available in most care settings, including low-resource regions, and provides hope for better outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Katerina Oikonomou, MD, PhD
General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the association between administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, and 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design. Prospective meta-analysis with data from 7 randomized clinical trials conducted in 12 countries.

Setting and participants. This prospective meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials conducted between February 26, 2020, and June 9, 2020, that examined the clinical efficacy of administration of corticosteroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were critically ill. Trials were systematically identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, using the search terms COVID-19, corticosteroids, and steroids. Additional trials were identified by experts from the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Senior investigators of these identified trials were asked to participate in weekly calls to develop a protocol for the prospective meta-analysis.¹ Subsequently, trials that had randomly assigned critically ill patients to receive corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo were invited to participate in this meta-analysis. Data were pooled from patients recruited to the participating trials through June 9, 2020, and aggregated in overall and in predefined subgroups.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days after randomization. Because 5 of the included trials reported mortality at 28 days after randomization, the primary outcome was reported as 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was serious adverse events (SAEs). The authors also gathered data on the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the number of patients lost to follow-up, and outcomes according to intervention group, overall, and in subgroups (ie, patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or vasoactive medication; age ≤ 60 years or > 60 years [the median across trials]; sex [male or female]; and the duration patients were symptomatic [≤ 7 days or > 7 days]). For each trial, the risk of bias was assessed independently by 4 investigators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for the overall effects of corticosteroids on mortality and SAEs and the effect of assignment and allocated interventions. Inconsistency between trial results was evaluated using the I² statistic. The trials were classified according to the corticosteroids used in the intervention group and the dose administered using a priori-defined cutoffs (15 mg/day of dexamethasone, 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone, and 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone). The primary analysis utilized was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for overall mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses with Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity were also performed.

Main results. Seven trials (DEXA-COVID 19, CoDEX, RECOVERY, CAPE COVID, COVID STEROID, REMAP-CAP, and Steroids-SARI) were included in the final meta-analysis. The enrolled patients were from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. The corticosteroids groups included dexamethasone at low (6 mg/day orally or intravenously [IV]) and high (20 mg/day IV) doses; low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day IV or 50 mg every 6 hr IV); and high-dose methylprednisolone (40 mg every 12 hr IV). In total, 1703 patients were randomized, with 678 assigned to the corticosteroids group and 1025 to the usual-care or placebo group. The median age of patients was 60 years (interquartile range, 52-68 years), and 29% were women. The larger number of patients in the usual-care/placebo group was a result of the 1:2 randomization (corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo) in the RECOVERY trial, which contributed 59.1% of patients included in this prospective meta-analysis. The majority of patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization (1559 patients). The administration of adjunctive treatments, such as azithromycin or antiviral agents, varied among the trials. The risk of bias was determined as low for 6 of the 7 mortality results.

A total of 222 of 678 patients in the corticosteroids group died, and 425 of 1025 patients in the usual care or placebo group died. The summary OR was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.82; P < 0.001) based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = 0.053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis, for 28-day all-cause mortality comparing all corticosteroids with usual care or placebo. There was little inconsistency between trial results (I² = 15.6%; P = 0.31). The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < 0.001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths); the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths); and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = 0.87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Moreover, in trials that administered low-dose corticosteroids, the overall fixed-effect OR for 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.78; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the overall fixed-effect OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86) in patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization, and the OR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.88) in patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization.

Six trials (all except the RECOVERY trial) reported SAEs, with 64 events occurring among 354 patients assigned to the corticosteroids group and 80 SAEs occurring among 342 patients assigned to the usual-care or placebo group. There was no suggestion that the risk of SAEs was higher in patients who were administered corticosteroids.

Conclusion. The administration of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those who received usual care or placebo.

Commentary

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive medications that have long been used in intensive care units for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was uncertain at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns that this class of medications may cause an impaired immune response in the setting of a life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence supporting this notion included prior studies showing that corticosteroid therapy was associated with delayed viral clearance of Middle East respiratory syndrome or a higher viral load of SARS-CoV.^2,3 The uncertainty surrounding the therapeutic use of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 led to a simultaneous global effort to conduct randomized controlled trials to urgently examine this important clinical question. The open-label Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, conducted in the UK, was the first large-scale randomized clinical trial that reported the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, it showed that low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/day) administered orally or IV for up to 10 days resulted in a 2.8% absolute reduction in 28-day mortality, with the greatest benefit, an absolute risk reduction of 12.1%, conferred to patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization.⁴ In response to these findings, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommended the use of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who are on mechanical ventilation or who require supplemental oxygen, and recommended against the use of dexamethasone for those not requiring supplemental oxygen.⁵

The meta-analysis discussed in this commentary, conducted by the WHO REACT Working Group, has replicated initial findings from the RECOVERY trial. This prospective meta-analysis pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in 1703 critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar to findings from the RECOVERY trial, corticosteroids were associated with lower all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization, and this benefit was observed both in critically ill patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Interestingly, while the OR estimates were imprecise, the reduction in mortality rates was similar between patients who were administered dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, which may suggest a general drug class effect. In addition, the mortality benefit of corticosteroids appeared similar for those aged ≤ 60 years and those aged > 60 years, between female and male patients, and those who were symptomatic for ≤ 7 days or > 7 days before randomization. Moreover, the administration of corticosteroids did not appear to increase the risk of SAEs. While more data are needed, results from the RECOVERY trial and this prospective meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroids should be an essential pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19, and suggest its potential role as a standard of care for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. First, not all trials systematically identified participated in the meta-analysis. Second, long-term outcomes after hospital discharge were not captured, and thus the effect of corticosteroids on long-term mortality and other adverse outcomes, such as hospital readmission, remain unknown. Third, because children were excluded from study participation, the effect of corticosteroids on pediatric COVID-19 patients is unknown. Fourth, the RECOVERY trial contributed more than 50% of patients in the current analysis, although there was little inconsistency in the effects of corticosteroids on mortality between individual trials. Last, the meta-analysis was unable to establish the optimal dose or duration of corticosteroid intervention in critically ill COVID-19 patients, or determine its efficacy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, all of which are key clinical questions that will need to be addressed with further clinical investigations.

The development of effective treatments for COVID-19 is critical to mitigating the devastating consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several recent COVID-19 clinical trials have shown promise in this endeavor. For instance, the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1) found that intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.⁶ Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that convalescent plasma and aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ may have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.^7,8 Thus, clinical trials designed to investigate combination therapy approaches including corticosteroids, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and others are urgently needed to help identify interventions that most effectively treat COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 reduces overall mortality. This treatment is inexpensive and available in most care settings, including low-resource regions, and provides hope for better outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Katerina Oikonomou, MD, PhD
General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
Fred Ko, MD, MS

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”
 

Significance still unknown

Matthew Martinez, MD, the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health – Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, urged caution in making too much of the findings of this small study.

“We know that viruses cause myocardial damage and myocarditis. What we don’t know is how important these findings are. And in terms of risk, would we find the same phenomenon if we did this, say, in flu patients or in other age groups?” Dr. Martinez said in an interview.

“I haven’t seen all the images, but what I’d want to know is are these very subtle findings? Are these overt findings? Is this part of an active individual with symptoms? I need to know a little more data before I can tell if this influences the increased risk of sudden cardiac death that we often associate with myocarditis. I’m not sure how this should influence making decisions with regards to return to play.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the ACC’s chair of Sports and Exercise but was not an author of their recent guidance on return to sport, said that he is not routinely using CMR to assess athletes post-infection, as per the ACC’s recommendations.

“My approach is to evaluate anybody with a history of COVID infection and, first, determine whether it was an important infection with significant symptoms or not. And then, if they’re participating at a high level or are professional athletes, I would suggest an ECG, echo, and troponin. That’s our recommendation for the last several months and is still an appropriate way to evaluate that group.”

“In the presence of an abnormality or ongoing symptoms, I would ask for an MRI at that point,” said Dr. Martinez.

“We just don’t have much data on athletes with no symptoms to use to interpret these CMR findings and the study didn’t offer any controls. We don’t even know if these findings are new findings or old findings that have just been identified now,” he added.

New, updated recommendations from the ACC are coming soon, said Dr. Martinez. “I do not expect them to include CMR as first line.”
 

Cardiologists concerned about misinformation

This is at least the fourth study showing myocardial damage post-COVID-19 infection and there is concern in the medical community that the media has overstated the risks of heart damage, especially in athletes, and at the same time overstated the benefits of CMR.

In particular, Puntmann et al reported in July a 100-patient study that showed evidence of myocardial inflammation by CMR in 78% of patients recently recovered from a bout of COVID-19 (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 27; doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557).

“That paper is completely problematic,” John Mandrola, MD, of Baptists Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It has the same overarching weaknesses [of other studies] that it’s observational and retrospective, but there were also numerical issues. So to me that paper is an interesting observation, but utterly unconvincing and preliminary,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Those limitations didn’t stop the study from garnering media attention, however. The Altmetric score (an attention score that tracks all mentions of an article in the media and on social media) for the Puntmann et al paper is approaching 13,000, including coverage from 276 news outlets and more than 19,000 tweets, putting it in the 99th percentile of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric to date.

To counter this, an “open letter” posted online just days before the Rajpal study published urging professional societies to “offer clear guidance discouraging CMR screening for COVID-19 related heart abnormalities in asymptomatic members of the general public.” The letter was signed by 51 clinicians, researchers, and imaging specialists from around the world.

Dr. Mandrola, one of the signatories, said: “This topic really scares people, and when it gets in the media like this, I think the leaders of these societies need to come out and say something really clear on major news networks letting people know that it’s just way too premature to start doing CMRs on every athlete that’s gotten this virus.”

“I understand that the current guidelines may be clear that CMR is not a first-line test for this indication, but when the media coverage is so extensive and so overblown, I wonder how much impact the guidelines will have in countering this fear that’s in the community,” he added.

Asked to comment on the letter, Dr. Rajpal said he agrees with the signatories that asymptomatic people from general population do not need routine cardiac MRI. “However, competitive athletes are a different story. Testing depends on risk assessment in specific population and competitive athletes as per our protocol will get enhanced cardiac workup including CMR for responsible and safe start of competitive sports. ... In the present scenario, while we get more data including control data, we will continue with our current protocol.”

Dr. Mandrola is Medscape Cardiology’s Chief Cardiology Consultant. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”
 

Significance still unknown

Matthew Martinez, MD, the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health – Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, urged caution in making too much of the findings of this small study.

“We know that viruses cause myocardial damage and myocarditis. What we don’t know is how important these findings are. And in terms of risk, would we find the same phenomenon if we did this, say, in flu patients or in other age groups?” Dr. Martinez said in an interview.

“I haven’t seen all the images, but what I’d want to know is are these very subtle findings? Are these overt findings? Is this part of an active individual with symptoms? I need to know a little more data before I can tell if this influences the increased risk of sudden cardiac death that we often associate with myocarditis. I’m not sure how this should influence making decisions with regards to return to play.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the ACC’s chair of Sports and Exercise but was not an author of their recent guidance on return to sport, said that he is not routinely using CMR to assess athletes post-infection, as per the ACC’s recommendations.

“My approach is to evaluate anybody with a history of COVID infection and, first, determine whether it was an important infection with significant symptoms or not. And then, if they’re participating at a high level or are professional athletes, I would suggest an ECG, echo, and troponin. That’s our recommendation for the last several months and is still an appropriate way to evaluate that group.”

“In the presence of an abnormality or ongoing symptoms, I would ask for an MRI at that point,” said Dr. Martinez.

“We just don’t have much data on athletes with no symptoms to use to interpret these CMR findings and the study didn’t offer any controls. We don’t even know if these findings are new findings or old findings that have just been identified now,” he added.

New, updated recommendations from the ACC are coming soon, said Dr. Martinez. “I do not expect them to include CMR as first line.”
 

Cardiologists concerned about misinformation

This is at least the fourth study showing myocardial damage post-COVID-19 infection and there is concern in the medical community that the media has overstated the risks of heart damage, especially in athletes, and at the same time overstated the benefits of CMR.

In particular, Puntmann et al reported in July a 100-patient study that showed evidence of myocardial inflammation by CMR in 78% of patients recently recovered from a bout of COVID-19 (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 27; doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557).

“That paper is completely problematic,” John Mandrola, MD, of Baptists Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It has the same overarching weaknesses [of other studies] that it’s observational and retrospective, but there were also numerical issues. So to me that paper is an interesting observation, but utterly unconvincing and preliminary,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Those limitations didn’t stop the study from garnering media attention, however. The Altmetric score (an attention score that tracks all mentions of an article in the media and on social media) for the Puntmann et al paper is approaching 13,000, including coverage from 276 news outlets and more than 19,000 tweets, putting it in the 99th percentile of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric to date.

To counter this, an “open letter” posted online just days before the Rajpal study published urging professional societies to “offer clear guidance discouraging CMR screening for COVID-19 related heart abnormalities in asymptomatic members of the general public.” The letter was signed by 51 clinicians, researchers, and imaging specialists from around the world.

Dr. Mandrola, one of the signatories, said: “This topic really scares people, and when it gets in the media like this, I think the leaders of these societies need to come out and say something really clear on major news networks letting people know that it’s just way too premature to start doing CMRs on every athlete that’s gotten this virus.”

“I understand that the current guidelines may be clear that CMR is not a first-line test for this indication, but when the media coverage is so extensive and so overblown, I wonder how much impact the guidelines will have in countering this fear that’s in the community,” he added.

Asked to comment on the letter, Dr. Rajpal said he agrees with the signatories that asymptomatic people from general population do not need routine cardiac MRI. “However, competitive athletes are a different story. Testing depends on risk assessment in specific population and competitive athletes as per our protocol will get enhanced cardiac workup including CMR for responsible and safe start of competitive sports. ... In the present scenario, while we get more data including control data, we will continue with our current protocol.”

Dr. Mandrola is Medscape Cardiology’s Chief Cardiology Consultant. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”
 

Significance still unknown

Matthew Martinez, MD, the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health – Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, urged caution in making too much of the findings of this small study.

“We know that viruses cause myocardial damage and myocarditis. What we don’t know is how important these findings are. And in terms of risk, would we find the same phenomenon if we did this, say, in flu patients or in other age groups?” Dr. Martinez said in an interview.

“I haven’t seen all the images, but what I’d want to know is are these very subtle findings? Are these overt findings? Is this part of an active individual with symptoms? I need to know a little more data before I can tell if this influences the increased risk of sudden cardiac death that we often associate with myocarditis. I’m not sure how this should influence making decisions with regards to return to play.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the ACC’s chair of Sports and Exercise but was not an author of their recent guidance on return to sport, said that he is not routinely using CMR to assess athletes post-infection, as per the ACC’s recommendations.

“My approach is to evaluate anybody with a history of COVID infection and, first, determine whether it was an important infection with significant symptoms or not. And then, if they’re participating at a high level or are professional athletes, I would suggest an ECG, echo, and troponin. That’s our recommendation for the last several months and is still an appropriate way to evaluate that group.”

“In the presence of an abnormality or ongoing symptoms, I would ask for an MRI at that point,” said Dr. Martinez.

“We just don’t have much data on athletes with no symptoms to use to interpret these CMR findings and the study didn’t offer any controls. We don’t even know if these findings are new findings or old findings that have just been identified now,” he added.

New, updated recommendations from the ACC are coming soon, said Dr. Martinez. “I do not expect them to include CMR as first line.”
 

Cardiologists concerned about misinformation

This is at least the fourth study showing myocardial damage post-COVID-19 infection and there is concern in the medical community that the media has overstated the risks of heart damage, especially in athletes, and at the same time overstated the benefits of CMR.

In particular, Puntmann et al reported in July a 100-patient study that showed evidence of myocardial inflammation by CMR in 78% of patients recently recovered from a bout of COVID-19 (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 27; doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557).

“That paper is completely problematic,” John Mandrola, MD, of Baptists Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It has the same overarching weaknesses [of other studies] that it’s observational and retrospective, but there were also numerical issues. So to me that paper is an interesting observation, but utterly unconvincing and preliminary,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Those limitations didn’t stop the study from garnering media attention, however. The Altmetric score (an attention score that tracks all mentions of an article in the media and on social media) for the Puntmann et al paper is approaching 13,000, including coverage from 276 news outlets and more than 19,000 tweets, putting it in the 99th percentile of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric to date.

To counter this, an “open letter” posted online just days before the Rajpal study published urging professional societies to “offer clear guidance discouraging CMR screening for COVID-19 related heart abnormalities in asymptomatic members of the general public.” The letter was signed by 51 clinicians, researchers, and imaging specialists from around the world.

Dr. Mandrola, one of the signatories, said: “This topic really scares people, and when it gets in the media like this, I think the leaders of these societies need to come out and say something really clear on major news networks letting people know that it’s just way too premature to start doing CMRs on every athlete that’s gotten this virus.”

“I understand that the current guidelines may be clear that CMR is not a first-line test for this indication, but when the media coverage is so extensive and so overblown, I wonder how much impact the guidelines will have in countering this fear that’s in the community,” he added.

Asked to comment on the letter, Dr. Rajpal said he agrees with the signatories that asymptomatic people from general population do not need routine cardiac MRI. “However, competitive athletes are a different story. Testing depends on risk assessment in specific population and competitive athletes as per our protocol will get enhanced cardiac workup including CMR for responsible and safe start of competitive sports. ... In the present scenario, while we get more data including control data, we will continue with our current protocol.”

Dr. Mandrola is Medscape Cardiology’s Chief Cardiology Consultant. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians intubated many patients with respiratory insufficiency because of concern for aerosolization with other methods.

“We were concerned that, if we put them on high-flow nasal cannula or a noninvasive ventilation, that we would create aerosols that would then be a risk to clinicians,” Meghan Lane-Fall, MD, MSHP, FCCM, said at a Society for Critical Care Medicine virtual meeting called COVID-19: What’s Next. “However, we’ve gotten much more comfortable with infection control. We’ve gotten much more comfortable with controlling these aerosols, with making sure that our clinicians are protected with the appropriate protective equipment. We’ve also realized that patients who end up becoming intubated have really poor outcomes, so we’ve looked at our practice critically and tried to figure out how to support patients noninvasively when that’s possible.”
 

Respiratory support options

According to Dr. Lane-Fall, an associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, there are two basic types of respiratory support in patients with moderate, severe, or critical COVID-19: noninvasive and invasive. Noninvasive options include CPAP or BiPAP which can be delivered through nasal pillows, masks, and helmets, as well as high-flow nasal oxygen. Invasive options include endotracheal intubation, tracheostomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), usually the veno-venous (VV) form. “But it’s uncommon to need VV ECMO, even in patients who have critical COVID-19,” she said.

Factors that favor noninvasive ventilation include stably high oxygen requirements, normal mental status, ward location of care, and moderate to severe COVID-19. Factors that favor invasive ventilation include someone who’s deteriorating rapidly, “whose oxygen requirements aren’t stable or who is cardiopulmonary compromised,” said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is also co–medical director of the Trauma Surgery Intensive Care Unit at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, also in Philadelphia. Other factors include the need for other invasive procedures such as surgery or if they have severe to critical COVID-19, “not just pneumonia, but [illness that’s] progressing into [acute respiratory distress syndrome],” she said.

Indications for urgent endotracheal intubation as opposed to giving a trial of noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal oxygen include altered mental status, inability to protect airway, copious amounts of secretions, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 8, severe respiratory acidosis, hypopnea or apnea, shock, or an inability to tolerate noninvasive support. “This is a relative contraindication,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “I’ve certainly talked people through the BiPAP mask or the helmet. If you tell a patient, ‘I don’t want to have to put in a breathing tube; I want to maintain you on this,’ often they’ll be able to work through it.”
 

Safety precautions

Aerosolizing procedures require attention to location, personnel, and equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is an anesthesiologist by training. “When you are intubating someone, whether they have COVID-19 or not, you are sort of in the belly of the beast,” she said. “You are very exposed to secretions that occur at the time of endotracheal intubation. That’s why it’s important for us to have PPE and barriers to protect ourselves from potential exposure to aerosols during the care of patients with COVID-19.”

In February 2020, the non-for-profit Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation published recommendations for airway management in patients with suspected COVID-19. A separate guidance was published the British Journal of Anaesthesiology based on emergency tracheal intubation in 202 patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. “The idea here is that you want to intubate under controlled conditions,” said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is an author of the guidance. “You want to use the most experienced operator. You want to have full PPE, including an N95 mask, or something more protective like a powered air purifying respirator or an N95 mask with a face shield. You want the eyes, nose, and mouth of the operator covered completely.”

CPR, another aerosolizing procedure, requires vigilant safety precautions as well. “We struggled with this a little bit at our institution, because our inclination as intensivists when someone is pulseless is to run into the room and start chest compressions and to start resuscitation,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “But the act of chest compression itself can create aerosols that can present risk to clinicians. We had to tell our clinicians that they have to put on PPE before they do CPR. The buzz phrase here is that there is no emergency in a pandemic. The idea here is that the good of that one patient is outweighed by the good of all the other patients that you could care for if you didn’t have COVID-19 as a clinician. So we have had to encourage our staff to put on PPE first before attending to patients first, even if it delays patient care. Once you have donned PPE, when you’re administering CPR, the number of staff should be minimized. You should have a compressor, and someone to relieve the compressor, and a code leader, someone tending to the airway. But in general, anyone who’s not actively involved should not be in the room.”
 

Risks during extubation

Extubation of COVID-19 patients is also an aerosolizing procedure not just because you’re pulling an endotracheal tube out of the airway but because coughing is a normal part of extubation. “We’ve had to be careful with how we approach extubation in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “Ideally you’re doing this in a negative pressure environment. We have also had to use full PPE, covering the eyes and face, and putting on a gown for precaution.”

Reintubation of COVID-19 patients is not uncommon. She and her colleagues at Penn Medicine created procedures for having intubators at the ready outside the room in case the patient were to decompensate clinically. “Another thing we learned is that it’s useful to do a leak test prior to extubation, because there may be airway edema related to prolonged intubation in these patients,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “We found that, if a leak is absent on checking the cuff leak, the use of steroids for a day or 2 may help decrease airway edema. That improves the chances of extubation success.”
 

Strategies for aerosol containment

She concluded her remarks by reviewing airway control adjuncts and clinician safety. This includes physically isolating COVID-19 patients in negative pressure rooms and avoiding and minimizing aerosols, including the use of rapid intubation, “where we induce anesthesia for intubation but we don’t bag-mask the patient because that creates aerosols,” she said. The Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation guidelines advocate for the use of video laryngoscopy so that you can visualize the glottis easily “and make sure that you successfully intubate the glottis and not the esophagus,” she said.

A smart strategy for aerosol containment is to use the most experienced laryngoscopist available. “If you are in a teaching program, ideally you’re using your most experienced resident, or you’re using fellows or attending physicians,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “This is not the space for an inexperienced learner.”

Another way to make intubation faster and easier in COVID-19 patients is to use an intubation box, which features a plexiglass shield that enables the intubator to use their hands to get in the patient’s airway while being protected from viral droplets generated during intubation. The box can be cleaned after each use. Blueprints for an open source intubation box can be found at http://www.intubationbox.com.

Expert view on aerosol containment in COVID-19

“While there is a dearth of evidence from controlled trials, recommendations mentioned in this story are based on the best available evidence and are in agreement with guidelines from several expert groups,” said David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, FCCM, of the department of anesthesiology at Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, NC. “The recommendation of Dr. Lane-Fall’s that is perhaps most controversial is the use of an intubation box. Multiple designs for these intubation/aerosol containment devices have been proposed, and the data supporting their ease of use and efficacy has been mixed [See Anaesthesia 2020;75(8):1014-21 and Anaesthesia. 2020. doi: 10.1111/anae.15188]. While bag valve mask ventilation should be avoided if possible, it may be a valuable rescue tool in the severely hypoxemic patient when used with two-person technique to achieve a tight seal and a PEEP valve and an HME over the exhalation port to minimize aerosol spread.

“It cannot be stressed enough that the most skilled individual should be tasked with intubating the patient and as few providers as possible [usually three] should be in the room and have donned full PPE. Negative pressure rooms should be used whenever feasible. Noninvasive ventilation appears safer from an infection control standpoint than initially feared and its use has become more widespread. However, noninvasive ventilation is not without its hazards, and Dr. Lane-Fall’s enumeration of the patient characteristics applicable to the selection of patients for noninvasive ventilation are extremely important. At our institution, the use of noninvasive ventilation and especially high-flow oxygen therapy has increased. Staff have become more comfortable with the donning and doffing of PPE.”

Dr. Lane-Fall reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians intubated many patients with respiratory insufficiency because of concern for aerosolization with other methods.

“We were concerned that, if we put them on high-flow nasal cannula or a noninvasive ventilation, that we would create aerosols that would then be a risk to clinicians,” Meghan Lane-Fall, MD, MSHP, FCCM, said at a Society for Critical Care Medicine virtual meeting called COVID-19: What’s Next. “However, we’ve gotten much more comfortable with infection control. We’ve gotten much more comfortable with controlling these aerosols, with making sure that our clinicians are protected with the appropriate protective equipment. We’ve also realized that patients who end up becoming intubated have really poor outcomes, so we’ve looked at our practice critically and tried to figure out how to support patients noninvasively when that’s possible.”
 

Respiratory support options

According to Dr. Lane-Fall, an associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, there are two basic types of respiratory support in patients with moderate, severe, or critical COVID-19: noninvasive and invasive. Noninvasive options include CPAP or BiPAP which can be delivered through nasal pillows, masks, and helmets, as well as high-flow nasal oxygen. Invasive options include endotracheal intubation, tracheostomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), usually the veno-venous (VV) form. “But it’s uncommon to need VV ECMO, even in patients who have critical COVID-19,” she said.

Factors that favor noninvasive ventilation include stably high oxygen requirements, normal mental status, ward location of care, and moderate to severe COVID-19. Factors that favor invasive ventilation include someone who’s deteriorating rapidly, “whose oxygen requirements aren’t stable or who is cardiopulmonary compromised,” said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is also co–medical director of the Trauma Surgery Intensive Care Unit at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, also in Philadelphia. Other factors include the need for other invasive procedures such as surgery or if they have severe to critical COVID-19, “not just pneumonia, but [illness that’s] progressing into [acute respiratory distress syndrome],” she said.

Indications for urgent endotracheal intubation as opposed to giving a trial of noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal oxygen include altered mental status, inability to protect airway, copious amounts of secretions, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 8, severe respiratory acidosis, hypopnea or apnea, shock, or an inability to tolerate noninvasive support. “This is a relative contraindication,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “I’ve certainly talked people through the BiPAP mask or the helmet. If you tell a patient, ‘I don’t want to have to put in a breathing tube; I want to maintain you on this,’ often they’ll be able to work through it.”
 

Safety precautions

Aerosolizing procedures require attention to location, personnel, and equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is an anesthesiologist by training. “When you are intubating someone, whether they have COVID-19 or not, you are sort of in the belly of the beast,” she said. “You are very exposed to secretions that occur at the time of endotracheal intubation. That’s why it’s important for us to have PPE and barriers to protect ourselves from potential exposure to aerosols during the care of patients with COVID-19.”

In February 2020, the non-for-profit Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation published recommendations for airway management in patients with suspected COVID-19. A separate guidance was published the British Journal of Anaesthesiology based on emergency tracheal intubation in 202 patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. “The idea here is that you want to intubate under controlled conditions,” said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is an author of the guidance. “You want to use the most experienced operator. You want to have full PPE, including an N95 mask, or something more protective like a powered air purifying respirator or an N95 mask with a face shield. You want the eyes, nose, and mouth of the operator covered completely.”

CPR, another aerosolizing procedure, requires vigilant safety precautions as well. “We struggled with this a little bit at our institution, because our inclination as intensivists when someone is pulseless is to run into the room and start chest compressions and to start resuscitation,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “But the act of chest compression itself can create aerosols that can present risk to clinicians. We had to tell our clinicians that they have to put on PPE before they do CPR. The buzz phrase here is that there is no emergency in a pandemic. The idea here is that the good of that one patient is outweighed by the good of all the other patients that you could care for if you didn’t have COVID-19 as a clinician. So we have had to encourage our staff to put on PPE first before attending to patients first, even if it delays patient care. Once you have donned PPE, when you’re administering CPR, the number of staff should be minimized. You should have a compressor, and someone to relieve the compressor, and a code leader, someone tending to the airway. But in general, anyone who’s not actively involved should not be in the room.”
 

Risks during extubation

Extubation of COVID-19 patients is also an aerosolizing procedure not just because you’re pulling an endotracheal tube out of the airway but because coughing is a normal part of extubation. “We’ve had to be careful with how we approach extubation in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “Ideally you’re doing this in a negative pressure environment. We have also had to use full PPE, covering the eyes and face, and putting on a gown for precaution.”

Reintubation of COVID-19 patients is not uncommon. She and her colleagues at Penn Medicine created procedures for having intubators at the ready outside the room in case the patient were to decompensate clinically. “Another thing we learned is that it’s useful to do a leak test prior to extubation, because there may be airway edema related to prolonged intubation in these patients,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “We found that, if a leak is absent on checking the cuff leak, the use of steroids for a day or 2 may help decrease airway edema. That improves the chances of extubation success.”
 

Strategies for aerosol containment

She concluded her remarks by reviewing airway control adjuncts and clinician safety. This includes physically isolating COVID-19 patients in negative pressure rooms and avoiding and minimizing aerosols, including the use of rapid intubation, “where we induce anesthesia for intubation but we don’t bag-mask the patient because that creates aerosols,” she said. The Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation guidelines advocate for the use of video laryngoscopy so that you can visualize the glottis easily “and make sure that you successfully intubate the glottis and not the esophagus,” she said.

A smart strategy for aerosol containment is to use the most experienced laryngoscopist available. “If you are in a teaching program, ideally you’re using your most experienced resident, or you’re using fellows or attending physicians,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “This is not the space for an inexperienced learner.”

Another way to make intubation faster and easier in COVID-19 patients is to use an intubation box, which features a plexiglass shield that enables the intubator to use their hands to get in the patient’s airway while being protected from viral droplets generated during intubation. The box can be cleaned after each use. Blueprints for an open source intubation box can be found at http://www.intubationbox.com.

Expert view on aerosol containment in COVID-19

“While there is a dearth of evidence from controlled trials, recommendations mentioned in this story are based on the best available evidence and are in agreement with guidelines from several expert groups,” said David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, FCCM, of the department of anesthesiology at Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, NC. “The recommendation of Dr. Lane-Fall’s that is perhaps most controversial is the use of an intubation box. Multiple designs for these intubation/aerosol containment devices have been proposed, and the data supporting their ease of use and efficacy has been mixed [See Anaesthesia 2020;75(8):1014-21 and Anaesthesia. 2020. doi: 10.1111/anae.15188]. While bag valve mask ventilation should be avoided if possible, it may be a valuable rescue tool in the severely hypoxemic patient when used with two-person technique to achieve a tight seal and a PEEP valve and an HME over the exhalation port to minimize aerosol spread.

“It cannot be stressed enough that the most skilled individual should be tasked with intubating the patient and as few providers as possible [usually three] should be in the room and have donned full PPE. Negative pressure rooms should be used whenever feasible. Noninvasive ventilation appears safer from an infection control standpoint than initially feared and its use has become more widespread. However, noninvasive ventilation is not without its hazards, and Dr. Lane-Fall’s enumeration of the patient characteristics applicable to the selection of patients for noninvasive ventilation are extremely important. At our institution, the use of noninvasive ventilation and especially high-flow oxygen therapy has increased. Staff have become more comfortable with the donning and doffing of PPE.”

Dr. Lane-Fall reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians intubated many patients with respiratory insufficiency because of concern for aerosolization with other methods.

“We were concerned that, if we put them on high-flow nasal cannula or a noninvasive ventilation, that we would create aerosols that would then be a risk to clinicians,” Meghan Lane-Fall, MD, MSHP, FCCM, said at a Society for Critical Care Medicine virtual meeting called COVID-19: What’s Next. “However, we’ve gotten much more comfortable with infection control. We’ve gotten much more comfortable with controlling these aerosols, with making sure that our clinicians are protected with the appropriate protective equipment. We’ve also realized that patients who end up becoming intubated have really poor outcomes, so we’ve looked at our practice critically and tried to figure out how to support patients noninvasively when that’s possible.”
 

Respiratory support options

According to Dr. Lane-Fall, an associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, there are two basic types of respiratory support in patients with moderate, severe, or critical COVID-19: noninvasive and invasive. Noninvasive options include CPAP or BiPAP which can be delivered through nasal pillows, masks, and helmets, as well as high-flow nasal oxygen. Invasive options include endotracheal intubation, tracheostomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), usually the veno-venous (VV) form. “But it’s uncommon to need VV ECMO, even in patients who have critical COVID-19,” she said.

Factors that favor noninvasive ventilation include stably high oxygen requirements, normal mental status, ward location of care, and moderate to severe COVID-19. Factors that favor invasive ventilation include someone who’s deteriorating rapidly, “whose oxygen requirements aren’t stable or who is cardiopulmonary compromised,” said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is also co–medical director of the Trauma Surgery Intensive Care Unit at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, also in Philadelphia. Other factors include the need for other invasive procedures such as surgery or if they have severe to critical COVID-19, “not just pneumonia, but [illness that’s] progressing into [acute respiratory distress syndrome],” she said.

Indications for urgent endotracheal intubation as opposed to giving a trial of noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal oxygen include altered mental status, inability to protect airway, copious amounts of secretions, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 8, severe respiratory acidosis, hypopnea or apnea, shock, or an inability to tolerate noninvasive support. “This is a relative contraindication,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “I’ve certainly talked people through the BiPAP mask or the helmet. If you tell a patient, ‘I don’t want to have to put in a breathing tube; I want to maintain you on this,’ often they’ll be able to work through it.”
 

Safety precautions

Aerosolizing procedures require attention to location, personnel, and equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is an anesthesiologist by training. “When you are intubating someone, whether they have COVID-19 or not, you are sort of in the belly of the beast,” she said. “You are very exposed to secretions that occur at the time of endotracheal intubation. That’s why it’s important for us to have PPE and barriers to protect ourselves from potential exposure to aerosols during the care of patients with COVID-19.”

In February 2020, the non-for-profit Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation published recommendations for airway management in patients with suspected COVID-19. A separate guidance was published the British Journal of Anaesthesiology based on emergency tracheal intubation in 202 patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. “The idea here is that you want to intubate under controlled conditions,” said Dr. Lane-Fall, who is an author of the guidance. “You want to use the most experienced operator. You want to have full PPE, including an N95 mask, or something more protective like a powered air purifying respirator or an N95 mask with a face shield. You want the eyes, nose, and mouth of the operator covered completely.”

CPR, another aerosolizing procedure, requires vigilant safety precautions as well. “We struggled with this a little bit at our institution, because our inclination as intensivists when someone is pulseless is to run into the room and start chest compressions and to start resuscitation,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “But the act of chest compression itself can create aerosols that can present risk to clinicians. We had to tell our clinicians that they have to put on PPE before they do CPR. The buzz phrase here is that there is no emergency in a pandemic. The idea here is that the good of that one patient is outweighed by the good of all the other patients that you could care for if you didn’t have COVID-19 as a clinician. So we have had to encourage our staff to put on PPE first before attending to patients first, even if it delays patient care. Once you have donned PPE, when you’re administering CPR, the number of staff should be minimized. You should have a compressor, and someone to relieve the compressor, and a code leader, someone tending to the airway. But in general, anyone who’s not actively involved should not be in the room.”
 

Risks during extubation

Extubation of COVID-19 patients is also an aerosolizing procedure not just because you’re pulling an endotracheal tube out of the airway but because coughing is a normal part of extubation. “We’ve had to be careful with how we approach extubation in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “Ideally you’re doing this in a negative pressure environment. We have also had to use full PPE, covering the eyes and face, and putting on a gown for precaution.”

Reintubation of COVID-19 patients is not uncommon. She and her colleagues at Penn Medicine created procedures for having intubators at the ready outside the room in case the patient were to decompensate clinically. “Another thing we learned is that it’s useful to do a leak test prior to extubation, because there may be airway edema related to prolonged intubation in these patients,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “We found that, if a leak is absent on checking the cuff leak, the use of steroids for a day or 2 may help decrease airway edema. That improves the chances of extubation success.”
 

Strategies for aerosol containment

She concluded her remarks by reviewing airway control adjuncts and clinician safety. This includes physically isolating COVID-19 patients in negative pressure rooms and avoiding and minimizing aerosols, including the use of rapid intubation, “where we induce anesthesia for intubation but we don’t bag-mask the patient because that creates aerosols,” she said. The Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation guidelines advocate for the use of video laryngoscopy so that you can visualize the glottis easily “and make sure that you successfully intubate the glottis and not the esophagus,” she said.

A smart strategy for aerosol containment is to use the most experienced laryngoscopist available. “If you are in a teaching program, ideally you’re using your most experienced resident, or you’re using fellows or attending physicians,” Dr. Lane-Fall said. “This is not the space for an inexperienced learner.”

Another way to make intubation faster and easier in COVID-19 patients is to use an intubation box, which features a plexiglass shield that enables the intubator to use their hands to get in the patient’s airway while being protected from viral droplets generated during intubation. The box can be cleaned after each use. Blueprints for an open source intubation box can be found at http://www.intubationbox.com.

Expert view on aerosol containment in COVID-19

“While there is a dearth of evidence from controlled trials, recommendations mentioned in this story are based on the best available evidence and are in agreement with guidelines from several expert groups,” said David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, FCCM, of the department of anesthesiology at Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, NC. “The recommendation of Dr. Lane-Fall’s that is perhaps most controversial is the use of an intubation box. Multiple designs for these intubation/aerosol containment devices have been proposed, and the data supporting their ease of use and efficacy has been mixed [See Anaesthesia 2020;75(8):1014-21 and Anaesthesia. 2020. doi: 10.1111/anae.15188]. While bag valve mask ventilation should be avoided if possible, it may be a valuable rescue tool in the severely hypoxemic patient when used with two-person technique to achieve a tight seal and a PEEP valve and an HME over the exhalation port to minimize aerosol spread.

“It cannot be stressed enough that the most skilled individual should be tasked with intubating the patient and as few providers as possible [usually three] should be in the room and have donned full PPE. Negative pressure rooms should be used whenever feasible. Noninvasive ventilation appears safer from an infection control standpoint than initially feared and its use has become more widespread. However, noninvasive ventilation is not without its hazards, and Dr. Lane-Fall’s enumeration of the patient characteristics applicable to the selection of patients for noninvasive ventilation are extremely important. At our institution, the use of noninvasive ventilation and especially high-flow oxygen therapy has increased. Staff have become more comfortable with the donning and doffing of PPE.”

Dr. Lane-Fall reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.