Clinical

As the proportion of patients infected with COVID-19 continues to rise in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections.

While clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of administering convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19, the FDA is granting clinicians permission for use of investigational convalescent plasma under single-patient emergency Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), since no known cure exists and a vaccine is more than 1 year away from becoming available.

This allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization. This does not include the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the prevention of infection, according to a statement issued by the agency on March 24.

“It is possible that convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might be effective against the infection,” the FDA statement reads. “Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not been shown to be effective in every disease studied.”

“I think the FDA got caught initially a little flat-footed when it came to the development of COVID-19 tests, but they’re quickly catching up,” Peter J. Pitts, who was the FDA’s associate commissioner from 2002 to 2004, said in an interview. “I think that the attitude now is, ‘If it’s safe, let’s create a pathway to see how these things work in the real world.’ I think that’s going to be as true for treatments to lessen the symptoms and shorten the duration of the disease, as well as convalescent plasma as a potential alternative to a yet-to-be-developed vaccine.”

At the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, and her colleagues are recruiting recovered COVID-19 patients to donate plasma for seriously ill patients affected with the virus. “The thought of using convalescent plasma makes total sense, because it’s immediately available, and it’s something that we can try to give people,” said Dr. Gernsheimer, a hematologist who is professor of medicine at the medical school. “It’s been used in China, and reports should be coming out shortly about their experience with this.”

In a case series that appeared in JAMA on March 27 (doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4783), Chinese researchers led by Chenguang Shen, PhD, reported findings from five critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who received a transfusion with convalescent plasma at Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital 10 and 22 days after hospital admission. The patients ranged in age from 36 to 73 years, three were men, and all were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment.

Dr. Shen and colleagues reported that viral loads decreased and became negative within 12 days following the transfusion. Three of the patients were discharged from the hospital after a length of stay that ranged from 51 to 55 days, and two remain in stable condition at 37 days after the transfusion. The researchers pointed out that all patients received antiviral agents, including interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir, during and following convalescent plasma treatment, “which also may have contributed to the viral clearance observed.”

Under the FDA policy on emergency IND use, COVID-19 convalescent plasma must only be collected from recovered individuals if they are eligible to donate blood, required testing must be performed, and the donation must be found suitable.

Potential donors “are going to be screened the way all blood donors are screened,” Dr. Gernsheimer said. “It’s not going to be any less safe than any unit of plasma that’s on the shelf that comes from our volunteer donors. There are always transfusion reactions that we have to worry about, [and] there are potentially unknown pathogens that we don’t yet know about that we are not yet testing for. It’s the regular risk we see with any unit of plasma.”

She added that COVID-19 survivors appear to start increasing their titer of the antibody around day 28. “We’ll be looking for recovered individuals who have had a documented infection, and whose symptoms started about 28 days before we collect,” she said.

The FDA advises clinicians to address several considerations for donor eligibility, including prior diagnosis of COVID-19 documented by a laboratory test; complete resolution of symptoms at least 14 days prior to donation; female donors negative for HLA antibodies or male donors, and negative results for COVID-19 either from one or more nasopharyngeal swab specimens or by a molecular diagnostic test from blood. [A partial list of available tests can be accessed on the FDA website.] The agency also advises that donors have defined SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers, if testing can be conducted (optimally greater than 1:320).

Patients eligible to receive COVID-19 convalescent plasma must have a severe or immediately life-threatening infection with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The agency defines severe disease as dyspnea, respiratory frequency of 30 per minute or greater, blood oxygen saturation of 93% or less, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 300, and/or lung infiltrates of greater than 50% within 24-48 hours. Life-threatening disease is defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Patients must provide informed consent.

The potential risks of receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma remain unknown, according to Dr. Gernsheimer. “What some people have thought about is, could there be such an inflammatory response with the virus that we would initially see these patients get worse?” she said. “My understanding is that has not occurred in China yet, but we don’t have all those data. But we always worry if we have something that’s going to cause inflammation around an infection, for example, that could initially make it more difficult to breathe if it’s a lung infection. So far, my understanding is that has not been seen.”

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response within 4-8 hours, requesting clinicians may complete form 3296 and submit it by email to CBER_eIND_Covid-19@FDA.HHS.gov.

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response in less than 4 hours, or if the clinician is unable to complete and submit form 3926 because of extenuating circumstances, verbal authorization can be sought by calling the FDA’s Office of Emergency Operations at 1-866-300-4374.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other government partners to develop protocols for use by multiple investigators in order to coordinate the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“It’s crucial that data be captured for every patient so that we really understand what safety and effectiveness looks like on as close to a real-world level as we can, as quickly as we can,” said Mr. Pitts, who is president and cofounder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, and who also does consulting work for the FDA. “I understand that health care professionals are overworked and overburdened right now. I applaud them for their heroic work. But that doesn’t mean that we can shirk off collecting the data. When I was at the FDA, I helped address the SARS epidemic. The agency attitude at that point was, ‘Let’s get things that just might work through the process, as long as the cure isn’t going to be worse than the disease.’ I think that’s the attitude that’s leading the charge today.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

As the proportion of patients infected with COVID-19 continues to rise in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections.

While clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of administering convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19, the FDA is granting clinicians permission for use of investigational convalescent plasma under single-patient emergency Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), since no known cure exists and a vaccine is more than 1 year away from becoming available.

This allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization. This does not include the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the prevention of infection, according to a statement issued by the agency on March 24.

“It is possible that convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might be effective against the infection,” the FDA statement reads. “Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not been shown to be effective in every disease studied.”

“I think the FDA got caught initially a little flat-footed when it came to the development of COVID-19 tests, but they’re quickly catching up,” Peter J. Pitts, who was the FDA’s associate commissioner from 2002 to 2004, said in an interview. “I think that the attitude now is, ‘If it’s safe, let’s create a pathway to see how these things work in the real world.’ I think that’s going to be as true for treatments to lessen the symptoms and shorten the duration of the disease, as well as convalescent plasma as a potential alternative to a yet-to-be-developed vaccine.”

At the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, and her colleagues are recruiting recovered COVID-19 patients to donate plasma for seriously ill patients affected with the virus. “The thought of using convalescent plasma makes total sense, because it’s immediately available, and it’s something that we can try to give people,” said Dr. Gernsheimer, a hematologist who is professor of medicine at the medical school. “It’s been used in China, and reports should be coming out shortly about their experience with this.”

In a case series that appeared in JAMA on March 27 (doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4783), Chinese researchers led by Chenguang Shen, PhD, reported findings from five critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who received a transfusion with convalescent plasma at Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital 10 and 22 days after hospital admission. The patients ranged in age from 36 to 73 years, three were men, and all were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment.

Dr. Shen and colleagues reported that viral loads decreased and became negative within 12 days following the transfusion. Three of the patients were discharged from the hospital after a length of stay that ranged from 51 to 55 days, and two remain in stable condition at 37 days after the transfusion. The researchers pointed out that all patients received antiviral agents, including interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir, during and following convalescent plasma treatment, “which also may have contributed to the viral clearance observed.”

Under the FDA policy on emergency IND use, COVID-19 convalescent plasma must only be collected from recovered individuals if they are eligible to donate blood, required testing must be performed, and the donation must be found suitable.

Potential donors “are going to be screened the way all blood donors are screened,” Dr. Gernsheimer said. “It’s not going to be any less safe than any unit of plasma that’s on the shelf that comes from our volunteer donors. There are always transfusion reactions that we have to worry about, [and] there are potentially unknown pathogens that we don’t yet know about that we are not yet testing for. It’s the regular risk we see with any unit of plasma.”

She added that COVID-19 survivors appear to start increasing their titer of the antibody around day 28. “We’ll be looking for recovered individuals who have had a documented infection, and whose symptoms started about 28 days before we collect,” she said.

The FDA advises clinicians to address several considerations for donor eligibility, including prior diagnosis of COVID-19 documented by a laboratory test; complete resolution of symptoms at least 14 days prior to donation; female donors negative for HLA antibodies or male donors, and negative results for COVID-19 either from one or more nasopharyngeal swab specimens or by a molecular diagnostic test from blood. [A partial list of available tests can be accessed on the FDA website.] The agency also advises that donors have defined SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers, if testing can be conducted (optimally greater than 1:320).

Patients eligible to receive COVID-19 convalescent plasma must have a severe or immediately life-threatening infection with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The agency defines severe disease as dyspnea, respiratory frequency of 30 per minute or greater, blood oxygen saturation of 93% or less, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 300, and/or lung infiltrates of greater than 50% within 24-48 hours. Life-threatening disease is defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Patients must provide informed consent.

The potential risks of receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma remain unknown, according to Dr. Gernsheimer. “What some people have thought about is, could there be such an inflammatory response with the virus that we would initially see these patients get worse?” she said. “My understanding is that has not occurred in China yet, but we don’t have all those data. But we always worry if we have something that’s going to cause inflammation around an infection, for example, that could initially make it more difficult to breathe if it’s a lung infection. So far, my understanding is that has not been seen.”

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response within 4-8 hours, requesting clinicians may complete form 3296 and submit it by email to CBER_eIND_Covid-19@FDA.HHS.gov.

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response in less than 4 hours, or if the clinician is unable to complete and submit form 3926 because of extenuating circumstances, verbal authorization can be sought by calling the FDA’s Office of Emergency Operations at 1-866-300-4374.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other government partners to develop protocols for use by multiple investigators in order to coordinate the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“It’s crucial that data be captured for every patient so that we really understand what safety and effectiveness looks like on as close to a real-world level as we can, as quickly as we can,” said Mr. Pitts, who is president and cofounder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, and who also does consulting work for the FDA. “I understand that health care professionals are overworked and overburdened right now. I applaud them for their heroic work. But that doesn’t mean that we can shirk off collecting the data. When I was at the FDA, I helped address the SARS epidemic. The agency attitude at that point was, ‘Let’s get things that just might work through the process, as long as the cure isn’t going to be worse than the disease.’ I think that’s the attitude that’s leading the charge today.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

As the proportion of patients infected with COVID-19 continues to rise in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections.

While clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of administering convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19, the FDA is granting clinicians permission for use of investigational convalescent plasma under single-patient emergency Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), since no known cure exists and a vaccine is more than 1 year away from becoming available.

This allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization. This does not include the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the prevention of infection, according to a statement issued by the agency on March 24.

“It is possible that convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might be effective against the infection,” the FDA statement reads. “Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not been shown to be effective in every disease studied.”

“I think the FDA got caught initially a little flat-footed when it came to the development of COVID-19 tests, but they’re quickly catching up,” Peter J. Pitts, who was the FDA’s associate commissioner from 2002 to 2004, said in an interview. “I think that the attitude now is, ‘If it’s safe, let’s create a pathway to see how these things work in the real world.’ I think that’s going to be as true for treatments to lessen the symptoms and shorten the duration of the disease, as well as convalescent plasma as a potential alternative to a yet-to-be-developed vaccine.”

At the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, and her colleagues are recruiting recovered COVID-19 patients to donate plasma for seriously ill patients affected with the virus. “The thought of using convalescent plasma makes total sense, because it’s immediately available, and it’s something that we can try to give people,” said Dr. Gernsheimer, a hematologist who is professor of medicine at the medical school. “It’s been used in China, and reports should be coming out shortly about their experience with this.”

In a case series that appeared in JAMA on March 27 (doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4783), Chinese researchers led by Chenguang Shen, PhD, reported findings from five critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who received a transfusion with convalescent plasma at Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital 10 and 22 days after hospital admission. The patients ranged in age from 36 to 73 years, three were men, and all were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment.

Dr. Shen and colleagues reported that viral loads decreased and became negative within 12 days following the transfusion. Three of the patients were discharged from the hospital after a length of stay that ranged from 51 to 55 days, and two remain in stable condition at 37 days after the transfusion. The researchers pointed out that all patients received antiviral agents, including interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir, during and following convalescent plasma treatment, “which also may have contributed to the viral clearance observed.”

Under the FDA policy on emergency IND use, COVID-19 convalescent plasma must only be collected from recovered individuals if they are eligible to donate blood, required testing must be performed, and the donation must be found suitable.

Potential donors “are going to be screened the way all blood donors are screened,” Dr. Gernsheimer said. “It’s not going to be any less safe than any unit of plasma that’s on the shelf that comes from our volunteer donors. There are always transfusion reactions that we have to worry about, [and] there are potentially unknown pathogens that we don’t yet know about that we are not yet testing for. It’s the regular risk we see with any unit of plasma.”

She added that COVID-19 survivors appear to start increasing their titer of the antibody around day 28. “We’ll be looking for recovered individuals who have had a documented infection, and whose symptoms started about 28 days before we collect,” she said.

The FDA advises clinicians to address several considerations for donor eligibility, including prior diagnosis of COVID-19 documented by a laboratory test; complete resolution of symptoms at least 14 days prior to donation; female donors negative for HLA antibodies or male donors, and negative results for COVID-19 either from one or more nasopharyngeal swab specimens or by a molecular diagnostic test from blood. [A partial list of available tests can be accessed on the FDA website.] The agency also advises that donors have defined SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers, if testing can be conducted (optimally greater than 1:320).

Patients eligible to receive COVID-19 convalescent plasma must have a severe or immediately life-threatening infection with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The agency defines severe disease as dyspnea, respiratory frequency of 30 per minute or greater, blood oxygen saturation of 93% or less, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 300, and/or lung infiltrates of greater than 50% within 24-48 hours. Life-threatening disease is defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Patients must provide informed consent.

The potential risks of receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma remain unknown, according to Dr. Gernsheimer. “What some people have thought about is, could there be such an inflammatory response with the virus that we would initially see these patients get worse?” she said. “My understanding is that has not occurred in China yet, but we don’t have all those data. But we always worry if we have something that’s going to cause inflammation around an infection, for example, that could initially make it more difficult to breathe if it’s a lung infection. So far, my understanding is that has not been seen.”

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response within 4-8 hours, requesting clinicians may complete form 3296 and submit it by email to CBER_eIND_Covid-19@FDA.HHS.gov.

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response in less than 4 hours, or if the clinician is unable to complete and submit form 3926 because of extenuating circumstances, verbal authorization can be sought by calling the FDA’s Office of Emergency Operations at 1-866-300-4374.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other government partners to develop protocols for use by multiple investigators in order to coordinate the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“It’s crucial that data be captured for every patient so that we really understand what safety and effectiveness looks like on as close to a real-world level as we can, as quickly as we can,” said Mr. Pitts, who is president and cofounder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, and who also does consulting work for the FDA. “I understand that health care professionals are overworked and overburdened right now. I applaud them for their heroic work. But that doesn’t mean that we can shirk off collecting the data. When I was at the FDA, I helped address the SARS epidemic. The agency attitude at that point was, ‘Let’s get things that just might work through the process, as long as the cure isn’t going to be worse than the disease.’ I think that’s the attitude that’s leading the charge today.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Reports of three neonates with elevated IgM antibody concentrations whose mothers had COVID-19 in two articles raise questions about whether the infants may have been infected with the virus in utero.

Courtesy CDC

The data, while provocative, “are not conclusive and do not prove in utero transmission” of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), editorialists cautioned.

“The suggestion of in utero transmission rests on IgM detection in these 3 neonates, and IgM is a challenging way to diagnose many congenital infections,” David W. Kimberlin, MD, and Sergio Stagno, MD, of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in their editorial. “IgM antibodies are too large to cross the placenta and so detection in a newborn reasonably could be assumed to reflect fetal production following in utero infection. However, most congenital infections are not diagnosed based on IgM detection because IgM assays can be prone to false-positive and false-negative results, along with cross-reactivity and testing challenges.”

None of the three infants had a positive reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, “so there is not virologic evidence for congenital infection in these cases to support the serologic suggestion of in utero transmission,” the editorialists noted.
 

Examining the possibility of vertical transmission

A prior case series of nine pregnant women found no transmission of the virus from mother to child, but the question of in utero transmission is not settled, said Lan Dong, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues. In their research letter, the investigators described a newborn with elevated IgM antibodies to novel coronavirus 2019 born to a mother with COVID-19. The infant was delivered by cesarean section February 22, 2020, at Renmin Hospital in a negative-pressure isolation room.

“The mother wore an N95 mask and did not hold the infant,” the researchers said. “The neonate had no symptoms and was immediately quarantined in the neonatal intensive care unit. At 2 hours of age, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was 140.32 AU/mL and the IgM level was 45.83 AU/mL.” Although the infant may have been infected at delivery, IgM antibodies usually take days to appear, Dr. Dong and colleagues wrote. “The infant’s repeatedly negative RT-PCR test results on nasopharyngeal swabs are difficult to explain, although these tests are not always positive with infection. ... Additional examination of maternal and newborn samples should be done to confirm this preliminary observation.”
 

A review of infants’ serologic characteristics

Hui Zeng, MD, of the department of laboratory medicine at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues retrospectively reviewed clinical records and laboratory results for six pregnant women with COVID-19, according to a study in JAMA. The women had mild clinical manifestations and were admitted to Zhongnan Hospital between February 16 and March 6. “All had cesarean deliveries in their third trimester in negative pressure isolation rooms,” the investigators said. “All mothers wore masks, and all medical staff wore protective suits and double masks. The infants were isolated from their mothers immediately after delivery.”

Two of the infants had elevated IgG and IgM concentrations. IgM “is not usually transferred from mother to fetus because of its larger macromolecular structure. ... Whether the placentas of women in this study were damaged and abnormal is unknown,” Dr. Zeng and colleagues said. “Alternatively, IgM could have been produced by the infant if the virus crossed the placenta.”

“Although these 2 studies deserve careful evaluation, more definitive evidence is needed” before physicians can “counsel pregnant women that their fetuses are at risk from congenital infection with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno concluded.

Dr. Dong and associates had no conflicts of interest. Their work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. Dr. Zeng and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Their study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Zhongnan Hospital. Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno had no conflicts of interest.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Dong L et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4621; Zeng H et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4861.

Reports of three neonates with elevated IgM antibody concentrations whose mothers had COVID-19 in two articles raise questions about whether the infants may have been infected with the virus in utero.

Courtesy CDC

The data, while provocative, “are not conclusive and do not prove in utero transmission” of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), editorialists cautioned.

“The suggestion of in utero transmission rests on IgM detection in these 3 neonates, and IgM is a challenging way to diagnose many congenital infections,” David W. Kimberlin, MD, and Sergio Stagno, MD, of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in their editorial. “IgM antibodies are too large to cross the placenta and so detection in a newborn reasonably could be assumed to reflect fetal production following in utero infection. However, most congenital infections are not diagnosed based on IgM detection because IgM assays can be prone to false-positive and false-negative results, along with cross-reactivity and testing challenges.”

None of the three infants had a positive reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, “so there is not virologic evidence for congenital infection in these cases to support the serologic suggestion of in utero transmission,” the editorialists noted.
 

Examining the possibility of vertical transmission

A prior case series of nine pregnant women found no transmission of the virus from mother to child, but the question of in utero transmission is not settled, said Lan Dong, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues. In their research letter, the investigators described a newborn with elevated IgM antibodies to novel coronavirus 2019 born to a mother with COVID-19. The infant was delivered by cesarean section February 22, 2020, at Renmin Hospital in a negative-pressure isolation room.

“The mother wore an N95 mask and did not hold the infant,” the researchers said. “The neonate had no symptoms and was immediately quarantined in the neonatal intensive care unit. At 2 hours of age, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was 140.32 AU/mL and the IgM level was 45.83 AU/mL.” Although the infant may have been infected at delivery, IgM antibodies usually take days to appear, Dr. Dong and colleagues wrote. “The infant’s repeatedly negative RT-PCR test results on nasopharyngeal swabs are difficult to explain, although these tests are not always positive with infection. ... Additional examination of maternal and newborn samples should be done to confirm this preliminary observation.”
 

A review of infants’ serologic characteristics

Hui Zeng, MD, of the department of laboratory medicine at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues retrospectively reviewed clinical records and laboratory results for six pregnant women with COVID-19, according to a study in JAMA. The women had mild clinical manifestations and were admitted to Zhongnan Hospital between February 16 and March 6. “All had cesarean deliveries in their third trimester in negative pressure isolation rooms,” the investigators said. “All mothers wore masks, and all medical staff wore protective suits and double masks. The infants were isolated from their mothers immediately after delivery.”

Two of the infants had elevated IgG and IgM concentrations. IgM “is not usually transferred from mother to fetus because of its larger macromolecular structure. ... Whether the placentas of women in this study were damaged and abnormal is unknown,” Dr. Zeng and colleagues said. “Alternatively, IgM could have been produced by the infant if the virus crossed the placenta.”

“Although these 2 studies deserve careful evaluation, more definitive evidence is needed” before physicians can “counsel pregnant women that their fetuses are at risk from congenital infection with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno concluded.

Dr. Dong and associates had no conflicts of interest. Their work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. Dr. Zeng and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Their study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Zhongnan Hospital. Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno had no conflicts of interest.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Dong L et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4621; Zeng H et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4861.

Reports of three neonates with elevated IgM antibody concentrations whose mothers had COVID-19 in two articles raise questions about whether the infants may have been infected with the virus in utero.

Courtesy CDC

The data, while provocative, “are not conclusive and do not prove in utero transmission” of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), editorialists cautioned.

“The suggestion of in utero transmission rests on IgM detection in these 3 neonates, and IgM is a challenging way to diagnose many congenital infections,” David W. Kimberlin, MD, and Sergio Stagno, MD, of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in their editorial. “IgM antibodies are too large to cross the placenta and so detection in a newborn reasonably could be assumed to reflect fetal production following in utero infection. However, most congenital infections are not diagnosed based on IgM detection because IgM assays can be prone to false-positive and false-negative results, along with cross-reactivity and testing challenges.”

None of the three infants had a positive reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, “so there is not virologic evidence for congenital infection in these cases to support the serologic suggestion of in utero transmission,” the editorialists noted.
 

Examining the possibility of vertical transmission

A prior case series of nine pregnant women found no transmission of the virus from mother to child, but the question of in utero transmission is not settled, said Lan Dong, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues. In their research letter, the investigators described a newborn with elevated IgM antibodies to novel coronavirus 2019 born to a mother with COVID-19. The infant was delivered by cesarean section February 22, 2020, at Renmin Hospital in a negative-pressure isolation room.

“The mother wore an N95 mask and did not hold the infant,” the researchers said. “The neonate had no symptoms and was immediately quarantined in the neonatal intensive care unit. At 2 hours of age, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was 140.32 AU/mL and the IgM level was 45.83 AU/mL.” Although the infant may have been infected at delivery, IgM antibodies usually take days to appear, Dr. Dong and colleagues wrote. “The infant’s repeatedly negative RT-PCR test results on nasopharyngeal swabs are difficult to explain, although these tests are not always positive with infection. ... Additional examination of maternal and newborn samples should be done to confirm this preliminary observation.”
 

A review of infants’ serologic characteristics

Hui Zeng, MD, of the department of laboratory medicine at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues retrospectively reviewed clinical records and laboratory results for six pregnant women with COVID-19, according to a study in JAMA. The women had mild clinical manifestations and were admitted to Zhongnan Hospital between February 16 and March 6. “All had cesarean deliveries in their third trimester in negative pressure isolation rooms,” the investigators said. “All mothers wore masks, and all medical staff wore protective suits and double masks. The infants were isolated from their mothers immediately after delivery.”

Two of the infants had elevated IgG and IgM concentrations. IgM “is not usually transferred from mother to fetus because of its larger macromolecular structure. ... Whether the placentas of women in this study were damaged and abnormal is unknown,” Dr. Zeng and colleagues said. “Alternatively, IgM could have been produced by the infant if the virus crossed the placenta.”

“Although these 2 studies deserve careful evaluation, more definitive evidence is needed” before physicians can “counsel pregnant women that their fetuses are at risk from congenital infection with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno concluded.

Dr. Dong and associates had no conflicts of interest. Their work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. Dr. Zeng and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Their study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Zhongnan Hospital. Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno had no conflicts of interest.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Dong L et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4621; Zeng H et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4861.

Despite implementation of strict infection control and prevention procedures in a hospital in Wuhan, China, a minority of neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 tested positive with novel coronavirus 2019 shortly after birth, according to Lingkong Zeng, MD, of the department of neonatology at Wuhan Children’s Hospital, and associates.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Thirty-three neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 were included in the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Pediatrics. Of this group, three neonates (9%) were confirmed to be infected with the novel coronavirus 2019 at 2 and 4 days of life through nasopharyngeal and anal swabs.

Of the three infected neonates, two were born at 40 weeks’ gestation and the third was born at 31 weeks. The two full-term infants had mild symptoms such as lethargy and fever and were negative for the virus at 6 days of life. The preterm infant had somewhat worse symptoms, but the investigators acknowledged that “the most seriously ill neonate may have been symptomatic from prematurity, asphyxia, and sepsis, rather than [the novel coronavirus 2019] infection.” They added that outcomes for all three neonates were favorable, consistent with past research.

“Because strict infection control and prevention procedures were implemented during the delivery, it is likely that the sources of [novel coronavirus 2019] in the neonates’ upper respiratory tracts or anuses were maternal in origin,” Dr. Zeng and associates surmised.

While previous studies have shown no evidence of COVID-19 transmission between mothers and neonates, and all samples, including amniotic fluid, cord blood, and breast milk, were negative for the novel coronavirus 2019, “vertical maternal-fetal transmission cannot be ruled out in the current cohort. Therefore, it is crucial to screen pregnant women and implement strict infection control measures, quarantine of infected mothers, and close monitoring of neonates at risk of COVID-19,” the investigators concluded.

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

lfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zeng L et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0878.

Despite implementation of strict infection control and prevention procedures in a hospital in Wuhan, China, a minority of neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 tested positive with novel coronavirus 2019 shortly after birth, according to Lingkong Zeng, MD, of the department of neonatology at Wuhan Children’s Hospital, and associates.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Thirty-three neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 were included in the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Pediatrics. Of this group, three neonates (9%) were confirmed to be infected with the novel coronavirus 2019 at 2 and 4 days of life through nasopharyngeal and anal swabs.

Of the three infected neonates, two were born at 40 weeks’ gestation and the third was born at 31 weeks. The two full-term infants had mild symptoms such as lethargy and fever and were negative for the virus at 6 days of life. The preterm infant had somewhat worse symptoms, but the investigators acknowledged that “the most seriously ill neonate may have been symptomatic from prematurity, asphyxia, and sepsis, rather than [the novel coronavirus 2019] infection.” They added that outcomes for all three neonates were favorable, consistent with past research.

“Because strict infection control and prevention procedures were implemented during the delivery, it is likely that the sources of [novel coronavirus 2019] in the neonates’ upper respiratory tracts or anuses were maternal in origin,” Dr. Zeng and associates surmised.

While previous studies have shown no evidence of COVID-19 transmission between mothers and neonates, and all samples, including amniotic fluid, cord blood, and breast milk, were negative for the novel coronavirus 2019, “vertical maternal-fetal transmission cannot be ruled out in the current cohort. Therefore, it is crucial to screen pregnant women and implement strict infection control measures, quarantine of infected mothers, and close monitoring of neonates at risk of COVID-19,” the investigators concluded.

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

lfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zeng L et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0878.

Despite implementation of strict infection control and prevention procedures in a hospital in Wuhan, China, a minority of neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 tested positive with novel coronavirus 2019 shortly after birth, according to Lingkong Zeng, MD, of the department of neonatology at Wuhan Children’s Hospital, and associates.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Thirty-three neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 were included in the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Pediatrics. Of this group, three neonates (9%) were confirmed to be infected with the novel coronavirus 2019 at 2 and 4 days of life through nasopharyngeal and anal swabs.

Of the three infected neonates, two were born at 40 weeks’ gestation and the third was born at 31 weeks. The two full-term infants had mild symptoms such as lethargy and fever and were negative for the virus at 6 days of life. The preterm infant had somewhat worse symptoms, but the investigators acknowledged that “the most seriously ill neonate may have been symptomatic from prematurity, asphyxia, and sepsis, rather than [the novel coronavirus 2019] infection.” They added that outcomes for all three neonates were favorable, consistent with past research.

“Because strict infection control and prevention procedures were implemented during the delivery, it is likely that the sources of [novel coronavirus 2019] in the neonates’ upper respiratory tracts or anuses were maternal in origin,” Dr. Zeng and associates surmised.

While previous studies have shown no evidence of COVID-19 transmission between mothers and neonates, and all samples, including amniotic fluid, cord blood, and breast milk, were negative for the novel coronavirus 2019, “vertical maternal-fetal transmission cannot be ruled out in the current cohort. Therefore, it is crucial to screen pregnant women and implement strict infection control measures, quarantine of infected mothers, and close monitoring of neonates at risk of COVID-19,” the investigators concluded.

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

lfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zeng L et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0878.

The first data on myocardial injury linked with COVID-19 disease during the start of the pandemic in Wuhan, China serves as a “wake up call” for clinicians and the general public on what the United States and other Western countries can expect as the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads and case numbers mount: a potentially “daunting” toll of deaths as an infection with a tendency to be most severe in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease hits populations that include large numbers of such patients.

“A consistent picture emerges” from two reports on a total of 603 COVID-19 patients treated at two academic hospitals in Wuhan, which described “remarkably similar characteristics of patients who develop myocardial injury” associated with their infection. “Patients who develop myocardial injury with COVID-19 have clinical evidence of higher acuity, with a higher incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and more frequent need for assisted ventilation than those without myocardial injury, and the patients who are more prone to have myocardial injury are “older patients with preexisting cardiovascular complications and diabetes,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, and coauthors wrote in an editorial published online (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1105).

These new findings have special relevance to the United States and other Western countries because of their substantial numbers of elderly patients with cardiovascular diseases, said Dr. Bonow, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthors.

One of the two reports cited in the editorial reviewed 416 patients hospitalized at Renmin Hospital in Wuhan during the period of Jan. 20 to Feb. 10, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 disease, and found that 20% of the cohort had evidence of cardiac injury, defined as blood levels of the high-sensitivity troponin I cardiac biomarker above the 99th-percentile upper reference limit, regardless of new abnormalities in electrocardiography and echocardiography.

The analysis also showed that patients with myocardial injury had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate, 51%, compared with a 5% mortality rate among patients without myocardial injury, and among patients with myocardial injury those with elevated high-sensitivity troponin I had an even higher mortality rate (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0950).

A second review of 187 confirmed COVID-19 cases at Seventh Hospital in Wuhan during the period of Jan. 23 to Feb. 23, 2020, showed similar findings, with a 28% prevalence of myocardial injury at admission based on an elevated level of plasma troponin T (TnT), and 35% had cardiovascular disease (CVD) including hypertension, coronary heart disease, and cardiomyopathy. Elevated TnT levels and CVD at entry each linked with substantially increased mortality. The incidence of death among patients with elevated TnT and no underlying CVD was 38% compared with 8% among patients without elevated TnT or underlying CVD. Among patients admitted with underlying CVD those who also had an elevated TnT had a 69% death rate during hospitalization compared with a 13% rate in those without TnT elevation (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1017).

Dr. Bonow and coauthors noted that patients with chronic coronary artery disease have a heightened risk for developing acute coronary syndrome during acute infection, potentially resulting from a severe increase in myocardial demand during infection, or severe systemic inflammatory stress that could result in atherosclerotic plaque instability and rupture as well as vascular and myocardial inflammation.

In addition, patients with heart failure are prone to hemodynamic instability during severe infection. “Thus it is anticipated that patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases, which are more prevalent in older adults, would be susceptible to higher risks of adverse outcomes and death during the severe and aggressive inflammatory responses to COVID-19 than individuals who are younger and healthier,” they wrote.

They also cited the potential for acute or fulminant myocarditis as well as new-onset heart failure caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 disease based on experience with the related Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Another concerning observation is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 protein on cell surfaces as its main entry receptor, “raising the possibility of direct viral infection of vascular endothelium and myocardium,” a process that itself could produce myocardial injury and myocarditis.

These new findings from COVID-19 patients in Wuhan represent early data from what has become a global pandemic, and raise questions about generalizability, but for the time being a key message from these early cases is that prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection is paramount. “Until we know more, the populations described in these primary data reports should be most observant of strict hand hygiene, social distancing, and, where available, COVID-19 testing,” the authors said.

Dr. Bonow and coauthors had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The first data on myocardial injury linked with COVID-19 disease during the start of the pandemic in Wuhan, China serves as a “wake up call” for clinicians and the general public on what the United States and other Western countries can expect as the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads and case numbers mount: a potentially “daunting” toll of deaths as an infection with a tendency to be most severe in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease hits populations that include large numbers of such patients.

“A consistent picture emerges” from two reports on a total of 603 COVID-19 patients treated at two academic hospitals in Wuhan, which described “remarkably similar characteristics of patients who develop myocardial injury” associated with their infection. “Patients who develop myocardial injury with COVID-19 have clinical evidence of higher acuity, with a higher incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and more frequent need for assisted ventilation than those without myocardial injury, and the patients who are more prone to have myocardial injury are “older patients with preexisting cardiovascular complications and diabetes,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, and coauthors wrote in an editorial published online (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1105).

These new findings have special relevance to the United States and other Western countries because of their substantial numbers of elderly patients with cardiovascular diseases, said Dr. Bonow, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthors.

One of the two reports cited in the editorial reviewed 416 patients hospitalized at Renmin Hospital in Wuhan during the period of Jan. 20 to Feb. 10, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 disease, and found that 20% of the cohort had evidence of cardiac injury, defined as blood levels of the high-sensitivity troponin I cardiac biomarker above the 99th-percentile upper reference limit, regardless of new abnormalities in electrocardiography and echocardiography.

The analysis also showed that patients with myocardial injury had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate, 51%, compared with a 5% mortality rate among patients without myocardial injury, and among patients with myocardial injury those with elevated high-sensitivity troponin I had an even higher mortality rate (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0950).

A second review of 187 confirmed COVID-19 cases at Seventh Hospital in Wuhan during the period of Jan. 23 to Feb. 23, 2020, showed similar findings, with a 28% prevalence of myocardial injury at admission based on an elevated level of plasma troponin T (TnT), and 35% had cardiovascular disease (CVD) including hypertension, coronary heart disease, and cardiomyopathy. Elevated TnT levels and CVD at entry each linked with substantially increased mortality. The incidence of death among patients with elevated TnT and no underlying CVD was 38% compared with 8% among patients without elevated TnT or underlying CVD. Among patients admitted with underlying CVD those who also had an elevated TnT had a 69% death rate during hospitalization compared with a 13% rate in those without TnT elevation (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1017).

Dr. Bonow and coauthors noted that patients with chronic coronary artery disease have a heightened risk for developing acute coronary syndrome during acute infection, potentially resulting from a severe increase in myocardial demand during infection, or severe systemic inflammatory stress that could result in atherosclerotic plaque instability and rupture as well as vascular and myocardial inflammation.

In addition, patients with heart failure are prone to hemodynamic instability during severe infection. “Thus it is anticipated that patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases, which are more prevalent in older adults, would be susceptible to higher risks of adverse outcomes and death during the severe and aggressive inflammatory responses to COVID-19 than individuals who are younger and healthier,” they wrote.

They also cited the potential for acute or fulminant myocarditis as well as new-onset heart failure caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 disease based on experience with the related Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Another concerning observation is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 protein on cell surfaces as its main entry receptor, “raising the possibility of direct viral infection of vascular endothelium and myocardium,” a process that itself could produce myocardial injury and myocarditis.

These new findings from COVID-19 patients in Wuhan represent early data from what has become a global pandemic, and raise questions about generalizability, but for the time being a key message from these early cases is that prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection is paramount. “Until we know more, the populations described in these primary data reports should be most observant of strict hand hygiene, social distancing, and, where available, COVID-19 testing,” the authors said.

Dr. Bonow and coauthors had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The first data on myocardial injury linked with COVID-19 disease during the start of the pandemic in Wuhan, China serves as a “wake up call” for clinicians and the general public on what the United States and other Western countries can expect as the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads and case numbers mount: a potentially “daunting” toll of deaths as an infection with a tendency to be most severe in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease hits populations that include large numbers of such patients.

“A consistent picture emerges” from two reports on a total of 603 COVID-19 patients treated at two academic hospitals in Wuhan, which described “remarkably similar characteristics of patients who develop myocardial injury” associated with their infection. “Patients who develop myocardial injury with COVID-19 have clinical evidence of higher acuity, with a higher incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and more frequent need for assisted ventilation than those without myocardial injury, and the patients who are more prone to have myocardial injury are “older patients with preexisting cardiovascular complications and diabetes,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, and coauthors wrote in an editorial published online (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1105).

These new findings have special relevance to the United States and other Western countries because of their substantial numbers of elderly patients with cardiovascular diseases, said Dr. Bonow, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthors.

One of the two reports cited in the editorial reviewed 416 patients hospitalized at Renmin Hospital in Wuhan during the period of Jan. 20 to Feb. 10, 2020, with confirmed COVID-19 disease, and found that 20% of the cohort had evidence of cardiac injury, defined as blood levels of the high-sensitivity troponin I cardiac biomarker above the 99th-percentile upper reference limit, regardless of new abnormalities in electrocardiography and echocardiography.

The analysis also showed that patients with myocardial injury had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate, 51%, compared with a 5% mortality rate among patients without myocardial injury, and among patients with myocardial injury those with elevated high-sensitivity troponin I had an even higher mortality rate (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0950).

A second review of 187 confirmed COVID-19 cases at Seventh Hospital in Wuhan during the period of Jan. 23 to Feb. 23, 2020, showed similar findings, with a 28% prevalence of myocardial injury at admission based on an elevated level of plasma troponin T (TnT), and 35% had cardiovascular disease (CVD) including hypertension, coronary heart disease, and cardiomyopathy. Elevated TnT levels and CVD at entry each linked with substantially increased mortality. The incidence of death among patients with elevated TnT and no underlying CVD was 38% compared with 8% among patients without elevated TnT or underlying CVD. Among patients admitted with underlying CVD those who also had an elevated TnT had a 69% death rate during hospitalization compared with a 13% rate in those without TnT elevation (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1017).

Dr. Bonow and coauthors noted that patients with chronic coronary artery disease have a heightened risk for developing acute coronary syndrome during acute infection, potentially resulting from a severe increase in myocardial demand during infection, or severe systemic inflammatory stress that could result in atherosclerotic plaque instability and rupture as well as vascular and myocardial inflammation.

In addition, patients with heart failure are prone to hemodynamic instability during severe infection. “Thus it is anticipated that patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases, which are more prevalent in older adults, would be susceptible to higher risks of adverse outcomes and death during the severe and aggressive inflammatory responses to COVID-19 than individuals who are younger and healthier,” they wrote.

They also cited the potential for acute or fulminant myocarditis as well as new-onset heart failure caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 disease based on experience with the related Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Another concerning observation is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 protein on cell surfaces as its main entry receptor, “raising the possibility of direct viral infection of vascular endothelium and myocardium,” a process that itself could produce myocardial injury and myocarditis.

These new findings from COVID-19 patients in Wuhan represent early data from what has become a global pandemic, and raise questions about generalizability, but for the time being a key message from these early cases is that prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection is paramount. “Until we know more, the populations described in these primary data reports should be most observant of strict hand hygiene, social distancing, and, where available, COVID-19 testing,” the authors said.

Dr. Bonow and coauthors had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Physicians and pharmacists are reporting shortages of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine following President Trump’s promotion of the medications as potential COVID-19 treatments, leaving patients with rheumatic diseases wondering how it will impact their access.

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, issued a joint statement that strongly opposed prophylactic prescribing of these medications for COVID-19 or stockpiling them in anticipation of use for COVID-19. The concerns over shortages have also prompted the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Arthritis Foundation, and Lupus Foundation of America to send a joint statement to the Trump administration and the nation’s governors highlighting critical hydroxychloroquine access issues and asking policymakers to work together with health care providers and patient communities to ensure continued availability of these drugs.

Now rheumatologists are trying to reassure patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases who take the antimalarials that they will be available and are relatively easy for manufacturers to produce.

In a Q and A interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatology division director and Lupus Center director Jill P. Buyon, MD, and associate professor of rheumatology, Peter M. Izmirly, MD, noted that, while shortages have been reported across the United States because of large increases in off-label prescribing, many of the drugs’ manufacturers have committed to donating millions of doses and/or stepping up production to meet demand.

Later in this article, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Langone Health, New York, answered questions about a new multicenter study called COLCORONA getting underway to test the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine. The answers in this Q&A have been edited for length and clarity. 
 

Questions about hydroxychloroquine shortage

Q: What is the current situation with hydroxychloroquine in your practice?

A: We have been getting calls from our patients asking about getting refills for hydroxychloroquine. Our group has been calling local pharmacies asking about the availability of hydroxychloroquine, and we are compiling a list of pharmacies in New York with current availabilities to share with patients. We are somewhat limited by our electronic health record system, Epic, which can only send a prescription to one pharmacy, so that has placed some limitations on knowing where it is available. Some pharmacies have not had hydroxychloroquine available, while others have. We have also been encouraging patients to check online and look for mail-order possibilities for 90-day supplies.

Nearly all prescriptions are for generic hydroxychloroquine. Branded hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is much more expensive, and we can run into obstacles with getting it approved by insurers, too.
 

Q: What are you telling patients who seek to refill their prescription or call with concerns? Is it feasible for patients to stop hydroxychloroquine or cut their dosage if necessary?

A: If someone’s been on hydroxychloroquine and has benefited from its use there’s no reason to come off it at this time, and given the possibility that it may have an effect on COVID-19, that is all the better. But we want to reassure patients that they can get the drug and that it is not difficult to manufacture.

Given the significantly higher risk of disease flare that was first described in lupus patients who discontinued hydroxychloroquine in the Canadian Hydroxychloroquine Study Group’s 1991 randomized, controlled trial, it is not advisable for patients to stop the drug.

Some patients do split their dosage day-to-day if they are taking less than 400 mg daily, such that someone taking 300 mg daily may take two 200-mg tablets one day and just one 200-mg tablet the next day, and so on. To avoid eye toxicity that can occur after years of taking the drug, hydroxychloroquine is generally prescribed based on weight at 5 mg/kg.

The drug also stays in the body for quite a while [often up to 3 months and even longer], so that is helpful for patients to know.

Given the current situation and the possibility of its effectiveness against COVID-19, it is ironic that we are actually trying to recruit older lupus patients who have had long-term stable disease while on hydroxychloroquine to a trial of stopping the drug to reduce the risk of developing the side effect of retinopathy. We want to see if patients can safely withdraw hydroxychloroquine without flaring, so we hope to not run into enrollment difficulties based on the current situation with COVID-19.
 

Q: How do you view the balance between having enough hydroxychloroquine for patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases and its use in COVID-19 patients?

A: We want to reassure patients that hydroxychloroquine will be available, and there is no reason to hoard the drug or to worry excessively about being unable to obtain it. Efforts to increase production by Mylan, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, and other manufacturers of hydroxychloroquine should really help out.

Q: Are there pharmacy restrictions on prescription amounts?

A: This is not universal at this time, but some institutions are cutting back and offering only 1-month supplies.
 

Colchicine COVID-19 trial underway

Dr. Pillinger, of NYU Langone Health, explored the COLCORONA study of colchicine as a treatment for people infected with COVID-19 and the worry that shortage concerns may arise for it, too. 

Q: What is the general availability of colchicine and its susceptibility to shortage?

A: There are two major manufacturers of colchicine in the United States, Takeda and Hikma, who together manufacture the majority of the drug.

The greatest use of colchicine in the United States is for gout, which affects approximately 4 million Americans, but the drug is not used chronically, so a much smaller number of patients are using colchicine at any one time. Colchicine is also used for other inflammatory conditions, primarily calcium pyrophosphate crystal disease and familial Mediterranean fever (FMF is rare in the United States). Cardiologists also regularly prescribe colchicine in pericarditis for short-term use. Physicians may use it off label for other purposes, too.

Overall, the number of patients using colchicine is much larger than that for the use of hydroxychloroquine, for example, suggesting that the immediate risk of shortage could be lower. However, if individuals started using it off label, or prescribing inappropriately for the COVID-19 indication, the supply would rapidly run short.
 

Q: What other points are there to consider regarding the use of colchicine to treat COVID-19?

A: There is no evidence – zero – that colchicine has any benefit for COVID-19, not even case reports. There is some rationale that it might be beneficial, but that is exactly why the COLCORONA trial would be logical to try.

The COLCORONA trial is exactly the kind of trial that would be needed for assessing colchicine, and it is big enough and happening quickly enough to get an answer. But if people start to use colchicine off label, we may never know the truth.

While colchicine can be used safely in most people, it can be very problematic and requires an experienced doctor’s supervision. Overdoses can be fatal, and colchicine interacts with many drugs, all of which require dose adjustment and some of which must be stopped in order to use colchicine – it isn’t candy. Some of the other drugs being looked at for COVID-19 in fact may interact with colchicine.

Colchicine must also be dose adjusted for kidney disease, and, in some of the COVID-19 patients, kidney function changes rapidly. So again, its use would require expert supervision even if there were evidence for its utility.

The side effects of colchicine, if mis-dosed, can be very unpleasant, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Even at the apparent right dose, some people will get these side effects, so colchicine has to be something that works to make the risk/benefit ratio worth it.

Some preparations of colchicine are made combined with probenecid, a gout drug. This is even more problematic because probenecid can raise the level of drugs excreted by the kidney and could affect other treatments.

So in sum, what may be a good idea in theory can turn out to be a disastrous idea in practice, and here we have nothing but theory. This is not an agent to use randomly; the studies will be rushed out quickly and hopefully will give us the knowledge to know what to do.

Dr. Izmirly and Dr. Buyon said they have research grants with the National Institutes of Health to study hydroxychloroquine in patients with lupus and in anti–SSA/Ro-positive pregnant women with a previous child with congenital heart block. Dr. Pillinger reports that he has an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma to study colchicine in osteoarthritis.

jevans@mdedge.com

This article was reformatted on 3/30/2020 for clarity. 

Physicians and pharmacists are reporting shortages of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine following President Trump’s promotion of the medications as potential COVID-19 treatments, leaving patients with rheumatic diseases wondering how it will impact their access.

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, issued a joint statement that strongly opposed prophylactic prescribing of these medications for COVID-19 or stockpiling them in anticipation of use for COVID-19. The concerns over shortages have also prompted the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Arthritis Foundation, and Lupus Foundation of America to send a joint statement to the Trump administration and the nation’s governors highlighting critical hydroxychloroquine access issues and asking policymakers to work together with health care providers and patient communities to ensure continued availability of these drugs.

Now rheumatologists are trying to reassure patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases who take the antimalarials that they will be available and are relatively easy for manufacturers to produce.

In a Q and A interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatology division director and Lupus Center director Jill P. Buyon, MD, and associate professor of rheumatology, Peter M. Izmirly, MD, noted that, while shortages have been reported across the United States because of large increases in off-label prescribing, many of the drugs’ manufacturers have committed to donating millions of doses and/or stepping up production to meet demand.

Later in this article, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Langone Health, New York, answered questions about a new multicenter study called COLCORONA getting underway to test the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine. The answers in this Q&A have been edited for length and clarity. 
 

Questions about hydroxychloroquine shortage

Q: What is the current situation with hydroxychloroquine in your practice?

A: We have been getting calls from our patients asking about getting refills for hydroxychloroquine. Our group has been calling local pharmacies asking about the availability of hydroxychloroquine, and we are compiling a list of pharmacies in New York with current availabilities to share with patients. We are somewhat limited by our electronic health record system, Epic, which can only send a prescription to one pharmacy, so that has placed some limitations on knowing where it is available. Some pharmacies have not had hydroxychloroquine available, while others have. We have also been encouraging patients to check online and look for mail-order possibilities for 90-day supplies.

Nearly all prescriptions are for generic hydroxychloroquine. Branded hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is much more expensive, and we can run into obstacles with getting it approved by insurers, too.
 

Q: What are you telling patients who seek to refill their prescription or call with concerns? Is it feasible for patients to stop hydroxychloroquine or cut their dosage if necessary?

A: If someone’s been on hydroxychloroquine and has benefited from its use there’s no reason to come off it at this time, and given the possibility that it may have an effect on COVID-19, that is all the better. But we want to reassure patients that they can get the drug and that it is not difficult to manufacture.

Given the significantly higher risk of disease flare that was first described in lupus patients who discontinued hydroxychloroquine in the Canadian Hydroxychloroquine Study Group’s 1991 randomized, controlled trial, it is not advisable for patients to stop the drug.

Some patients do split their dosage day-to-day if they are taking less than 400 mg daily, such that someone taking 300 mg daily may take two 200-mg tablets one day and just one 200-mg tablet the next day, and so on. To avoid eye toxicity that can occur after years of taking the drug, hydroxychloroquine is generally prescribed based on weight at 5 mg/kg.

The drug also stays in the body for quite a while [often up to 3 months and even longer], so that is helpful for patients to know.

Given the current situation and the possibility of its effectiveness against COVID-19, it is ironic that we are actually trying to recruit older lupus patients who have had long-term stable disease while on hydroxychloroquine to a trial of stopping the drug to reduce the risk of developing the side effect of retinopathy. We want to see if patients can safely withdraw hydroxychloroquine without flaring, so we hope to not run into enrollment difficulties based on the current situation with COVID-19.
 

Q: How do you view the balance between having enough hydroxychloroquine for patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases and its use in COVID-19 patients?

A: We want to reassure patients that hydroxychloroquine will be available, and there is no reason to hoard the drug or to worry excessively about being unable to obtain it. Efforts to increase production by Mylan, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, and other manufacturers of hydroxychloroquine should really help out.

Q: Are there pharmacy restrictions on prescription amounts?

A: This is not universal at this time, but some institutions are cutting back and offering only 1-month supplies.
 

Colchicine COVID-19 trial underway

Dr. Pillinger, of NYU Langone Health, explored the COLCORONA study of colchicine as a treatment for people infected with COVID-19 and the worry that shortage concerns may arise for it, too. 

Q: What is the general availability of colchicine and its susceptibility to shortage?

A: There are two major manufacturers of colchicine in the United States, Takeda and Hikma, who together manufacture the majority of the drug.

The greatest use of colchicine in the United States is for gout, which affects approximately 4 million Americans, but the drug is not used chronically, so a much smaller number of patients are using colchicine at any one time. Colchicine is also used for other inflammatory conditions, primarily calcium pyrophosphate crystal disease and familial Mediterranean fever (FMF is rare in the United States). Cardiologists also regularly prescribe colchicine in pericarditis for short-term use. Physicians may use it off label for other purposes, too.

Overall, the number of patients using colchicine is much larger than that for the use of hydroxychloroquine, for example, suggesting that the immediate risk of shortage could be lower. However, if individuals started using it off label, or prescribing inappropriately for the COVID-19 indication, the supply would rapidly run short.
 

Q: What other points are there to consider regarding the use of colchicine to treat COVID-19?

A: There is no evidence – zero – that colchicine has any benefit for COVID-19, not even case reports. There is some rationale that it might be beneficial, but that is exactly why the COLCORONA trial would be logical to try.

The COLCORONA trial is exactly the kind of trial that would be needed for assessing colchicine, and it is big enough and happening quickly enough to get an answer. But if people start to use colchicine off label, we may never know the truth.

While colchicine can be used safely in most people, it can be very problematic and requires an experienced doctor’s supervision. Overdoses can be fatal, and colchicine interacts with many drugs, all of which require dose adjustment and some of which must be stopped in order to use colchicine – it isn’t candy. Some of the other drugs being looked at for COVID-19 in fact may interact with colchicine.

Colchicine must also be dose adjusted for kidney disease, and, in some of the COVID-19 patients, kidney function changes rapidly. So again, its use would require expert supervision even if there were evidence for its utility.

The side effects of colchicine, if mis-dosed, can be very unpleasant, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Even at the apparent right dose, some people will get these side effects, so colchicine has to be something that works to make the risk/benefit ratio worth it.

Some preparations of colchicine are made combined with probenecid, a gout drug. This is even more problematic because probenecid can raise the level of drugs excreted by the kidney and could affect other treatments.

So in sum, what may be a good idea in theory can turn out to be a disastrous idea in practice, and here we have nothing but theory. This is not an agent to use randomly; the studies will be rushed out quickly and hopefully will give us the knowledge to know what to do.

Dr. Izmirly and Dr. Buyon said they have research grants with the National Institutes of Health to study hydroxychloroquine in patients with lupus and in anti–SSA/Ro-positive pregnant women with a previous child with congenital heart block. Dr. Pillinger reports that he has an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma to study colchicine in osteoarthritis.

jevans@mdedge.com

This article was reformatted on 3/30/2020 for clarity. 

Physicians and pharmacists are reporting shortages of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine following President Trump’s promotion of the medications as potential COVID-19 treatments, leaving patients with rheumatic diseases wondering how it will impact their access.

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, issued a joint statement that strongly opposed prophylactic prescribing of these medications for COVID-19 or stockpiling them in anticipation of use for COVID-19. The concerns over shortages have also prompted the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Arthritis Foundation, and Lupus Foundation of America to send a joint statement to the Trump administration and the nation’s governors highlighting critical hydroxychloroquine access issues and asking policymakers to work together with health care providers and patient communities to ensure continued availability of these drugs.

Now rheumatologists are trying to reassure patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases who take the antimalarials that they will be available and are relatively easy for manufacturers to produce.

In a Q and A interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatology division director and Lupus Center director Jill P. Buyon, MD, and associate professor of rheumatology, Peter M. Izmirly, MD, noted that, while shortages have been reported across the United States because of large increases in off-label prescribing, many of the drugs’ manufacturers have committed to donating millions of doses and/or stepping up production to meet demand.

Later in this article, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Langone Health, New York, answered questions about a new multicenter study called COLCORONA getting underway to test the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine. The answers in this Q&A have been edited for length and clarity. 
 

Questions about hydroxychloroquine shortage

Q: What is the current situation with hydroxychloroquine in your practice?

A: We have been getting calls from our patients asking about getting refills for hydroxychloroquine. Our group has been calling local pharmacies asking about the availability of hydroxychloroquine, and we are compiling a list of pharmacies in New York with current availabilities to share with patients. We are somewhat limited by our electronic health record system, Epic, which can only send a prescription to one pharmacy, so that has placed some limitations on knowing where it is available. Some pharmacies have not had hydroxychloroquine available, while others have. We have also been encouraging patients to check online and look for mail-order possibilities for 90-day supplies.

Nearly all prescriptions are for generic hydroxychloroquine. Branded hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is much more expensive, and we can run into obstacles with getting it approved by insurers, too.
 

Q: What are you telling patients who seek to refill their prescription or call with concerns? Is it feasible for patients to stop hydroxychloroquine or cut their dosage if necessary?

A: If someone’s been on hydroxychloroquine and has benefited from its use there’s no reason to come off it at this time, and given the possibility that it may have an effect on COVID-19, that is all the better. But we want to reassure patients that they can get the drug and that it is not difficult to manufacture.

Given the significantly higher risk of disease flare that was first described in lupus patients who discontinued hydroxychloroquine in the Canadian Hydroxychloroquine Study Group’s 1991 randomized, controlled trial, it is not advisable for patients to stop the drug.

Some patients do split their dosage day-to-day if they are taking less than 400 mg daily, such that someone taking 300 mg daily may take two 200-mg tablets one day and just one 200-mg tablet the next day, and so on. To avoid eye toxicity that can occur after years of taking the drug, hydroxychloroquine is generally prescribed based on weight at 5 mg/kg.

The drug also stays in the body for quite a while [often up to 3 months and even longer], so that is helpful for patients to know.

Given the current situation and the possibility of its effectiveness against COVID-19, it is ironic that we are actually trying to recruit older lupus patients who have had long-term stable disease while on hydroxychloroquine to a trial of stopping the drug to reduce the risk of developing the side effect of retinopathy. We want to see if patients can safely withdraw hydroxychloroquine without flaring, so we hope to not run into enrollment difficulties based on the current situation with COVID-19.
 

Q: How do you view the balance between having enough hydroxychloroquine for patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases and its use in COVID-19 patients?

A: We want to reassure patients that hydroxychloroquine will be available, and there is no reason to hoard the drug or to worry excessively about being unable to obtain it. Efforts to increase production by Mylan, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, and other manufacturers of hydroxychloroquine should really help out.

Q: Are there pharmacy restrictions on prescription amounts?

A: This is not universal at this time, but some institutions are cutting back and offering only 1-month supplies.
 

Colchicine COVID-19 trial underway

Dr. Pillinger, of NYU Langone Health, explored the COLCORONA study of colchicine as a treatment for people infected with COVID-19 and the worry that shortage concerns may arise for it, too. 

Q: What is the general availability of colchicine and its susceptibility to shortage?

A: There are two major manufacturers of colchicine in the United States, Takeda and Hikma, who together manufacture the majority of the drug.

The greatest use of colchicine in the United States is for gout, which affects approximately 4 million Americans, but the drug is not used chronically, so a much smaller number of patients are using colchicine at any one time. Colchicine is also used for other inflammatory conditions, primarily calcium pyrophosphate crystal disease and familial Mediterranean fever (FMF is rare in the United States). Cardiologists also regularly prescribe colchicine in pericarditis for short-term use. Physicians may use it off label for other purposes, too.

Overall, the number of patients using colchicine is much larger than that for the use of hydroxychloroquine, for example, suggesting that the immediate risk of shortage could be lower. However, if individuals started using it off label, or prescribing inappropriately for the COVID-19 indication, the supply would rapidly run short.
 

Q: What other points are there to consider regarding the use of colchicine to treat COVID-19?

A: There is no evidence – zero – that colchicine has any benefit for COVID-19, not even case reports. There is some rationale that it might be beneficial, but that is exactly why the COLCORONA trial would be logical to try.

The COLCORONA trial is exactly the kind of trial that would be needed for assessing colchicine, and it is big enough and happening quickly enough to get an answer. But if people start to use colchicine off label, we may never know the truth.

While colchicine can be used safely in most people, it can be very problematic and requires an experienced doctor’s supervision. Overdoses can be fatal, and colchicine interacts with many drugs, all of which require dose adjustment and some of which must be stopped in order to use colchicine – it isn’t candy. Some of the other drugs being looked at for COVID-19 in fact may interact with colchicine.

Colchicine must also be dose adjusted for kidney disease, and, in some of the COVID-19 patients, kidney function changes rapidly. So again, its use would require expert supervision even if there were evidence for its utility.

The side effects of colchicine, if mis-dosed, can be very unpleasant, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Even at the apparent right dose, some people will get these side effects, so colchicine has to be something that works to make the risk/benefit ratio worth it.

Some preparations of colchicine are made combined with probenecid, a gout drug. This is even more problematic because probenecid can raise the level of drugs excreted by the kidney and could affect other treatments.

So in sum, what may be a good idea in theory can turn out to be a disastrous idea in practice, and here we have nothing but theory. This is not an agent to use randomly; the studies will be rushed out quickly and hopefully will give us the knowledge to know what to do.

Dr. Izmirly and Dr. Buyon said they have research grants with the National Institutes of Health to study hydroxychloroquine in patients with lupus and in anti–SSA/Ro-positive pregnant women with a previous child with congenital heart block. Dr. Pillinger reports that he has an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma to study colchicine in osteoarthritis.

jevans@mdedge.com

This article was reformatted on 3/30/2020 for clarity. 

Physicians were concerned about the safety of their loved ones and themselves and pessimistic about how those outside of the medical community will respond to the pandemic, according to a survey.

One positive finding from the physicians who participated in this survey March 19-20 was that the availability of COVID-19 test kits has more than doubled since late February.

Reported access to test kits went from 31% in the first wave of a series of surveys (Jan. 31–Feb. 4), down to 20% in the second (Feb. 26-27), and then jumped to 67% by the third wave (March 19-20), InCrowd reported March 26.

Views on several other COVID-related topics were negative among the majority of responding physicians – all of whom had or were currently treating 20 or more patients with flu-like symptoms at the time of the survey.

“Their frustrations and concerns about their ability to protect themselves while meeting upcoming patient care levels has increased significantly in the last 3 months,” Daniel S. Fitzgerald, CEO and president of InCrowd, said in a written statement.

In the third wave, 78% of respondents were “concerned for the safety of loved ones due to my exposure as a physician to COVID-19” and only 16% believed that their facility was “staffed adequately to treat the influx of patients anticipated in the next 30 days,” InCrowd said.

One primary care physician from California elaborated on the issue of safety equipment: “First, [the CDC] said we need N95 masks and other masks would not protect us. As those are running out then they said just use regular surgical masks. Now they are saying use bandannas and scarves! It’s like they don’t care about the safety of the people who will be treating the ill! We don’t want to bring it home to our families!”

“Overall, morale appears low, with few optimistic about the efficacy of public-private collaboration (21%), their own safety given current PPE [personal protective equipment] supply (13%), and the U.S.’s ability to ‘flatten the curve’ (12%),” InCrowd noted in the report.

The first two waves each had 150 respondents, but the number increased to 263 for wave 3, with similar proportions – about 50% emergency medicine or critical care specialists, 25% pediatricians, and 25% primary care physicians – in all three.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Physicians were concerned about the safety of their loved ones and themselves and pessimistic about how those outside of the medical community will respond to the pandemic, according to a survey.

One positive finding from the physicians who participated in this survey March 19-20 was that the availability of COVID-19 test kits has more than doubled since late February.

Reported access to test kits went from 31% in the first wave of a series of surveys (Jan. 31–Feb. 4), down to 20% in the second (Feb. 26-27), and then jumped to 67% by the third wave (March 19-20), InCrowd reported March 26.

Views on several other COVID-related topics were negative among the majority of responding physicians – all of whom had or were currently treating 20 or more patients with flu-like symptoms at the time of the survey.

“Their frustrations and concerns about their ability to protect themselves while meeting upcoming patient care levels has increased significantly in the last 3 months,” Daniel S. Fitzgerald, CEO and president of InCrowd, said in a written statement.

In the third wave, 78% of respondents were “concerned for the safety of loved ones due to my exposure as a physician to COVID-19” and only 16% believed that their facility was “staffed adequately to treat the influx of patients anticipated in the next 30 days,” InCrowd said.

One primary care physician from California elaborated on the issue of safety equipment: “First, [the CDC] said we need N95 masks and other masks would not protect us. As those are running out then they said just use regular surgical masks. Now they are saying use bandannas and scarves! It’s like they don’t care about the safety of the people who will be treating the ill! We don’t want to bring it home to our families!”

“Overall, morale appears low, with few optimistic about the efficacy of public-private collaboration (21%), their own safety given current PPE [personal protective equipment] supply (13%), and the U.S.’s ability to ‘flatten the curve’ (12%),” InCrowd noted in the report.

The first two waves each had 150 respondents, but the number increased to 263 for wave 3, with similar proportions – about 50% emergency medicine or critical care specialists, 25% pediatricians, and 25% primary care physicians – in all three.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Physicians were concerned about the safety of their loved ones and themselves and pessimistic about how those outside of the medical community will respond to the pandemic, according to a survey.

One positive finding from the physicians who participated in this survey March 19-20 was that the availability of COVID-19 test kits has more than doubled since late February.

Reported access to test kits went from 31% in the first wave of a series of surveys (Jan. 31–Feb. 4), down to 20% in the second (Feb. 26-27), and then jumped to 67% by the third wave (March 19-20), InCrowd reported March 26.

Views on several other COVID-related topics were negative among the majority of responding physicians – all of whom had or were currently treating 20 or more patients with flu-like symptoms at the time of the survey.

“Their frustrations and concerns about their ability to protect themselves while meeting upcoming patient care levels has increased significantly in the last 3 months,” Daniel S. Fitzgerald, CEO and president of InCrowd, said in a written statement.

In the third wave, 78% of respondents were “concerned for the safety of loved ones due to my exposure as a physician to COVID-19” and only 16% believed that their facility was “staffed adequately to treat the influx of patients anticipated in the next 30 days,” InCrowd said.

One primary care physician from California elaborated on the issue of safety equipment: “First, [the CDC] said we need N95 masks and other masks would not protect us. As those are running out then they said just use regular surgical masks. Now they are saying use bandannas and scarves! It’s like they don’t care about the safety of the people who will be treating the ill! We don’t want to bring it home to our families!”

“Overall, morale appears low, with few optimistic about the efficacy of public-private collaboration (21%), their own safety given current PPE [personal protective equipment] supply (13%), and the U.S.’s ability to ‘flatten the curve’ (12%),” InCrowd noted in the report.

The first two waves each had 150 respondents, but the number increased to 263 for wave 3, with similar proportions – about 50% emergency medicine or critical care specialists, 25% pediatricians, and 25% primary care physicians – in all three.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Reports from pediatric endocrinologists in COVID-19 hot spots globally indicate that children, adolescents, and young adults with diabetes have so far not shown a different disease pattern with the virus compared to children and younger people who do not have diabetes.

Indeed, colleagues in Wuhan, China, and Italy “state they have not had cases of COVID-19 in children, adolescents, or young adults less than 25 years of age with diabetes who required hospitalization, to date [as of March 24]” according to a new statement from the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), which currently has about 1,300 members around the globe and has instituted a discussion forum about the topic of treating children with both diabetes and COVID-19.

“We find these reports [from colleagues around the world], though anecdotal, to be reassuring,” it notes. However, there are real worries regarding other potentially dangerous effects. ISPAD has expressed concern, for example, that the COVID-19 pandemic will prevent youngsters with existing diabetes who are having diabetic emergencies from seeking hospital care.

Chinese physicians have reported to ISPAD a number of cases of delayed hospital admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in children with known type 1 diabetes because hospital services were closed for non–COVID-19 care.

Andrea Scaramuzza, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Ospedale Maggiore di Cremona, Italy, has similarly reported multiple cases of patients presenting to emergency services there with severe DKA.

“These experiences reinforce the importance of continued attentiveness to standard diabetes care to avoid the need for hospitalization and emergency or urgent care visits,” says ISPAD, under the strapline: “Keep calm and mind your diabetes care.”

But it nevertheless stresses that these resources should be used “if needed.”
 

Worries that new-onset diabetes will be missed during COVID-19

Dr. Scaramuzza said in an interview that there also are concerns regarding delays in diagnoses of new cases of type 1 diabetes “due to the fear families have to go to the emergency department because of COVID-19.”

Indeed, in Italy, a few patients have arrived with very serious DKA, he said. Dr. Scaramuzza noted a colleague from Naples, Dario Iafusco, MD, and colleagues have made a video to keep awareness high regarding new-onset diabetes.

“This coronavirus pandemic can be defeated if you stay at home, but if you know of a child who has excessive thirst, frequent urination, or who starts vomiting,” seek health care advice immediately. “This child could have [type 1] diabetes. Prevent severe DKA, or worse, death,” Dr. Iafusco of the Regional Centre of Paediatric Diabetology G.Stoppoloni Via S. Andrea delle Dame, Naples, said in the video.

Physicians from China have similar observations, reporting to ISPAD several cases of delayed admissions of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes because hospital services were closed for non–COVID-19 care.
 

Keep calm and mind your diabetes care; physicians use telemedicine

Meanwhile, last week ISPAD issued guidance for young people with diabetes and their carers about what to do if COVID-19 infection is suspected.

Most advice is the same as for the general public because reports of COVID-19 infection suggest it is much less severe in children and adolescents, and the summary currently serves “as reassurance that youth with diabetes are not more affected by COVID-19 than peers,” it adds.

“Our approach to treating a child with diabetes would be to follow the ISPAD sick-day guidelines, which provide generalized diabetes management in any flu-like illness. We wouldn’t do anything very different right now,” one of the authors, Jamie Wood, MD, associate professor of clinical pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“Any illness makes diabetes more difficult to manage and can increase the risk of DKA,” she emphasized.

“We would reinforce frequent monitoring of blood glucose and ketone levels, to never stop insulin – in fact, when most people are ill, the body is stressed and requires more insulin – and to stay hydrated and treat the underlying symptoms.”

And make sure to “treat the fever,” she stressed. “When patients with type 1 diabetes get fever, they have a tendency to make more ketones, so we recommend aggressive control of fever.”

ISPAD recommends young people aim to keep blood glucose levels between 4 and 10 mmol/L (72-180 mg/dL) and blood ketones below 0.6 mmol/L (10.8 mg/dL) during illness and to never stop insulin.

Guidance is provided on when to seek urgent specialist advice with possible referral to emergency care, for example, in cases in which the patient has DKA symptoms, such as persistent and/or worsened fruity breath odor or vomiting.

Dr. Scaramuzza said in an interview that, in Italy, he and his colleagues have increased their use of telemedicine to keep monitoring their patients with diabetes even from a distance and that it was working very well.

“Technology – such as downloading [records from] insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring systems, and the possibility to use Skype or other platforms – really helps,” he noted.

“There has been a rapid increase in telehealth as a way to continue to care for youth with diabetes and decrease risk for infection,” said ISPAD.

“Communication between patients, families, and health care teams is vitally important. Methods to do so that avoid visits to clinics or hospitals can provide needed diabetes advice and reduce risk for COVID-19 transmission.”

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

Reports from pediatric endocrinologists in COVID-19 hot spots globally indicate that children, adolescents, and young adults with diabetes have so far not shown a different disease pattern with the virus compared to children and younger people who do not have diabetes.

Indeed, colleagues in Wuhan, China, and Italy “state they have not had cases of COVID-19 in children, adolescents, or young adults less than 25 years of age with diabetes who required hospitalization, to date [as of March 24]” according to a new statement from the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), which currently has about 1,300 members around the globe and has instituted a discussion forum about the topic of treating children with both diabetes and COVID-19.

“We find these reports [from colleagues around the world], though anecdotal, to be reassuring,” it notes. However, there are real worries regarding other potentially dangerous effects. ISPAD has expressed concern, for example, that the COVID-19 pandemic will prevent youngsters with existing diabetes who are having diabetic emergencies from seeking hospital care.

Chinese physicians have reported to ISPAD a number of cases of delayed hospital admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in children with known type 1 diabetes because hospital services were closed for non–COVID-19 care.

Andrea Scaramuzza, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Ospedale Maggiore di Cremona, Italy, has similarly reported multiple cases of patients presenting to emergency services there with severe DKA.

“These experiences reinforce the importance of continued attentiveness to standard diabetes care to avoid the need for hospitalization and emergency or urgent care visits,” says ISPAD, under the strapline: “Keep calm and mind your diabetes care.”

But it nevertheless stresses that these resources should be used “if needed.”
 

Worries that new-onset diabetes will be missed during COVID-19

Dr. Scaramuzza said in an interview that there also are concerns regarding delays in diagnoses of new cases of type 1 diabetes “due to the fear families have to go to the emergency department because of COVID-19.”

Indeed, in Italy, a few patients have arrived with very serious DKA, he said. Dr. Scaramuzza noted a colleague from Naples, Dario Iafusco, MD, and colleagues have made a video to keep awareness high regarding new-onset diabetes.

“This coronavirus pandemic can be defeated if you stay at home, but if you know of a child who has excessive thirst, frequent urination, or who starts vomiting,” seek health care advice immediately. “This child could have [type 1] diabetes. Prevent severe DKA, or worse, death,” Dr. Iafusco of the Regional Centre of Paediatric Diabetology G.Stoppoloni Via S. Andrea delle Dame, Naples, said in the video.

Physicians from China have similar observations, reporting to ISPAD several cases of delayed admissions of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes because hospital services were closed for non–COVID-19 care.
 

Keep calm and mind your diabetes care; physicians use telemedicine

Meanwhile, last week ISPAD issued guidance for young people with diabetes and their carers about what to do if COVID-19 infection is suspected.

Most advice is the same as for the general public because reports of COVID-19 infection suggest it is much less severe in children and adolescents, and the summary currently serves “as reassurance that youth with diabetes are not more affected by COVID-19 than peers,” it adds.

“Our approach to treating a child with diabetes would be to follow the ISPAD sick-day guidelines, which provide generalized diabetes management in any flu-like illness. We wouldn’t do anything very different right now,” one of the authors, Jamie Wood, MD, associate professor of clinical pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“Any illness makes diabetes more difficult to manage and can increase the risk of DKA,” she emphasized.

“We would reinforce frequent monitoring of blood glucose and ketone levels, to never stop insulin – in fact, when most people are ill, the body is stressed and requires more insulin – and to stay hydrated and treat the underlying symptoms.”

And make sure to “treat the fever,” she stressed. “When patients with type 1 diabetes get fever, they have a tendency to make more ketones, so we recommend aggressive control of fever.”

ISPAD recommends young people aim to keep blood glucose levels between 4 and 10 mmol/L (72-180 mg/dL) and blood ketones below 0.6 mmol/L (10.8 mg/dL) during illness and to never stop insulin.

Guidance is provided on when to seek urgent specialist advice with possible referral to emergency care, for example, in cases in which the patient has DKA symptoms, such as persistent and/or worsened fruity breath odor or vomiting.

Dr. Scaramuzza said in an interview that, in Italy, he and his colleagues have increased their use of telemedicine to keep monitoring their patients with diabetes even from a distance and that it was working very well.

“Technology – such as downloading [records from] insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring systems, and the possibility to use Skype or other platforms – really helps,” he noted.

“There has been a rapid increase in telehealth as a way to continue to care for youth with diabetes and decrease risk for infection,” said ISPAD.

“Communication between patients, families, and health care teams is vitally important. Methods to do so that avoid visits to clinics or hospitals can provide needed diabetes advice and reduce risk for COVID-19 transmission.”

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

Reports from pediatric endocrinologists in COVID-19 hot spots globally indicate that children, adolescents, and young adults with diabetes have so far not shown a different disease pattern with the virus compared to children and younger people who do not have diabetes.

Indeed, colleagues in Wuhan, China, and Italy “state they have not had cases of COVID-19 in children, adolescents, or young adults less than 25 years of age with diabetes who required hospitalization, to date [as of March 24]” according to a new statement from the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), which currently has about 1,300 members around the globe and has instituted a discussion forum about the topic of treating children with both diabetes and COVID-19.

“We find these reports [from colleagues around the world], though anecdotal, to be reassuring,” it notes. However, there are real worries regarding other potentially dangerous effects. ISPAD has expressed concern, for example, that the COVID-19 pandemic will prevent youngsters with existing diabetes who are having diabetic emergencies from seeking hospital care.

Chinese physicians have reported to ISPAD a number of cases of delayed hospital admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in children with known type 1 diabetes because hospital services were closed for non–COVID-19 care.

Andrea Scaramuzza, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Ospedale Maggiore di Cremona, Italy, has similarly reported multiple cases of patients presenting to emergency services there with severe DKA.

“These experiences reinforce the importance of continued attentiveness to standard diabetes care to avoid the need for hospitalization and emergency or urgent care visits,” says ISPAD, under the strapline: “Keep calm and mind your diabetes care.”

But it nevertheless stresses that these resources should be used “if needed.”
 

Worries that new-onset diabetes will be missed during COVID-19

Dr. Scaramuzza said in an interview that there also are concerns regarding delays in diagnoses of new cases of type 1 diabetes “due to the fear families have to go to the emergency department because of COVID-19.”

Indeed, in Italy, a few patients have arrived with very serious DKA, he said. Dr. Scaramuzza noted a colleague from Naples, Dario Iafusco, MD, and colleagues have made a video to keep awareness high regarding new-onset diabetes.

“This coronavirus pandemic can be defeated if you stay at home, but if you know of a child who has excessive thirst, frequent urination, or who starts vomiting,” seek health care advice immediately. “This child could have [type 1] diabetes. Prevent severe DKA, or worse, death,” Dr. Iafusco of the Regional Centre of Paediatric Diabetology G.Stoppoloni Via S. Andrea delle Dame, Naples, said in the video.

Physicians from China have similar observations, reporting to ISPAD several cases of delayed admissions of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes because hospital services were closed for non–COVID-19 care.
 

Keep calm and mind your diabetes care; physicians use telemedicine

Meanwhile, last week ISPAD issued guidance for young people with diabetes and their carers about what to do if COVID-19 infection is suspected.

Most advice is the same as for the general public because reports of COVID-19 infection suggest it is much less severe in children and adolescents, and the summary currently serves “as reassurance that youth with diabetes are not more affected by COVID-19 than peers,” it adds.

“Our approach to treating a child with diabetes would be to follow the ISPAD sick-day guidelines, which provide generalized diabetes management in any flu-like illness. We wouldn’t do anything very different right now,” one of the authors, Jamie Wood, MD, associate professor of clinical pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“Any illness makes diabetes more difficult to manage and can increase the risk of DKA,” she emphasized.

“We would reinforce frequent monitoring of blood glucose and ketone levels, to never stop insulin – in fact, when most people are ill, the body is stressed and requires more insulin – and to stay hydrated and treat the underlying symptoms.”

And make sure to “treat the fever,” she stressed. “When patients with type 1 diabetes get fever, they have a tendency to make more ketones, so we recommend aggressive control of fever.”

ISPAD recommends young people aim to keep blood glucose levels between 4 and 10 mmol/L (72-180 mg/dL) and blood ketones below 0.6 mmol/L (10.8 mg/dL) during illness and to never stop insulin.

Guidance is provided on when to seek urgent specialist advice with possible referral to emergency care, for example, in cases in which the patient has DKA symptoms, such as persistent and/or worsened fruity breath odor or vomiting.

Dr. Scaramuzza said in an interview that, in Italy, he and his colleagues have increased their use of telemedicine to keep monitoring their patients with diabetes even from a distance and that it was working very well.

“Technology – such as downloading [records from] insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring systems, and the possibility to use Skype or other platforms – really helps,” he noted.

“There has been a rapid increase in telehealth as a way to continue to care for youth with diabetes and decrease risk for infection,” said ISPAD.

“Communication between patients, families, and health care teams is vitally important. Methods to do so that avoid visits to clinics or hospitals can provide needed diabetes advice and reduce risk for COVID-19 transmission.”

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

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) appears safe and effective for treating recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to an ongoing prospective trial.

Most patients were cured of C. difficile after one fecal transplant, reported Jessica Allegretti, MD, associate director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“[For patients without IBD], fecal microbiota transplantation has been shown to be very effective for the treatment of recurrent C. diff,” Dr. Allegretti said at the annual Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit.

But similar data for patients with IBD are scarce, and this knowledge gap has high clinical relevance, Dr. Allegretti said. She noted that C. difficile infections are eight times more common among patients with IBD, and risk of recurrence is increased 4.5-fold.

According to Dr. Allegretti, three small clinical trials have tested FMT for treating recurrent C. difficile infections in patients with IBD.

“[These studies were] somewhat prospective, but [data] mainly retrospectively collected, as they relied heavily on chart review for the assessment of IBD disease activity,” she said at the meeting sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association and the European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility..

Across the trials, C. difficile infection cure rates were comparable with non-IBD cohorts; but disease flare rates ranged from 17.9% to 54%, which raised concern that FMT may trigger inflammation.

To investigate further, Dr. Allegretti and her colleagues designed a prospective trial that is set to enroll 50 patients with IBD. Among 37 patients treated to date, a slight majority were women (56.8%), about one-third had Crohn’s disease (37.8%), and two-thirds had ulcerative colitis (62.2%). The average baseline calprotectin level, which measures inflammation in the intestines, was 1,804.8 microg/g of feces, which is far above the upper limit of 50 microg/g.

“This is a very inflamed patient population,” Dr. Allegretti said.

Out of these 37 patients, 34 (92%) were cured of C. difficile infection after only one fecal transplant, and the remaining three patients were cured after a second FMT.

“They all did very well,” Dr. Allegretti said.

Concerning IBD clinical scores, all patients with Crohn’s disease either had unchanged or improved disease. Among those with ulcerative colitis, almost all had unchanged or improved disease, except for one patient who had a de novo flare.

Early microbiome analyses showed patients had increased alpha diversity and richness after FMT that was sustained through week 12. Because only three patients had recurrence, numbers were too small to generate predictive data based on relative abundance.

Dr. Allegretti continued her presentation with a review of FMT for IBD in general.

“For Crohn’s disease, the role [of microbiome manipulation] seems a bit more clear,” Dr. Allegretti said, considering multiple effective treatments that alter gut flora, such as antibiotics.

In contrast, the role for microbiome manipulation in treating ulcerative colitis “has remained a bit unclear,” she said. Although some probiotics appear effective for treating mild disease, other microbiome-altering treatments, such as diversion of fecal stream, antibiotics, and bowel rest, have fallen short.

Still, pooled data from four randomized clinical trials showed that FMT led to remission in 28% of patients with ulcerative colitis, compared with 9% who receive placebo.

“You may be thinking that seems a bit underwhelming compared to the 90% or so cure rate we get for C. diff trials,” Dr. Allegretti said. “However, if you look at our other biologic trials in IBD, 28% puts FMT on par with our other IBD therapies.”

According to Dr. Allegretti, at least three stool-based, FMT-like therapeutics are poised to become commercially available in the next few years for the treatment of C. difficile infection, including broad- and narrow-spectrum enema bags and oral capsules.

“I certainly think we will start to see off-label usage in our IBD patients, and we will start to have an easier and more systemic way of utilizing these microbiome-based therapies,” Dr. Allegretti said. “They will be coming to market, and when they do, whether or not we are allowed to still do traditional FMT in its current form remains unseen. The FDA may not allow us to do that in the future when we have an FDA-approved product.”Dr. Allegretti disclosed relationships with Merck, Openbiome, Finch Therapeutics, and others.

aotto@mdedge.com

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) appears safe and effective for treating recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to an ongoing prospective trial.

Most patients were cured of C. difficile after one fecal transplant, reported Jessica Allegretti, MD, associate director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“[For patients without IBD], fecal microbiota transplantation has been shown to be very effective for the treatment of recurrent C. diff,” Dr. Allegretti said at the annual Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit.

But similar data for patients with IBD are scarce, and this knowledge gap has high clinical relevance, Dr. Allegretti said. She noted that C. difficile infections are eight times more common among patients with IBD, and risk of recurrence is increased 4.5-fold.

According to Dr. Allegretti, three small clinical trials have tested FMT for treating recurrent C. difficile infections in patients with IBD.

“[These studies were] somewhat prospective, but [data] mainly retrospectively collected, as they relied heavily on chart review for the assessment of IBD disease activity,” she said at the meeting sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association and the European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility..

Across the trials, C. difficile infection cure rates were comparable with non-IBD cohorts; but disease flare rates ranged from 17.9% to 54%, which raised concern that FMT may trigger inflammation.

To investigate further, Dr. Allegretti and her colleagues designed a prospective trial that is set to enroll 50 patients with IBD. Among 37 patients treated to date, a slight majority were women (56.8%), about one-third had Crohn’s disease (37.8%), and two-thirds had ulcerative colitis (62.2%). The average baseline calprotectin level, which measures inflammation in the intestines, was 1,804.8 microg/g of feces, which is far above the upper limit of 50 microg/g.

“This is a very inflamed patient population,” Dr. Allegretti said.

Out of these 37 patients, 34 (92%) were cured of C. difficile infection after only one fecal transplant, and the remaining three patients were cured after a second FMT.

“They all did very well,” Dr. Allegretti said.

Concerning IBD clinical scores, all patients with Crohn’s disease either had unchanged or improved disease. Among those with ulcerative colitis, almost all had unchanged or improved disease, except for one patient who had a de novo flare.

Early microbiome analyses showed patients had increased alpha diversity and richness after FMT that was sustained through week 12. Because only three patients had recurrence, numbers were too small to generate predictive data based on relative abundance.

Dr. Allegretti continued her presentation with a review of FMT for IBD in general.

“For Crohn’s disease, the role [of microbiome manipulation] seems a bit more clear,” Dr. Allegretti said, considering multiple effective treatments that alter gut flora, such as antibiotics.

In contrast, the role for microbiome manipulation in treating ulcerative colitis “has remained a bit unclear,” she said. Although some probiotics appear effective for treating mild disease, other microbiome-altering treatments, such as diversion of fecal stream, antibiotics, and bowel rest, have fallen short.

Still, pooled data from four randomized clinical trials showed that FMT led to remission in 28% of patients with ulcerative colitis, compared with 9% who receive placebo.

“You may be thinking that seems a bit underwhelming compared to the 90% or so cure rate we get for C. diff trials,” Dr. Allegretti said. “However, if you look at our other biologic trials in IBD, 28% puts FMT on par with our other IBD therapies.”

According to Dr. Allegretti, at least three stool-based, FMT-like therapeutics are poised to become commercially available in the next few years for the treatment of C. difficile infection, including broad- and narrow-spectrum enema bags and oral capsules.

“I certainly think we will start to see off-label usage in our IBD patients, and we will start to have an easier and more systemic way of utilizing these microbiome-based therapies,” Dr. Allegretti said. “They will be coming to market, and when they do, whether or not we are allowed to still do traditional FMT in its current form remains unseen. The FDA may not allow us to do that in the future when we have an FDA-approved product.”Dr. Allegretti disclosed relationships with Merck, Openbiome, Finch Therapeutics, and others.

aotto@mdedge.com

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) appears safe and effective for treating recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to an ongoing prospective trial.

Most patients were cured of C. difficile after one fecal transplant, reported Jessica Allegretti, MD, associate director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“[For patients without IBD], fecal microbiota transplantation has been shown to be very effective for the treatment of recurrent C. diff,” Dr. Allegretti said at the annual Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit.

But similar data for patients with IBD are scarce, and this knowledge gap has high clinical relevance, Dr. Allegretti said. She noted that C. difficile infections are eight times more common among patients with IBD, and risk of recurrence is increased 4.5-fold.

According to Dr. Allegretti, three small clinical trials have tested FMT for treating recurrent C. difficile infections in patients with IBD.

“[These studies were] somewhat prospective, but [data] mainly retrospectively collected, as they relied heavily on chart review for the assessment of IBD disease activity,” she said at the meeting sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association and the European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility..

Across the trials, C. difficile infection cure rates were comparable with non-IBD cohorts; but disease flare rates ranged from 17.9% to 54%, which raised concern that FMT may trigger inflammation.

To investigate further, Dr. Allegretti and her colleagues designed a prospective trial that is set to enroll 50 patients with IBD. Among 37 patients treated to date, a slight majority were women (56.8%), about one-third had Crohn’s disease (37.8%), and two-thirds had ulcerative colitis (62.2%). The average baseline calprotectin level, which measures inflammation in the intestines, was 1,804.8 microg/g of feces, which is far above the upper limit of 50 microg/g.

“This is a very inflamed patient population,” Dr. Allegretti said.

Out of these 37 patients, 34 (92%) were cured of C. difficile infection after only one fecal transplant, and the remaining three patients were cured after a second FMT.

“They all did very well,” Dr. Allegretti said.

Concerning IBD clinical scores, all patients with Crohn’s disease either had unchanged or improved disease. Among those with ulcerative colitis, almost all had unchanged or improved disease, except for one patient who had a de novo flare.

Early microbiome analyses showed patients had increased alpha diversity and richness after FMT that was sustained through week 12. Because only three patients had recurrence, numbers were too small to generate predictive data based on relative abundance.

Dr. Allegretti continued her presentation with a review of FMT for IBD in general.

“For Crohn’s disease, the role [of microbiome manipulation] seems a bit more clear,” Dr. Allegretti said, considering multiple effective treatments that alter gut flora, such as antibiotics.

In contrast, the role for microbiome manipulation in treating ulcerative colitis “has remained a bit unclear,” she said. Although some probiotics appear effective for treating mild disease, other microbiome-altering treatments, such as diversion of fecal stream, antibiotics, and bowel rest, have fallen short.

Still, pooled data from four randomized clinical trials showed that FMT led to remission in 28% of patients with ulcerative colitis, compared with 9% who receive placebo.

“You may be thinking that seems a bit underwhelming compared to the 90% or so cure rate we get for C. diff trials,” Dr. Allegretti said. “However, if you look at our other biologic trials in IBD, 28% puts FMT on par with our other IBD therapies.”

According to Dr. Allegretti, at least three stool-based, FMT-like therapeutics are poised to become commercially available in the next few years for the treatment of C. difficile infection, including broad- and narrow-spectrum enema bags and oral capsules.

“I certainly think we will start to see off-label usage in our IBD patients, and we will start to have an easier and more systemic way of utilizing these microbiome-based therapies,” Dr. Allegretti said. “They will be coming to market, and when they do, whether or not we are allowed to still do traditional FMT in its current form remains unseen. The FDA may not allow us to do that in the future when we have an FDA-approved product.”Dr. Allegretti disclosed relationships with Merck, Openbiome, Finch Therapeutics, and others.

aotto@mdedge.com

Cancer surgeries may need to be delayed as hospitals are forced to allocate resources to a surge of COVID-19 patients, says the American College of Surgeons, as it issues a new set of recommendations in reaction to the crisis.

Most surgeons have already curtailed or have ceased to perform elective operations, the ACS notes, and recommends that surgeons continue to do so in order to preserve the necessary resources for care of critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new clinical guidance for elective surgical case triage during the pandemic includes recommendations for cancer surgery as well as for procedures that are specific to certain cancer types.

“These triage guidelines and joint recommendations are being issued as we appear to be entering a new phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with more hospitals facing a potential push beyond their resources to care for critically ill patients,” commented ACS Executive Director David B. Hoyt, MD, in a statement.

“ACS will continue to monitor the landscape for surgical care but we feel this guidance document provides a good foundation for surgeons to begin enacting these triage recommendations today to help them make the best decisions possible for their patients during COVID-19,” he said.

For cancer surgery, which is often not elective but essential to treatment, ACS has issued general guidance for triaging patients, taking into account the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation.

First, decisions about whether to proceed with elective surgeries must consider the available resources of local facilities. The parties responsible for preparing the facility to manage coronavirus patients should be sharing information at regular intervals about constraints on local resources, especially personal protective equipment (PPE), which is running low in many jurisdictions. For example, if an elective case has a high likelihood of needing postoperative ICU care, it is imperative to balance the risk of delay against the need of availability for patients with COVID-19.

Second, cancer care coordination should use virtual technologies as much as possible, and facilities with tumor boards may find it helpful to locate multidisciplinary experts by virtual means, to assist with decision making and establishing triage criteria.

Three Phases of Pandemic

The ACS has also organized decision making into three phases that reflect the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation:

• Phase I. Semi-Urgent Setting (Preparation Phase) – few COVID-19 patients, hospital resources not exhausted, institution still has ICU ventilator capacity and COVID-19 trajectory not in rapid escalation phase
• Phase II. Urgent Setting – many COVID-19 patients, ICU and ventilator capacity limited, operating room supplies limited
• Phase III. Hospital resources are all routed to COVID-19 patients, no ventilator or ICU capacity, operating room supplies exhausted; patients in whom death is likely within hours if surgery is deferred

Breast Cancer Surgery

The ACS also issued specific guidance for several tumor types, including guidance for breast cancer surgery.

For phase I, surgery should be restricted to patients who are likely to experience compromised survival if it is not performed within next 3 months. This includes patients completing neoadjuvant treatment, those with clinical stage T2 or N1 ERpos/PRpos/HER2-negative tumors, patients with triple negative or HER2-positive tumors, discordant biopsies that are likely to be malignant, and removal of a recurrent lesion.

Phase II would be restricted to patients whose survival is threatened if surgery is not performed within the next few days. These would include incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuating a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

In Phase III, surgical procedures would be restricted to patients who may not survive if surgery is not performed within a few hours. This includes incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuation of a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Guidance for colorectal cancer surgery is also split into the three phases of the pandemic.

Phase I would include cases needing surgical intervention as soon as feasible, while recognizing that the status of each hospital is likely to evolve over the next week or two. These patients would include those with nearly obstructing colon cancer or rectal cancer; cancers that require frequent transfusions; asymptomatic colon cancers; rectal cancers that do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiation; malignancies with a risk of local perforation and sepsis; and those with early stage rectal cancers that are not candidates for adjuvant therapy.

Phase II comprises patients needing surgery as soon as feasible, but recognizing that hospital status is likely to progress over the next few days. These cases include patients with a nearly obstructing colon cancer where stenting is not an option; those with nearly obstructing rectal cancer (should be diverted); cancers with high (inpatient) transfusion requirements; and cancers with pending evidence of local perforation and sepsis.

All colorectal procedures typically scheduled as routine should be delayed.

In Phase III, if the status of the facility is likely to progress within hours, the only surgery that should be performed would be for perforated, obstructed, or actively bleeding (inpatient transfusion dependent) cancers or those with sepsis. All other surgeries should be deferred.

Thoracic Cancer Surgery

Thoracic cancer surgery guidelines follow those for breast cancer. Phase I should be restricted to patients whose survival may be impacted if surgery is not performed within next 3 months. These include:

• Cases with solid or predominantly solid (>50%) lung cancer or presumed lung cancer (>2 cm), clinical node negative
• Node positive lung cancer
• Post-induction therapy cancer
• Esophageal cancer T1b or greater
• Chest wall tumors that are potentially aggressive and not manageable by alternative means
• Stenting for obstructing esophageal tumor
• Staging to start treatment (mediastinoscopy, diagnostic VATS for pleural dissemination)
• Symptomatic mediastinal tumors
• Patients who are enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials.

Phase II would permit surgery if survival will be impacted by a delay of a few days. These cases would include nonseptic perforated cancer of esophagus, a tumor-associated infection, and management of surgical complications in a hemodynamically stable patient.

All thoracic procedures considered to be routine/elective would be deferred.

Phase III restricts surgery to patients whose survival will be compromised if they do not undergo surgery within the next few hours. This group would include perforated cancer of esophagus in a septic patient, a patient with a threatened airway, sepsis associated with the cancer, and management of surgical complications in an unstable patient  (active bleeding that requires surgery, dehiscence of airway, anastomotic leak with sepsis).

All other cases would be deferred.

Other Cancer Types

Although the ACS doesn’t have specific guidelines for all cancer types, a few are included in their general recommendations for the specialty.

For gynecologic surgeries, ACS lists cancer or suspected cancer as indications where significantly delayed surgery could cause “significant harm.”

Delays, in general, are not recommended for neurosurgery, which would include brain cancers. In pediatrics, most cancer surgery is considered “urgent,” where a delay of days to weeks could prove detrimental to the patient. This would comprise all solid tumors, including the initial biopsy and resection following neoadjuvant therapy.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer surgeries may need to be delayed as hospitals are forced to allocate resources to a surge of COVID-19 patients, says the American College of Surgeons, as it issues a new set of recommendations in reaction to the crisis.

Most surgeons have already curtailed or have ceased to perform elective operations, the ACS notes, and recommends that surgeons continue to do so in order to preserve the necessary resources for care of critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new clinical guidance for elective surgical case triage during the pandemic includes recommendations for cancer surgery as well as for procedures that are specific to certain cancer types.

“These triage guidelines and joint recommendations are being issued as we appear to be entering a new phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with more hospitals facing a potential push beyond their resources to care for critically ill patients,” commented ACS Executive Director David B. Hoyt, MD, in a statement.

“ACS will continue to monitor the landscape for surgical care but we feel this guidance document provides a good foundation for surgeons to begin enacting these triage recommendations today to help them make the best decisions possible for their patients during COVID-19,” he said.

For cancer surgery, which is often not elective but essential to treatment, ACS has issued general guidance for triaging patients, taking into account the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation.

First, decisions about whether to proceed with elective surgeries must consider the available resources of local facilities. The parties responsible for preparing the facility to manage coronavirus patients should be sharing information at regular intervals about constraints on local resources, especially personal protective equipment (PPE), which is running low in many jurisdictions. For example, if an elective case has a high likelihood of needing postoperative ICU care, it is imperative to balance the risk of delay against the need of availability for patients with COVID-19.

Second, cancer care coordination should use virtual technologies as much as possible, and facilities with tumor boards may find it helpful to locate multidisciplinary experts by virtual means, to assist with decision making and establishing triage criteria.

Three Phases of Pandemic

The ACS has also organized decision making into three phases that reflect the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation:

• Phase I. Semi-Urgent Setting (Preparation Phase) – few COVID-19 patients, hospital resources not exhausted, institution still has ICU ventilator capacity and COVID-19 trajectory not in rapid escalation phase
• Phase II. Urgent Setting – many COVID-19 patients, ICU and ventilator capacity limited, operating room supplies limited
• Phase III. Hospital resources are all routed to COVID-19 patients, no ventilator or ICU capacity, operating room supplies exhausted; patients in whom death is likely within hours if surgery is deferred

Breast Cancer Surgery

The ACS also issued specific guidance for several tumor types, including guidance for breast cancer surgery.

For phase I, surgery should be restricted to patients who are likely to experience compromised survival if it is not performed within next 3 months. This includes patients completing neoadjuvant treatment, those with clinical stage T2 or N1 ERpos/PRpos/HER2-negative tumors, patients with triple negative or HER2-positive tumors, discordant biopsies that are likely to be malignant, and removal of a recurrent lesion.

Phase II would be restricted to patients whose survival is threatened if surgery is not performed within the next few days. These would include incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuating a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

In Phase III, surgical procedures would be restricted to patients who may not survive if surgery is not performed within a few hours. This includes incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuation of a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Guidance for colorectal cancer surgery is also split into the three phases of the pandemic.

Phase I would include cases needing surgical intervention as soon as feasible, while recognizing that the status of each hospital is likely to evolve over the next week or two. These patients would include those with nearly obstructing colon cancer or rectal cancer; cancers that require frequent transfusions; asymptomatic colon cancers; rectal cancers that do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiation; malignancies with a risk of local perforation and sepsis; and those with early stage rectal cancers that are not candidates for adjuvant therapy.

Phase II comprises patients needing surgery as soon as feasible, but recognizing that hospital status is likely to progress over the next few days. These cases include patients with a nearly obstructing colon cancer where stenting is not an option; those with nearly obstructing rectal cancer (should be diverted); cancers with high (inpatient) transfusion requirements; and cancers with pending evidence of local perforation and sepsis.

All colorectal procedures typically scheduled as routine should be delayed.

In Phase III, if the status of the facility is likely to progress within hours, the only surgery that should be performed would be for perforated, obstructed, or actively bleeding (inpatient transfusion dependent) cancers or those with sepsis. All other surgeries should be deferred.

Thoracic Cancer Surgery

Thoracic cancer surgery guidelines follow those for breast cancer. Phase I should be restricted to patients whose survival may be impacted if surgery is not performed within next 3 months. These include:

• Cases with solid or predominantly solid (>50%) lung cancer or presumed lung cancer (>2 cm), clinical node negative
• Node positive lung cancer
• Post-induction therapy cancer
• Esophageal cancer T1b or greater
• Chest wall tumors that are potentially aggressive and not manageable by alternative means
• Stenting for obstructing esophageal tumor
• Staging to start treatment (mediastinoscopy, diagnostic VATS for pleural dissemination)
• Symptomatic mediastinal tumors
• Patients who are enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials.

Phase II would permit surgery if survival will be impacted by a delay of a few days. These cases would include nonseptic perforated cancer of esophagus, a tumor-associated infection, and management of surgical complications in a hemodynamically stable patient.

All thoracic procedures considered to be routine/elective would be deferred.

Phase III restricts surgery to patients whose survival will be compromised if they do not undergo surgery within the next few hours. This group would include perforated cancer of esophagus in a septic patient, a patient with a threatened airway, sepsis associated with the cancer, and management of surgical complications in an unstable patient  (active bleeding that requires surgery, dehiscence of airway, anastomotic leak with sepsis).

All other cases would be deferred.

Other Cancer Types

Although the ACS doesn’t have specific guidelines for all cancer types, a few are included in their general recommendations for the specialty.

For gynecologic surgeries, ACS lists cancer or suspected cancer as indications where significantly delayed surgery could cause “significant harm.”

Delays, in general, are not recommended for neurosurgery, which would include brain cancers. In pediatrics, most cancer surgery is considered “urgent,” where a delay of days to weeks could prove detrimental to the patient. This would comprise all solid tumors, including the initial biopsy and resection following neoadjuvant therapy.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer surgeries may need to be delayed as hospitals are forced to allocate resources to a surge of COVID-19 patients, says the American College of Surgeons, as it issues a new set of recommendations in reaction to the crisis.

Most surgeons have already curtailed or have ceased to perform elective operations, the ACS notes, and recommends that surgeons continue to do so in order to preserve the necessary resources for care of critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new clinical guidance for elective surgical case triage during the pandemic includes recommendations for cancer surgery as well as for procedures that are specific to certain cancer types.

“These triage guidelines and joint recommendations are being issued as we appear to be entering a new phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with more hospitals facing a potential push beyond their resources to care for critically ill patients,” commented ACS Executive Director David B. Hoyt, MD, in a statement.

“ACS will continue to monitor the landscape for surgical care but we feel this guidance document provides a good foundation for surgeons to begin enacting these triage recommendations today to help them make the best decisions possible for their patients during COVID-19,” he said.

For cancer surgery, which is often not elective but essential to treatment, ACS has issued general guidance for triaging patients, taking into account the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation.

First, decisions about whether to proceed with elective surgeries must consider the available resources of local facilities. The parties responsible for preparing the facility to manage coronavirus patients should be sharing information at regular intervals about constraints on local resources, especially personal protective equipment (PPE), which is running low in many jurisdictions. For example, if an elective case has a high likelihood of needing postoperative ICU care, it is imperative to balance the risk of delay against the need of availability for patients with COVID-19.

Second, cancer care coordination should use virtual technologies as much as possible, and facilities with tumor boards may find it helpful to locate multidisciplinary experts by virtual means, to assist with decision making and establishing triage criteria.

Three Phases of Pandemic

The ACS has also organized decision making into three phases that reflect the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation:

• Phase I. Semi-Urgent Setting (Preparation Phase) – few COVID-19 patients, hospital resources not exhausted, institution still has ICU ventilator capacity and COVID-19 trajectory not in rapid escalation phase
• Phase II. Urgent Setting – many COVID-19 patients, ICU and ventilator capacity limited, operating room supplies limited
• Phase III. Hospital resources are all routed to COVID-19 patients, no ventilator or ICU capacity, operating room supplies exhausted; patients in whom death is likely within hours if surgery is deferred

Breast Cancer Surgery

The ACS also issued specific guidance for several tumor types, including guidance for breast cancer surgery.

For phase I, surgery should be restricted to patients who are likely to experience compromised survival if it is not performed within next 3 months. This includes patients completing neoadjuvant treatment, those with clinical stage T2 or N1 ERpos/PRpos/HER2-negative tumors, patients with triple negative or HER2-positive tumors, discordant biopsies that are likely to be malignant, and removal of a recurrent lesion.

Phase II would be restricted to patients whose survival is threatened if surgery is not performed within the next few days. These would include incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuating a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

In Phase III, surgical procedures would be restricted to patients who may not survive if surgery is not performed within a few hours. This includes incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuation of a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).

Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Guidance for colorectal cancer surgery is also split into the three phases of the pandemic.

Phase I would include cases needing surgical intervention as soon as feasible, while recognizing that the status of each hospital is likely to evolve over the next week or two. These patients would include those with nearly obstructing colon cancer or rectal cancer; cancers that require frequent transfusions; asymptomatic colon cancers; rectal cancers that do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiation; malignancies with a risk of local perforation and sepsis; and those with early stage rectal cancers that are not candidates for adjuvant therapy.

Phase II comprises patients needing surgery as soon as feasible, but recognizing that hospital status is likely to progress over the next few days. These cases include patients with a nearly obstructing colon cancer where stenting is not an option; those with nearly obstructing rectal cancer (should be diverted); cancers with high (inpatient) transfusion requirements; and cancers with pending evidence of local perforation and sepsis.

All colorectal procedures typically scheduled as routine should be delayed.

In Phase III, if the status of the facility is likely to progress within hours, the only surgery that should be performed would be for perforated, obstructed, or actively bleeding (inpatient transfusion dependent) cancers or those with sepsis. All other surgeries should be deferred.

Thoracic Cancer Surgery

Thoracic cancer surgery guidelines follow those for breast cancer. Phase I should be restricted to patients whose survival may be impacted if surgery is not performed within next 3 months. These include:

• Cases with solid or predominantly solid (>50%) lung cancer or presumed lung cancer (>2 cm), clinical node negative
• Node positive lung cancer
• Post-induction therapy cancer
• Esophageal cancer T1b or greater
• Chest wall tumors that are potentially aggressive and not manageable by alternative means
• Stenting for obstructing esophageal tumor
• Staging to start treatment (mediastinoscopy, diagnostic VATS for pleural dissemination)
• Symptomatic mediastinal tumors
• Patients who are enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials.

Phase II would permit surgery if survival will be impacted by a delay of a few days. These cases would include nonseptic perforated cancer of esophagus, a tumor-associated infection, and management of surgical complications in a hemodynamically stable patient.

All thoracic procedures considered to be routine/elective would be deferred.

Phase III restricts surgery to patients whose survival will be compromised if they do not undergo surgery within the next few hours. This group would include perforated cancer of esophagus in a septic patient, a patient with a threatened airway, sepsis associated with the cancer, and management of surgical complications in an unstable patient  (active bleeding that requires surgery, dehiscence of airway, anastomotic leak with sepsis).

All other cases would be deferred.

Other Cancer Types

Although the ACS doesn’t have specific guidelines for all cancer types, a few are included in their general recommendations for the specialty.

For gynecologic surgeries, ACS lists cancer or suspected cancer as indications where significantly delayed surgery could cause “significant harm.”

Delays, in general, are not recommended for neurosurgery, which would include brain cancers. In pediatrics, most cancer surgery is considered “urgent,” where a delay of days to weeks could prove detrimental to the patient. This would comprise all solid tumors, including the initial biopsy and resection following neoadjuvant therapy.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In about 7% of people with confirmed novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and 22% of the critically ill, the virus injures the heart, probably by either attacking it directly or causing a cytokine storm that leads to myocyte apoptosis, according to a report from the Columbia University Division of Cardiology in New York.

Reports from China document patients presenting with palpitations and chest pain without the typical fever and cough. Among those affected, acute myocardial injury is either apparent at presentation or develops after hospitalization.

The exact mechanism of injury is uncertain, but for now, “it appears that the incidence of fulminant myocarditis and profound cardiogenic shock is low; however, the rate of recovery and mode of treatment are yet to be determined,” wrote authors led by Kevin Clerkin, MD, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Columbia.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) might be prognostic. In one Chinese study of hospitalized patients, median hs-cTnI levels were 2.5 pg/mL in survivors on day 4 of symptoms and did not change significantly during follow-up. Among people who died, day 4 hs-cTnI was 8.8 pg/mL and climbed to 290.6 pg/mL by day 22.

“The rise in hs-cTnI tracks with other inflammatory biomarkers ... raising the possibility that this reflects cytokine storm or secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis more than isolated myocardial injury,” Dr. Clerkin and colleagues wrote.

But there are also acute heart injury reports out of China, including one man who presented with chest pain and ST-segment elevation, but no coronary obstruction, and another who presented with fulminant myocarditis in addition to severe respiratory manifestations, but with no cardiac history.

Both had depressed left ventricular ejection fractions, enlarged left ventricles, and elevated cardiac biomarkers, and both responded to intravenous immunoglobulin and steroids, among other treatments.

Amid a surge of COVID-19 cases at Columbia, “we have seen both forms of cardiac presentations: those presenting with cardiac predominant symptoms (none have had true [ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions] yet, but most fall in the myopericarditis group), some of which have required mechanical circulatory support, and those who seem to have secondary myocardial injury with globally elevated inflammatory biomarkers (e.g., ferritin, interleukin-6, lactate dehydrogenase, hs-cTnI, and D-dimer),” Dr. Clerkin said in an interview.

“We are discussing each of these cases in a multidisciplinary fashion with our infectious disease, pulmonary, interventional cardiology, and cardiac surgery colleagues to try to make the best decision based on what we know and as our knowledge evolves,” he said.

The exact cardiac effect of COVID-19 is unknown for now, but it is known already that it rides along with cardiovascular issues. There’s a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and diagnosed cardiovascular disease among patients, but it’s unclear at this point if it’s because the virus favors older people who happen to be more likely to have those problems or if it attacks people with those conditions preferentially.

It might be the latter. The virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), invades cells through angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) 2 receptors, which are highly expressed in the heart.

That raises the question of whether ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers might help. However, “at this time, nearly all major societies have recommended against adding or stopping ... antagonists in this setting, unless done on clinical grounds independently of COVID-19, given the lack of evidence,” Dr. Clerkin and his colleagues wrote.

As for heart transplants, the current thinking is to continue them without changes in immunosuppression so long as recipients test negative and haven’t been around anyone who has tested positive for a month. If a donor had COVID-19, they should have been free of the virus by polymerase chain reaction for at least 14 days. The concern is that it might be in the donor heart.

If transplant patients come down with COVID-19, the “data to date [indicate that management] is supportive care and continuation of immunosuppression for mild COVID-19 with reduction of the antimetabolite (mycophenolate or azathioprine), and further treatment based on disease severity and drug availability. Notably, one potential treatment option for COVID-19 is protease inhibitors,” the authors said, but it’s important to remember that they will increase the levels of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and other calcineurin inhibitor transplant drugs.

At Columbia, “our processes have been adjusted” for heart transplants. “For instance, non-urgent testing (pre- and post-transplant) has been tabled, we have predominantly shifted to noninvasive screening for rejection, and each potential transplant requires more scrutiny for urgency, donor screening/risk for COVID-19, and perioperative management,” Dr. Clerkin said in the interview.

A study out of Wuhan, China, the outbreak epicenter, was reassuring. It found that routine prevention efforts were enough to protect heart transplant patients.

There was no funding, and the authors had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Clerkin KJ et al. Circulation. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046941

In about 7% of people with confirmed novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and 22% of the critically ill, the virus injures the heart, probably by either attacking it directly or causing a cytokine storm that leads to myocyte apoptosis, according to a report from the Columbia University Division of Cardiology in New York.

Reports from China document patients presenting with palpitations and chest pain without the typical fever and cough. Among those affected, acute myocardial injury is either apparent at presentation or develops after hospitalization.

The exact mechanism of injury is uncertain, but for now, “it appears that the incidence of fulminant myocarditis and profound cardiogenic shock is low; however, the rate of recovery and mode of treatment are yet to be determined,” wrote authors led by Kevin Clerkin, MD, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Columbia.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) might be prognostic. In one Chinese study of hospitalized patients, median hs-cTnI levels were 2.5 pg/mL in survivors on day 4 of symptoms and did not change significantly during follow-up. Among people who died, day 4 hs-cTnI was 8.8 pg/mL and climbed to 290.6 pg/mL by day 22.

“The rise in hs-cTnI tracks with other inflammatory biomarkers ... raising the possibility that this reflects cytokine storm or secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis more than isolated myocardial injury,” Dr. Clerkin and colleagues wrote.

But there are also acute heart injury reports out of China, including one man who presented with chest pain and ST-segment elevation, but no coronary obstruction, and another who presented with fulminant myocarditis in addition to severe respiratory manifestations, but with no cardiac history.

Both had depressed left ventricular ejection fractions, enlarged left ventricles, and elevated cardiac biomarkers, and both responded to intravenous immunoglobulin and steroids, among other treatments.

Amid a surge of COVID-19 cases at Columbia, “we have seen both forms of cardiac presentations: those presenting with cardiac predominant symptoms (none have had true [ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions] yet, but most fall in the myopericarditis group), some of which have required mechanical circulatory support, and those who seem to have secondary myocardial injury with globally elevated inflammatory biomarkers (e.g., ferritin, interleukin-6, lactate dehydrogenase, hs-cTnI, and D-dimer),” Dr. Clerkin said in an interview.

“We are discussing each of these cases in a multidisciplinary fashion with our infectious disease, pulmonary, interventional cardiology, and cardiac surgery colleagues to try to make the best decision based on what we know and as our knowledge evolves,” he said.

The exact cardiac effect of COVID-19 is unknown for now, but it is known already that it rides along with cardiovascular issues. There’s a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and diagnosed cardiovascular disease among patients, but it’s unclear at this point if it’s because the virus favors older people who happen to be more likely to have those problems or if it attacks people with those conditions preferentially.

It might be the latter. The virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), invades cells through angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) 2 receptors, which are highly expressed in the heart.

That raises the question of whether ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers might help. However, “at this time, nearly all major societies have recommended against adding or stopping ... antagonists in this setting, unless done on clinical grounds independently of COVID-19, given the lack of evidence,” Dr. Clerkin and his colleagues wrote.

As for heart transplants, the current thinking is to continue them without changes in immunosuppression so long as recipients test negative and haven’t been around anyone who has tested positive for a month. If a donor had COVID-19, they should have been free of the virus by polymerase chain reaction for at least 14 days. The concern is that it might be in the donor heart.

If transplant patients come down with COVID-19, the “data to date [indicate that management] is supportive care and continuation of immunosuppression for mild COVID-19 with reduction of the antimetabolite (mycophenolate or azathioprine), and further treatment based on disease severity and drug availability. Notably, one potential treatment option for COVID-19 is protease inhibitors,” the authors said, but it’s important to remember that they will increase the levels of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and other calcineurin inhibitor transplant drugs.

At Columbia, “our processes have been adjusted” for heart transplants. “For instance, non-urgent testing (pre- and post-transplant) has been tabled, we have predominantly shifted to noninvasive screening for rejection, and each potential transplant requires more scrutiny for urgency, donor screening/risk for COVID-19, and perioperative management,” Dr. Clerkin said in the interview.

A study out of Wuhan, China, the outbreak epicenter, was reassuring. It found that routine prevention efforts were enough to protect heart transplant patients.

There was no funding, and the authors had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Clerkin KJ et al. Circulation. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046941

In about 7% of people with confirmed novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and 22% of the critically ill, the virus injures the heart, probably by either attacking it directly or causing a cytokine storm that leads to myocyte apoptosis, according to a report from the Columbia University Division of Cardiology in New York.

Reports from China document patients presenting with palpitations and chest pain without the typical fever and cough. Among those affected, acute myocardial injury is either apparent at presentation or develops after hospitalization.

The exact mechanism of injury is uncertain, but for now, “it appears that the incidence of fulminant myocarditis and profound cardiogenic shock is low; however, the rate of recovery and mode of treatment are yet to be determined,” wrote authors led by Kevin Clerkin, MD, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Columbia.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) might be prognostic. In one Chinese study of hospitalized patients, median hs-cTnI levels were 2.5 pg/mL in survivors on day 4 of symptoms and did not change significantly during follow-up. Among people who died, day 4 hs-cTnI was 8.8 pg/mL and climbed to 290.6 pg/mL by day 22.

“The rise in hs-cTnI tracks with other inflammatory biomarkers ... raising the possibility that this reflects cytokine storm or secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis more than isolated myocardial injury,” Dr. Clerkin and colleagues wrote.

But there are also acute heart injury reports out of China, including one man who presented with chest pain and ST-segment elevation, but no coronary obstruction, and another who presented with fulminant myocarditis in addition to severe respiratory manifestations, but with no cardiac history.

Both had depressed left ventricular ejection fractions, enlarged left ventricles, and elevated cardiac biomarkers, and both responded to intravenous immunoglobulin and steroids, among other treatments.

Amid a surge of COVID-19 cases at Columbia, “we have seen both forms of cardiac presentations: those presenting with cardiac predominant symptoms (none have had true [ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions] yet, but most fall in the myopericarditis group), some of which have required mechanical circulatory support, and those who seem to have secondary myocardial injury with globally elevated inflammatory biomarkers (e.g., ferritin, interleukin-6, lactate dehydrogenase, hs-cTnI, and D-dimer),” Dr. Clerkin said in an interview.

“We are discussing each of these cases in a multidisciplinary fashion with our infectious disease, pulmonary, interventional cardiology, and cardiac surgery colleagues to try to make the best decision based on what we know and as our knowledge evolves,” he said.

The exact cardiac effect of COVID-19 is unknown for now, but it is known already that it rides along with cardiovascular issues. There’s a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and diagnosed cardiovascular disease among patients, but it’s unclear at this point if it’s because the virus favors older people who happen to be more likely to have those problems or if it attacks people with those conditions preferentially.

It might be the latter. The virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), invades cells through angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) 2 receptors, which are highly expressed in the heart.

That raises the question of whether ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers might help. However, “at this time, nearly all major societies have recommended against adding or stopping ... antagonists in this setting, unless done on clinical grounds independently of COVID-19, given the lack of evidence,” Dr. Clerkin and his colleagues wrote.

As for heart transplants, the current thinking is to continue them without changes in immunosuppression so long as recipients test negative and haven’t been around anyone who has tested positive for a month. If a donor had COVID-19, they should have been free of the virus by polymerase chain reaction for at least 14 days. The concern is that it might be in the donor heart.

If transplant patients come down with COVID-19, the “data to date [indicate that management] is supportive care and continuation of immunosuppression for mild COVID-19 with reduction of the antimetabolite (mycophenolate or azathioprine), and further treatment based on disease severity and drug availability. Notably, one potential treatment option for COVID-19 is protease inhibitors,” the authors said, but it’s important to remember that they will increase the levels of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and other calcineurin inhibitor transplant drugs.

At Columbia, “our processes have been adjusted” for heart transplants. “For instance, non-urgent testing (pre- and post-transplant) has been tabled, we have predominantly shifted to noninvasive screening for rejection, and each potential transplant requires more scrutiny for urgency, donor screening/risk for COVID-19, and perioperative management,” Dr. Clerkin said in the interview.

A study out of Wuhan, China, the outbreak epicenter, was reassuring. It found that routine prevention efforts were enough to protect heart transplant patients.

There was no funding, and the authors had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Clerkin KJ et al. Circulation. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046941