The Hospitalist

Background: A small proportion of patients accounts for a large proportion of hospital use and readmissions. As hospitals and hospitalists focus efforts to improve transitions of care, there is a paucity of data that incorporates patients’ perspectives into the design of these programs.

A research coordinator conducted one-on-one semistructured interviews. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and then coded using a team-based approach; 26 patients completed the interview process. From the analysis, four major themes emerged: Major medical problems were universal but high hospital use onset varied; participants noted that fluctuations in their course were often related to social, economic, and psychological stressors; onset and progression of episodes seemed uncontrollable and unpredictable; participants preferred to avoid hospitalization and sought care when attempts at self-management failed. The major limitation of this study was the small sample size located at one medical center, creating a data pool that is potentially not generalizable to other medical centers. These findings, however, are an important reminder to focus our interventions with patients’ needs and perceptions in mind.

Bottom line: Frequently hospitalized patients have insights into factors contributing to their high hospital use. Engaging patients in this discussion can enable us to create sustainable patient-centered programs that avoid rehospitalization.

Citation: O’Leary KJ et al. Frequently hospitalized patients’ perceptions of factors contributing to high hospital use. J Hosp Med. 2019 Mar 20;14:e1-6.

Dr. Richardson is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

Background: A small proportion of patients accounts for a large proportion of hospital use and readmissions. As hospitals and hospitalists focus efforts to improve transitions of care, there is a paucity of data that incorporates patients’ perspectives into the design of these programs.

A research coordinator conducted one-on-one semistructured interviews. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and then coded using a team-based approach; 26 patients completed the interview process. From the analysis, four major themes emerged: Major medical problems were universal but high hospital use onset varied; participants noted that fluctuations in their course were often related to social, economic, and psychological stressors; onset and progression of episodes seemed uncontrollable and unpredictable; participants preferred to avoid hospitalization and sought care when attempts at self-management failed. The major limitation of this study was the small sample size located at one medical center, creating a data pool that is potentially not generalizable to other medical centers. These findings, however, are an important reminder to focus our interventions with patients’ needs and perceptions in mind.

Bottom line: Frequently hospitalized patients have insights into factors contributing to their high hospital use. Engaging patients in this discussion can enable us to create sustainable patient-centered programs that avoid rehospitalization.

Citation: O’Leary KJ et al. Frequently hospitalized patients’ perceptions of factors contributing to high hospital use. J Hosp Med. 2019 Mar 20;14:e1-6.

Dr. Richardson is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

Background: A small proportion of patients accounts for a large proportion of hospital use and readmissions. As hospitals and hospitalists focus efforts to improve transitions of care, there is a paucity of data that incorporates patients’ perspectives into the design of these programs.

A research coordinator conducted one-on-one semistructured interviews. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and then coded using a team-based approach; 26 patients completed the interview process. From the analysis, four major themes emerged: Major medical problems were universal but high hospital use onset varied; participants noted that fluctuations in their course were often related to social, economic, and psychological stressors; onset and progression of episodes seemed uncontrollable and unpredictable; participants preferred to avoid hospitalization and sought care when attempts at self-management failed. The major limitation of this study was the small sample size located at one medical center, creating a data pool that is potentially not generalizable to other medical centers. These findings, however, are an important reminder to focus our interventions with patients’ needs and perceptions in mind.

Bottom line: Frequently hospitalized patients have insights into factors contributing to their high hospital use. Engaging patients in this discussion can enable us to create sustainable patient-centered programs that avoid rehospitalization.

Citation: O’Leary KJ et al. Frequently hospitalized patients’ perceptions of factors contributing to high hospital use. J Hosp Med. 2019 Mar 20;14:e1-6.

Dr. Richardson is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

COVID-19 infection is associated with a high risk for mortality in heart transplant (HT) recipients, a new case series suggests.

Investigators looked at data on 28 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received a HT between March 1, 2020, and April 24, 2020 and found a case-fatality rate of 25%.

“The high case fatality in our case series should alert physicians to the vulnerability of heart transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” senior author Nir Uriel, MD, MSc, professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“These patients require extra precautions to prevent the development of infection,” said Dr. Uriel, who is also a cardiologist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center.

The study was published online May 13 in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Similar presentation

HT recipients can have several comorbidities after the procedure, including hypertension, diabetes, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and ongoing immunosuppression, all of which can place them at risk for infection and adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection, the authors wrote.

The researchers therefore embarked on a case series looking at 28 HT recipients with COVID-19 infection (median age, 64.0 years; interquartile range, 53.5-70.5; 79% male) to “describe the outcomes of recipients of HT who are chronically immunosuppressed and develop COVID-19 and raise important questions about the role of the immune system in the process.”

The median time from HT to study period was 8.6 (IQR, 4.2-14.5) years. Most patients had numerous comorbidities.

Medscape.com

No protective effect

Twenty-two patients (79%) required admission to the hospital, seven of whom (25%) required admission to the ICU and mechanical ventilation.

Despite the presence of immunosuppressive therapy, all patients had significant elevation of inflammatory biomarkers (median peak high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], 11.83 mg/dL; IQR, 7.44-19.26; median peak interleukin [IL]-6, 105 pg/mL; IQR, 38-296).

Three-quarters had myocardial injury, with a median high-sensitivity troponin T of 0.055 (0.0205 - 0.1345) ng/mL.

Treatments of COVID-19 included hydroxychloroquine (18 patients; 78%), high-dose corticosteroids (eight patients; 47%), and IL-6 receptor antagonists (six patients; 26%).

Moreover, during hospitalization, mycophenolate mofetil was discontinued in most (70%) patients, and one-quarter had a reduction in their calcineurin inhibitor dose.

“Heart transplant recipients generally require more intense immunosuppressive therapy than most other solid organ transplant recipients, and this high baseline immunosuppression increases their propensity to develop infections and their likelihood of experiencing severe manifestations of infections,” Dr. Uriel commented.

“With COVID-19, in which the body’s inflammatory reaction appears to play a role in disease severity, there has been a question of whether immunosuppression may offer a protective effect,” he continued.

“This case series suggests that this is not the case, although this would need to be confirmed in larger studies,” he said.
 

Low threshold

Among the 22 patients who were admitted to the hospital, half were discharged home and four (18%) were still hospitalized at the end of the study.

Of the seven patients who died, two died at the study center, and five died in an outside institution.

“In the HT population, social distancing (or isolation), strict use of masks when in public, proper handwashing, and sanitization of surfaces are of paramount importance in the prevention of COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Uriel stated.

“In addition, we have restricted these patients’ contact with the hospital as much as possible during the pandemic,” he said.

However, “there should be a low threshold to hospitalize heart transplant patients who develop infection with COVID-19. Furthermore, in our series, outcomes were better for patients hospitalized at the transplant center; therefore, strong consideration should be given to transferring HT patients when hospitalized at another hospital,” he added.

The authors emphasized that COVID-19 patients “will require ongoing monitoring in the recovery phase, as an immunosuppression regimen is reintroduced and the consequences to the allograft itself become apparent.”
 

Vulnerable population

Commenting on the study, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, suggested that “in epidemiological terms, [the findings] might not look as bad as the way they are reflected in the paper.”

Given that Columbia is “one of the larger heart transplant centers in the U.S., following probably 1,000 patients, having only 22 out of perhaps thousands whom they transplanted or are actively following would actually represent a low serious infection rate,” said Dr. Mehra, who is also the executive director of the Center for Advanced Heart Disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.

“We must not forget to emphasize that, when assessing these case fatality rates, we must look at the entire population at risk, not only the handful that we were able to observe,” explained Dr. Mehra, who was not involved with the study.

Moreover, the patients were “older and had comorbidities, with poor underlying kidney function and other complications, and underlying coronary artery disease in the transplanted heart,” so “it would not surprise me that they had such a high fatality rate, since they had a high degree of vulnerability,” he said.

Dr. Mehra, who is also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, said that the journal has received manuscripts still in the review process that suggest different fatality rates than those found in the current case series.

However, he acknowledged that, because these are patients with serious vulnerability due to underlying heart disease, “you can’t be lackadaisical and need to do everything to decrease this vulnerability.”

The authors noted that, although their study did not show a protective effect from immunosuppression against COVID-19, further studies are needed to assess each individual immunosuppressive agent and provide a definitive answer.

The study was supported by a grant to one of the investigators from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Uriel reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the publication. Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 infection is associated with a high risk for mortality in heart transplant (HT) recipients, a new case series suggests.

Investigators looked at data on 28 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received a HT between March 1, 2020, and April 24, 2020 and found a case-fatality rate of 25%.

“The high case fatality in our case series should alert physicians to the vulnerability of heart transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” senior author Nir Uriel, MD, MSc, professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“These patients require extra precautions to prevent the development of infection,” said Dr. Uriel, who is also a cardiologist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center.

The study was published online May 13 in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Similar presentation

HT recipients can have several comorbidities after the procedure, including hypertension, diabetes, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and ongoing immunosuppression, all of which can place them at risk for infection and adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection, the authors wrote.

The researchers therefore embarked on a case series looking at 28 HT recipients with COVID-19 infection (median age, 64.0 years; interquartile range, 53.5-70.5; 79% male) to “describe the outcomes of recipients of HT who are chronically immunosuppressed and develop COVID-19 and raise important questions about the role of the immune system in the process.”

The median time from HT to study period was 8.6 (IQR, 4.2-14.5) years. Most patients had numerous comorbidities.

Medscape.com

No protective effect

Twenty-two patients (79%) required admission to the hospital, seven of whom (25%) required admission to the ICU and mechanical ventilation.

Despite the presence of immunosuppressive therapy, all patients had significant elevation of inflammatory biomarkers (median peak high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], 11.83 mg/dL; IQR, 7.44-19.26; median peak interleukin [IL]-6, 105 pg/mL; IQR, 38-296).

Three-quarters had myocardial injury, with a median high-sensitivity troponin T of 0.055 (0.0205 - 0.1345) ng/mL.

Treatments of COVID-19 included hydroxychloroquine (18 patients; 78%), high-dose corticosteroids (eight patients; 47%), and IL-6 receptor antagonists (six patients; 26%).

Moreover, during hospitalization, mycophenolate mofetil was discontinued in most (70%) patients, and one-quarter had a reduction in their calcineurin inhibitor dose.

“Heart transplant recipients generally require more intense immunosuppressive therapy than most other solid organ transplant recipients, and this high baseline immunosuppression increases their propensity to develop infections and their likelihood of experiencing severe manifestations of infections,” Dr. Uriel commented.

“With COVID-19, in which the body’s inflammatory reaction appears to play a role in disease severity, there has been a question of whether immunosuppression may offer a protective effect,” he continued.

“This case series suggests that this is not the case, although this would need to be confirmed in larger studies,” he said.
 

Low threshold

Among the 22 patients who were admitted to the hospital, half were discharged home and four (18%) were still hospitalized at the end of the study.

Of the seven patients who died, two died at the study center, and five died in an outside institution.

“In the HT population, social distancing (or isolation), strict use of masks when in public, proper handwashing, and sanitization of surfaces are of paramount importance in the prevention of COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Uriel stated.

“In addition, we have restricted these patients’ contact with the hospital as much as possible during the pandemic,” he said.

However, “there should be a low threshold to hospitalize heart transplant patients who develop infection with COVID-19. Furthermore, in our series, outcomes were better for patients hospitalized at the transplant center; therefore, strong consideration should be given to transferring HT patients when hospitalized at another hospital,” he added.

The authors emphasized that COVID-19 patients “will require ongoing monitoring in the recovery phase, as an immunosuppression regimen is reintroduced and the consequences to the allograft itself become apparent.”
 

Vulnerable population

Commenting on the study, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, suggested that “in epidemiological terms, [the findings] might not look as bad as the way they are reflected in the paper.”

Given that Columbia is “one of the larger heart transplant centers in the U.S., following probably 1,000 patients, having only 22 out of perhaps thousands whom they transplanted or are actively following would actually represent a low serious infection rate,” said Dr. Mehra, who is also the executive director of the Center for Advanced Heart Disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.

“We must not forget to emphasize that, when assessing these case fatality rates, we must look at the entire population at risk, not only the handful that we were able to observe,” explained Dr. Mehra, who was not involved with the study.

Moreover, the patients were “older and had comorbidities, with poor underlying kidney function and other complications, and underlying coronary artery disease in the transplanted heart,” so “it would not surprise me that they had such a high fatality rate, since they had a high degree of vulnerability,” he said.

Dr. Mehra, who is also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, said that the journal has received manuscripts still in the review process that suggest different fatality rates than those found in the current case series.

However, he acknowledged that, because these are patients with serious vulnerability due to underlying heart disease, “you can’t be lackadaisical and need to do everything to decrease this vulnerability.”

The authors noted that, although their study did not show a protective effect from immunosuppression against COVID-19, further studies are needed to assess each individual immunosuppressive agent and provide a definitive answer.

The study was supported by a grant to one of the investigators from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Uriel reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the publication. Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 infection is associated with a high risk for mortality in heart transplant (HT) recipients, a new case series suggests.

Investigators looked at data on 28 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received a HT between March 1, 2020, and April 24, 2020 and found a case-fatality rate of 25%.

“The high case fatality in our case series should alert physicians to the vulnerability of heart transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” senior author Nir Uriel, MD, MSc, professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“These patients require extra precautions to prevent the development of infection,” said Dr. Uriel, who is also a cardiologist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center.

The study was published online May 13 in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Similar presentation

HT recipients can have several comorbidities after the procedure, including hypertension, diabetes, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and ongoing immunosuppression, all of which can place them at risk for infection and adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection, the authors wrote.

The researchers therefore embarked on a case series looking at 28 HT recipients with COVID-19 infection (median age, 64.0 years; interquartile range, 53.5-70.5; 79% male) to “describe the outcomes of recipients of HT who are chronically immunosuppressed and develop COVID-19 and raise important questions about the role of the immune system in the process.”

The median time from HT to study period was 8.6 (IQR, 4.2-14.5) years. Most patients had numerous comorbidities.

Medscape.com

No protective effect

Twenty-two patients (79%) required admission to the hospital, seven of whom (25%) required admission to the ICU and mechanical ventilation.

Despite the presence of immunosuppressive therapy, all patients had significant elevation of inflammatory biomarkers (median peak high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], 11.83 mg/dL; IQR, 7.44-19.26; median peak interleukin [IL]-6, 105 pg/mL; IQR, 38-296).

Three-quarters had myocardial injury, with a median high-sensitivity troponin T of 0.055 (0.0205 - 0.1345) ng/mL.

Treatments of COVID-19 included hydroxychloroquine (18 patients; 78%), high-dose corticosteroids (eight patients; 47%), and IL-6 receptor antagonists (six patients; 26%).

Moreover, during hospitalization, mycophenolate mofetil was discontinued in most (70%) patients, and one-quarter had a reduction in their calcineurin inhibitor dose.

“Heart transplant recipients generally require more intense immunosuppressive therapy than most other solid organ transplant recipients, and this high baseline immunosuppression increases their propensity to develop infections and their likelihood of experiencing severe manifestations of infections,” Dr. Uriel commented.

“With COVID-19, in which the body’s inflammatory reaction appears to play a role in disease severity, there has been a question of whether immunosuppression may offer a protective effect,” he continued.

“This case series suggests that this is not the case, although this would need to be confirmed in larger studies,” he said.
 

Low threshold

Among the 22 patients who were admitted to the hospital, half were discharged home and four (18%) were still hospitalized at the end of the study.

Of the seven patients who died, two died at the study center, and five died in an outside institution.

“In the HT population, social distancing (or isolation), strict use of masks when in public, proper handwashing, and sanitization of surfaces are of paramount importance in the prevention of COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Uriel stated.

“In addition, we have restricted these patients’ contact with the hospital as much as possible during the pandemic,” he said.

However, “there should be a low threshold to hospitalize heart transplant patients who develop infection with COVID-19. Furthermore, in our series, outcomes were better for patients hospitalized at the transplant center; therefore, strong consideration should be given to transferring HT patients when hospitalized at another hospital,” he added.

The authors emphasized that COVID-19 patients “will require ongoing monitoring in the recovery phase, as an immunosuppression regimen is reintroduced and the consequences to the allograft itself become apparent.”
 

Vulnerable population

Commenting on the study, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, suggested that “in epidemiological terms, [the findings] might not look as bad as the way they are reflected in the paper.”

Given that Columbia is “one of the larger heart transplant centers in the U.S., following probably 1,000 patients, having only 22 out of perhaps thousands whom they transplanted or are actively following would actually represent a low serious infection rate,” said Dr. Mehra, who is also the executive director of the Center for Advanced Heart Disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.

“We must not forget to emphasize that, when assessing these case fatality rates, we must look at the entire population at risk, not only the handful that we were able to observe,” explained Dr. Mehra, who was not involved with the study.

Moreover, the patients were “older and had comorbidities, with poor underlying kidney function and other complications, and underlying coronary artery disease in the transplanted heart,” so “it would not surprise me that they had such a high fatality rate, since they had a high degree of vulnerability,” he said.

Dr. Mehra, who is also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, said that the journal has received manuscripts still in the review process that suggest different fatality rates than those found in the current case series.

However, he acknowledged that, because these are patients with serious vulnerability due to underlying heart disease, “you can’t be lackadaisical and need to do everything to decrease this vulnerability.”

The authors noted that, although their study did not show a protective effect from immunosuppression against COVID-19, further studies are needed to assess each individual immunosuppressive agent and provide a definitive answer.

The study was supported by a grant to one of the investigators from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Uriel reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the publication. Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

During a 4-week period early in the COVID-19 pandemic, visits to U.S. emergency departments were down by 42%, compared with the corresponding period in 2019, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The striking decline in ED visits nationwide … suggests that the pandemic has altered the use of the ED by the public,” Kathleen P. Hartnett, PhD, and associates at the CDC said June 3 in the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report.

The weekly mean was just over 1.2 million ED visits for the 4 weeks from March 29 to April 25, 2020, compared with the nearly 2.2 million visits per week recorded from March 31 to April 27, 2019 – a drop of 42%, based on an analysis of data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Despite that drop, ED visits for infectious disease–related reasons, taken as a proportion of all 1.2 ED visits during the early pandemic period, were 3.8 times higher than the comparison period in 2019, the investigators reported.

ED visits also were higher in 2020 for specified and unspecified lower respiratory disease not including influenza, pneumonia, asthma, or bronchitis (prevalence ratio of 1.99, compared with 2019), cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (PR, 1.98), and pneumonia not caused by tuberculosis (PR, 1.91), Dr. Hartnett and associates said.

Prevalence ratios for the early pandemic period were down for most other conditions, with some of the largest decreases seen for influenza (PR, 0.16), otitis media (PR, 0.35), and neoplasm-related encounters (PR, 0.40), they said.

Visits have increased each week since reaching their lowest point during April 12-18, but the number for the most recent full week, May 24-30, which was not included in the analysis, was still 26% lower than the corresponding week in 2019, the CDC team pointed out.

“Some persons could be delaying care for conditions that might result in additional mortality if left untreated,” the investigators noted, and those “who use the ED as a safety net because they lack access to primary care and telemedicine might be disproportionately affected if they avoid seeking care because of concerns about the infection risk in the ED.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hartnett KP et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 3. 69:1-6.

During a 4-week period early in the COVID-19 pandemic, visits to U.S. emergency departments were down by 42%, compared with the corresponding period in 2019, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The striking decline in ED visits nationwide … suggests that the pandemic has altered the use of the ED by the public,” Kathleen P. Hartnett, PhD, and associates at the CDC said June 3 in the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report.

The weekly mean was just over 1.2 million ED visits for the 4 weeks from March 29 to April 25, 2020, compared with the nearly 2.2 million visits per week recorded from March 31 to April 27, 2019 – a drop of 42%, based on an analysis of data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Despite that drop, ED visits for infectious disease–related reasons, taken as a proportion of all 1.2 ED visits during the early pandemic period, were 3.8 times higher than the comparison period in 2019, the investigators reported.

ED visits also were higher in 2020 for specified and unspecified lower respiratory disease not including influenza, pneumonia, asthma, or bronchitis (prevalence ratio of 1.99, compared with 2019), cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (PR, 1.98), and pneumonia not caused by tuberculosis (PR, 1.91), Dr. Hartnett and associates said.

Prevalence ratios for the early pandemic period were down for most other conditions, with some of the largest decreases seen for influenza (PR, 0.16), otitis media (PR, 0.35), and neoplasm-related encounters (PR, 0.40), they said.

Visits have increased each week since reaching their lowest point during April 12-18, but the number for the most recent full week, May 24-30, which was not included in the analysis, was still 26% lower than the corresponding week in 2019, the CDC team pointed out.

“Some persons could be delaying care for conditions that might result in additional mortality if left untreated,” the investigators noted, and those “who use the ED as a safety net because they lack access to primary care and telemedicine might be disproportionately affected if they avoid seeking care because of concerns about the infection risk in the ED.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hartnett KP et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 3. 69:1-6.

During a 4-week period early in the COVID-19 pandemic, visits to U.S. emergency departments were down by 42%, compared with the corresponding period in 2019, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The striking decline in ED visits nationwide … suggests that the pandemic has altered the use of the ED by the public,” Kathleen P. Hartnett, PhD, and associates at the CDC said June 3 in the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report.

The weekly mean was just over 1.2 million ED visits for the 4 weeks from March 29 to April 25, 2020, compared with the nearly 2.2 million visits per week recorded from March 31 to April 27, 2019 – a drop of 42%, based on an analysis of data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Despite that drop, ED visits for infectious disease–related reasons, taken as a proportion of all 1.2 ED visits during the early pandemic period, were 3.8 times higher than the comparison period in 2019, the investigators reported.

ED visits also were higher in 2020 for specified and unspecified lower respiratory disease not including influenza, pneumonia, asthma, or bronchitis (prevalence ratio of 1.99, compared with 2019), cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (PR, 1.98), and pneumonia not caused by tuberculosis (PR, 1.91), Dr. Hartnett and associates said.

Prevalence ratios for the early pandemic period were down for most other conditions, with some of the largest decreases seen for influenza (PR, 0.16), otitis media (PR, 0.35), and neoplasm-related encounters (PR, 0.40), they said.

Visits have increased each week since reaching their lowest point during April 12-18, but the number for the most recent full week, May 24-30, which was not included in the analysis, was still 26% lower than the corresponding week in 2019, the CDC team pointed out.

“Some persons could be delaying care for conditions that might result in additional mortality if left untreated,” the investigators noted, and those “who use the ED as a safety net because they lack access to primary care and telemedicine might be disproportionately affected if they avoid seeking care because of concerns about the infection risk in the ED.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hartnett KP et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 3. 69:1-6.

Background: Although multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown that routine preoperative testing prior to cataract surgery has low yield, most Medicare beneficiaries continue to undergo this testing. The American Board of Internal Medicine started the Choosing Wisely campaign to help educate patients and providers about a crisis of unnecessary testing and procedures. This prompted multiple centers to create quality improvement (QI) projects to decrease low-value care.

_

Preoperative visits decreased from 93% to 24% in the intervention group and increased from 89% to 91% in the control group (between-group difference, −71%; 95% confidence interval, –80% to –62%). Chest x-rays, laboratory tests, and electrocardiograms also had a similar decrease in the intervention group.

The intervention hospital lost $42,241 the first year because of training costs but 3-year projections estimated $67,241 in savings. The authors estimated $217,322 savings in 3 years from a societal perspective. Interestingly, the decrease in utilization would lead to financial loss in fee-for-service payment ($88,151 loss in 3 years).

No causal relationship can be established since this was an observational study. Several assumptions were made for the cost analysis. Results are less generalizable since the study was at hospitals in a single city and health system. It is unclear which component of the QI initiative was most effective.

Bottom line: A multidisciplinary, multicomponent initiative can be successful in decreasing low-value preoperative testing of patients undergoing cataract surgery. Although this results in cost savings overall and for capitated payment systems, it would actually cause revenue loss in fee-for-service systems. This emphasizes a potential barrier to eradicate low-value care.

Citation: Mafi JN et al. Evaluation of an intervention to reduce low-value preoperative care for patients undergoing cataract surgery at a safety-net health system. JAMA Intern Med. Published online 2019 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8358.

Dr. Menon is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

Background: Although multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown that routine preoperative testing prior to cataract surgery has low yield, most Medicare beneficiaries continue to undergo this testing. The American Board of Internal Medicine started the Choosing Wisely campaign to help educate patients and providers about a crisis of unnecessary testing and procedures. This prompted multiple centers to create quality improvement (QI) projects to decrease low-value care.

_

Preoperative visits decreased from 93% to 24% in the intervention group and increased from 89% to 91% in the control group (between-group difference, −71%; 95% confidence interval, –80% to –62%). Chest x-rays, laboratory tests, and electrocardiograms also had a similar decrease in the intervention group.

The intervention hospital lost $42,241 the first year because of training costs but 3-year projections estimated $67,241 in savings. The authors estimated $217,322 savings in 3 years from a societal perspective. Interestingly, the decrease in utilization would lead to financial loss in fee-for-service payment ($88,151 loss in 3 years).

No causal relationship can be established since this was an observational study. Several assumptions were made for the cost analysis. Results are less generalizable since the study was at hospitals in a single city and health system. It is unclear which component of the QI initiative was most effective.

Bottom line: A multidisciplinary, multicomponent initiative can be successful in decreasing low-value preoperative testing of patients undergoing cataract surgery. Although this results in cost savings overall and for capitated payment systems, it would actually cause revenue loss in fee-for-service systems. This emphasizes a potential barrier to eradicate low-value care.

Citation: Mafi JN et al. Evaluation of an intervention to reduce low-value preoperative care for patients undergoing cataract surgery at a safety-net health system. JAMA Intern Med. Published online 2019 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8358.

Dr. Menon is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

Background: Although multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown that routine preoperative testing prior to cataract surgery has low yield, most Medicare beneficiaries continue to undergo this testing. The American Board of Internal Medicine started the Choosing Wisely campaign to help educate patients and providers about a crisis of unnecessary testing and procedures. This prompted multiple centers to create quality improvement (QI) projects to decrease low-value care.

_

Preoperative visits decreased from 93% to 24% in the intervention group and increased from 89% to 91% in the control group (between-group difference, −71%; 95% confidence interval, –80% to –62%). Chest x-rays, laboratory tests, and electrocardiograms also had a similar decrease in the intervention group.

The intervention hospital lost $42,241 the first year because of training costs but 3-year projections estimated $67,241 in savings. The authors estimated $217,322 savings in 3 years from a societal perspective. Interestingly, the decrease in utilization would lead to financial loss in fee-for-service payment ($88,151 loss in 3 years).

No causal relationship can be established since this was an observational study. Several assumptions were made for the cost analysis. Results are less generalizable since the study was at hospitals in a single city and health system. It is unclear which component of the QI initiative was most effective.

Bottom line: A multidisciplinary, multicomponent initiative can be successful in decreasing low-value preoperative testing of patients undergoing cataract surgery. Although this results in cost savings overall and for capitated payment systems, it would actually cause revenue loss in fee-for-service systems. This emphasizes a potential barrier to eradicate low-value care.

Citation: Mafi JN et al. Evaluation of an intervention to reduce low-value preoperative care for patients undergoing cataract surgery at a safety-net health system. JAMA Intern Med. Published online 2019 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8358.

Dr. Menon is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

Background: Midline catheters have gained popularity in inpatient medical settings as a convenient alternative to PICC lines. This is primarily because of the ability to avoid central line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) since these catheters terminate in the peripheral veins and cannot be reported as such. Additionally, they are potentially able to dwell longer than are traditional peripheral intravenous catheters. However, insufficient data exist to accurately describe the rate of complications in these catheters, as prior studies are based on single-center experiences.

The article does not provide guidance on when and how midline catheters should be used in order to minimize risk; nor does it include a comparison with traditional peripheral intravenous catheters or with PICC lines. Further studies are needed to guide indications and practices for catheter placement in order to minimize risk. Providers should continue to carefully consider the risks and benefits of midline catheter placement in individual cases.

Bottom line: Midline catheter placement more commonly leads to minor rather than major complications, though patterns of use and outcomes vary substantially across sites.

Citation: Chopra V et al. Variation in use and outcomes related to midline catheters: results from a multicentre pilot study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008554.

Dr. Marcantonio is a Med-Peds hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

Background: Midline catheters have gained popularity in inpatient medical settings as a convenient alternative to PICC lines. This is primarily because of the ability to avoid central line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) since these catheters terminate in the peripheral veins and cannot be reported as such. Additionally, they are potentially able to dwell longer than are traditional peripheral intravenous catheters. However, insufficient data exist to accurately describe the rate of complications in these catheters, as prior studies are based on single-center experiences.

The article does not provide guidance on when and how midline catheters should be used in order to minimize risk; nor does it include a comparison with traditional peripheral intravenous catheters or with PICC lines. Further studies are needed to guide indications and practices for catheter placement in order to minimize risk. Providers should continue to carefully consider the risks and benefits of midline catheter placement in individual cases.

Bottom line: Midline catheter placement more commonly leads to minor rather than major complications, though patterns of use and outcomes vary substantially across sites.

Citation: Chopra V et al. Variation in use and outcomes related to midline catheters: results from a multicentre pilot study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008554.

Dr. Marcantonio is a Med-Peds hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

Background: Midline catheters have gained popularity in inpatient medical settings as a convenient alternative to PICC lines. This is primarily because of the ability to avoid central line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) since these catheters terminate in the peripheral veins and cannot be reported as such. Additionally, they are potentially able to dwell longer than are traditional peripheral intravenous catheters. However, insufficient data exist to accurately describe the rate of complications in these catheters, as prior studies are based on single-center experiences.

The article does not provide guidance on when and how midline catheters should be used in order to minimize risk; nor does it include a comparison with traditional peripheral intravenous catheters or with PICC lines. Further studies are needed to guide indications and practices for catheter placement in order to minimize risk. Providers should continue to carefully consider the risks and benefits of midline catheter placement in individual cases.

Bottom line: Midline catheter placement more commonly leads to minor rather than major complications, though patterns of use and outcomes vary substantially across sites.

Citation: Chopra V et al. Variation in use and outcomes related to midline catheters: results from a multicentre pilot study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008554.

Dr. Marcantonio is a Med-Peds hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

The confluence of isolation, excess available time, and anxiety about illness or finances as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic have the potential to increase problem gambling behaviors during this public health emergency, so it’s essential to gather data and supply guidance on this issue, according to a call to action published May 18 in the Journal of Addiction Medicine.

humonia/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“When facing an unforeseen situation with confinement, fear of disease, and financial uncertainty for the future, problem gambling may be an important health hazard to monitor and prevent during and following the COVID-19 crisis, especially given current online gambling availability,” wrote Anders Håkansson, PhD, of Lund University in Sweden and coauthors.

Both stress and trauma have been linked to gambling problems, and both are occurring during the pandemic, said coauthor Marc N. Potenza, MD, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an interview.

“People are likely to be experiencing stress at levels they haven’t experienced previously,” Dr. Potenza said. While multiple factors can contribute to addictive behaviors, “with respect to the pandemic, one concern is that so-called negative reinforcement motivations – engaging in an addictive behavior to escape from depressed or negative mood states – may be a driving motivation for a significant number of people during this time,” he said.

David Hodgins, PhD, CPsych, a professor of psychology at the University of Calgary in Alberta, who was not involved with the commentary, noted that gambling relapse is triggered by “negative emotional states, interpersonal stress, and financial stress” – all three of which the pandemic contributes to.

Financial stress can especially “inflame erroneous gambling-related cognitions,” he said in an interview, including “beliefs such as the idea that gambling can solve financial problems, even when this is statistically almost impossible as debt increases, and that debt has been caused by gambling.”

Increased social isolation also is particularly problematic, pointed out Shane W. Kraus, PhD, from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Dr. Kraus also was not involved with the paper.

“If someone is already struggling with already negative emotions, negative feelings, thoughts, and depression, and you’re now isolating them quite a bit, that’s not going to be a recipe for success,” Dr. Kraus said in an interview.

The mental health effects of the pandemic could be extensive and long-lasting, and such effects often co-occur with addictive behaviors, Dr. Potenza said.

“We should be mindful of ways in which people develop addictions in these settings,” he said. “One of the aspects of the pandemic is that many people are at home for longer periods of time, and they use digital technologies more frequently.”

The use of digital technologies can include interaction on social media platforms and on meeting applications such as Zoom, but such use also offers opportunities for problematic gambling, gaming, and pornography use. The World Health Organization recognizes addiction disorders for gambling and for gaming, and online gaming platforms and pornography sites have reported substantial increases in their traffic during the pandemic, Dr. Potenza said.

The increase in frequency is unsurprising and not necessarily a concern by itself, Dr. Kraus said.

“It’s all about loss of control or difficulty engaging or disengaging,” Dr. Kraus said. “When you can’t stop doing something even if you like it or love it, when it interferes with your day-to-day activities and relationships, that’s when it’s a problem.”
 

Gambling online: Easy, available

The authors note that past research has identified increased gambling problems during economic crises in other countries.

“While currently speculative, financial hardships may promote gambling as individuals may be motivated to gamble to try to win money,” the authors suggested. “Although presently limited, existing data suggest that COVID-19–related financial concerns may increase gambling-related harms, and this possibility merits systematic research.”

But trends and characteristics of the gambling market, including direct effects from the pandemic, can potentially influence behaviors, too. Most casinos have closed during the pandemic, and most of the sports that people bet on have been canceled or postponed.

“Fewer people are gambling on sports, but they turn then to other areas,” Dr. Potenza said. “If they can’t bet on major league type sports, they might gamble on more local sporting events, or they may bet on other activities going on in society during the pandemic.”

But online gambling poses greater risk.

“Properties of online gambling may constitute a particular health hazard when many people are confined to their homes and have had rapid changes in working conditions, psychosocial stress, anxiety, and depression, as has been described in China,” the paper’s authors wrote. “Online gambling may be particularly concerning due to its availability and velocity” and association with higher debt levels.

In addition to online gaming’s ease and availability, past research has found patients report boredom and escapism as reasons they turned to it.

Again, boredom on its own is not necessarily a problem, but for those who already struggle with addictive behaviors, it can be a trigger, Dr. Kraus said.

“Boredom is very tough for them because it’s often associated with negative emotions,” such as dwelling on things not going well in their lives, he said. “In a pandemic, people are by themselves quite a bit, socially isolated, so for those who are struggling already with some depression or anxiety, it’s only going to be increased.”

Online gaming trends may vary with demographics, however. Dr. Kraus noted that his former clinic at the Veterans Administration has been seeing lower gambling in patients with addictive disorders, but those patients are also older and primarily frequented casinos.

“It’s going to depend on age and familiarity with technology,” he said, but even if older problem gamblers are not going to the Internet now, “let’s wait and see what happens in the next 2 or 3 months.”

The authors noted results from a small survey of patients in treatment for gambling addiction at the Bellvitge University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, where two of the coauthors work. They conducted telephone surveys with 26 patients about the first 4 weeks of sheltering in place because of the coronavirus. All but four of the patients were male, and their average age was 45 years.

“Most presented worries about increased uncertainties, such as the negative impact on their work, risk of COVID-19 infection of themselves or their loved ones and their treatment,” the authors reported.

Although 19% were completely abstinent, an additional 12% (n = 3) reported worsened gambling. In addition, almost half (46%) reported anxiety symptoms and more than a quarter (27%) had depressive symptoms.
 

Appropriate care

A particularly complicating factor of the pandemic is how it has disrupted traditional ways of seeking health care, particularly with how much mental health and other medical care has shifted to telehealth and online delivery, Dr. Potenza pointed out.

“This is a change for many people, and it’s important for both caretakers and people in treatment to be mindful of this and to try to ensure that appropriate services are maintained for people during this time,” he said.

For example, 12-step programs traditionally meet in person, which is largely impossible during the pandemic. Some have moved meetings online, and other programs have turned to apps, such as the Addiction Policy Forum’s app Connections, an empirically validated digital therapy platform that lets patients and clinicians remain connected with remote check-ins.

The move to more telehealth may actually increase access, suggested Dr. Hodgins.

“There is no evidence that this is less effective, and in fact, its convenience might be an advantage in reaching more people,” he said. “More challenging is offering group therapies remotely, but this is also feasible.”

The treatment with the strongest evidence remains cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), Dr. Hodgins said.

“This therapy, in part, helps people become aware of their erroneous cognitions and to challenge them, but also helps people restructure their activities to change their habits,” he said. He also noted the rise of online therapy, whether supported by a therapist or entirely self-directed, such as Gambling Self-help.

“These programs typically provide cognitive behavior content but also content that comes from studying how people recover from gambling problems,” he said. “The challenge of completely self-directed approaches is follow-through. Like most online content, people tend to flit around more than they might in therapy.” Still, he added, research has shown good outcomes from these programs.

Dr. Potenza also noted that several organizations, including the International Society of Addiction Medicine and Children and Screens, have been hosting webinars related to COVID-19 coping and/or addiction that clinicians and patients might find helpful.
 

Identification of problematic behaviors

One challenge in watching for problematic gambling behaviors during the pandemic is the set of unusual living circumstances for most people right now. At almost no other time in history have people been primarily confined to their homes, many unable to go to work or working from home, with extra leisure time and nowhere to go.

“With the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of daily life has changed,” Dr. Potenza said. “It’s unclear whether certain behaviors that have become habitual during the pandemic, such as gaming or online gambling, will then interfere with daily life when the pandemic subsides.”

“The problem is, a small proportion of people who are very vulnerable will develop a disorder and might maintain it,” Dr. Kraus said. Those who already struggle with mental health and may be out of work have greater potential for problematic behaviors.

Dr. Potenza collaborated with other psychiatrists in drafting consensus guidelines on maintaining healthy use of the Internet specifically during the pandemic (Compr Psychiatry. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.10161/comppsych.2020.152180).

“It’s important to think about where one draws the line between normative everyday behaviors – behaviors that are not interfering with life functioning – and those that do interfere with life functioning,” Dr. Potenza said. “If someone is having difficulty making work or family or school obligations, these are important signs that the behavior may be problematic.”

He offered suggestions for things people can do to promote their health during the pandemic, such as having regular routines that include getting physical exercise and social interaction, dining with family if isolating together, and making time for self-care. He also recommended setting limits on the use of digital devices and aiming for a healthy balance in keeping up with the news. The idea is to stay aware of what’s happening without getting burned out or traumatized by news coverage.

Guidance for clinicians

An urgent need for research and guidelines related to gambling and the pandemic exists, the authors argued.

In the meantime, aside from various validated screeners available, Dr. Kraus offered some practical advice for clinicians checking in with their patients: “Ask your patients what they have been doing to cope with this difficult time.”

Some might mention their faith, family, or friends, and others might not have an answer or mention drinking, gaming, or engaging in other activities. “We all do things to cope. Sometimes you use healthy coping and sometimes you use unhealthy coping,” Dr. Kraus said. “I would have a dialogue with my patients around, ‘How are you getting through? What’s helping you? What are some things you’ve tried that are tripping you up?’ ”

If gambling in particular is a possible concern, he encouraged clinicians to ask their patients whether they have tried to quit or what would happen if they stopped gambling.

“What we’d expect is the problem gamblers will have more irritability, crankiness, difficulty with quitting,” he said.

Dr. Hodgins agreed that checking in on how patients’ lives and activities have changed, and their emotion reactions to those changes, is prudent.

“The change in activities might be healthy or might include increased addictive behaviors, including increased use of substances, gaming, pornography, food, and gambling,” he said.

In addition, the paper authors list several examples of guidelines that might be considered in drafting guidance for clinicians, including the following:

• Limiting the extent of gambling
• Not gambling to regulate negative emotions
• Not gambling in order to try to solve financial problems or financial concerns
• Not gambling under the influence of alcohol or drugs
• Carefully monitoring gambling-related time and financial expenditures
• Maintaining and establishing daily routines involving activities other than gambling
• Minding gambling-related attitudes and behaviors in the presence of minors
• Not starting to gamble because of stressors

The research did not receive external funding. Dr. Håkansson has received research funding from the Swedish Sport Foundation, the Swedish alcohol monopoly Systembolaget, and the Swedish state-owned gambling operator AB Svenska Spel. He is working with the company Kontigo Care on devices for gambling addiction follow-up care. Dr. Potenza has received consulting or advisory compensation from several entities, including the Addiction Policy Forum, AXA Gaming, Idorsia, Opiant, and RiverMend Health. Dr. Potenza has received research funding from Mohegan Sun casino and the National Center for Responsible Gaming. No other authors or outside sources had industry-related disclosures.

SOURCE: Håkansson A et al. J Addict Med. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000690.

The confluence of isolation, excess available time, and anxiety about illness or finances as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic have the potential to increase problem gambling behaviors during this public health emergency, so it’s essential to gather data and supply guidance on this issue, according to a call to action published May 18 in the Journal of Addiction Medicine.

humonia/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“When facing an unforeseen situation with confinement, fear of disease, and financial uncertainty for the future, problem gambling may be an important health hazard to monitor and prevent during and following the COVID-19 crisis, especially given current online gambling availability,” wrote Anders Håkansson, PhD, of Lund University in Sweden and coauthors.

Both stress and trauma have been linked to gambling problems, and both are occurring during the pandemic, said coauthor Marc N. Potenza, MD, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an interview.

“People are likely to be experiencing stress at levels they haven’t experienced previously,” Dr. Potenza said. While multiple factors can contribute to addictive behaviors, “with respect to the pandemic, one concern is that so-called negative reinforcement motivations – engaging in an addictive behavior to escape from depressed or negative mood states – may be a driving motivation for a significant number of people during this time,” he said.

David Hodgins, PhD, CPsych, a professor of psychology at the University of Calgary in Alberta, who was not involved with the commentary, noted that gambling relapse is triggered by “negative emotional states, interpersonal stress, and financial stress” – all three of which the pandemic contributes to.

Financial stress can especially “inflame erroneous gambling-related cognitions,” he said in an interview, including “beliefs such as the idea that gambling can solve financial problems, even when this is statistically almost impossible as debt increases, and that debt has been caused by gambling.”

Increased social isolation also is particularly problematic, pointed out Shane W. Kraus, PhD, from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Dr. Kraus also was not involved with the paper.

“If someone is already struggling with already negative emotions, negative feelings, thoughts, and depression, and you’re now isolating them quite a bit, that’s not going to be a recipe for success,” Dr. Kraus said in an interview.

The mental health effects of the pandemic could be extensive and long-lasting, and such effects often co-occur with addictive behaviors, Dr. Potenza said.

“We should be mindful of ways in which people develop addictions in these settings,” he said. “One of the aspects of the pandemic is that many people are at home for longer periods of time, and they use digital technologies more frequently.”

The use of digital technologies can include interaction on social media platforms and on meeting applications such as Zoom, but such use also offers opportunities for problematic gambling, gaming, and pornography use. The World Health Organization recognizes addiction disorders for gambling and for gaming, and online gaming platforms and pornography sites have reported substantial increases in their traffic during the pandemic, Dr. Potenza said.

The increase in frequency is unsurprising and not necessarily a concern by itself, Dr. Kraus said.

“It’s all about loss of control or difficulty engaging or disengaging,” Dr. Kraus said. “When you can’t stop doing something even if you like it or love it, when it interferes with your day-to-day activities and relationships, that’s when it’s a problem.”
 

Gambling online: Easy, available

The authors note that past research has identified increased gambling problems during economic crises in other countries.

“While currently speculative, financial hardships may promote gambling as individuals may be motivated to gamble to try to win money,” the authors suggested. “Although presently limited, existing data suggest that COVID-19–related financial concerns may increase gambling-related harms, and this possibility merits systematic research.”

But trends and characteristics of the gambling market, including direct effects from the pandemic, can potentially influence behaviors, too. Most casinos have closed during the pandemic, and most of the sports that people bet on have been canceled or postponed.

“Fewer people are gambling on sports, but they turn then to other areas,” Dr. Potenza said. “If they can’t bet on major league type sports, they might gamble on more local sporting events, or they may bet on other activities going on in society during the pandemic.”

But online gambling poses greater risk.

“Properties of online gambling may constitute a particular health hazard when many people are confined to their homes and have had rapid changes in working conditions, psychosocial stress, anxiety, and depression, as has been described in China,” the paper’s authors wrote. “Online gambling may be particularly concerning due to its availability and velocity” and association with higher debt levels.

In addition to online gaming’s ease and availability, past research has found patients report boredom and escapism as reasons they turned to it.

Again, boredom on its own is not necessarily a problem, but for those who already struggle with addictive behaviors, it can be a trigger, Dr. Kraus said.

“Boredom is very tough for them because it’s often associated with negative emotions,” such as dwelling on things not going well in their lives, he said. “In a pandemic, people are by themselves quite a bit, socially isolated, so for those who are struggling already with some depression or anxiety, it’s only going to be increased.”

Online gaming trends may vary with demographics, however. Dr. Kraus noted that his former clinic at the Veterans Administration has been seeing lower gambling in patients with addictive disorders, but those patients are also older and primarily frequented casinos.

“It’s going to depend on age and familiarity with technology,” he said, but even if older problem gamblers are not going to the Internet now, “let’s wait and see what happens in the next 2 or 3 months.”

The authors noted results from a small survey of patients in treatment for gambling addiction at the Bellvitge University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, where two of the coauthors work. They conducted telephone surveys with 26 patients about the first 4 weeks of sheltering in place because of the coronavirus. All but four of the patients were male, and their average age was 45 years.

“Most presented worries about increased uncertainties, such as the negative impact on their work, risk of COVID-19 infection of themselves or their loved ones and their treatment,” the authors reported.

Although 19% were completely abstinent, an additional 12% (n = 3) reported worsened gambling. In addition, almost half (46%) reported anxiety symptoms and more than a quarter (27%) had depressive symptoms.
 

Appropriate care

A particularly complicating factor of the pandemic is how it has disrupted traditional ways of seeking health care, particularly with how much mental health and other medical care has shifted to telehealth and online delivery, Dr. Potenza pointed out.

“This is a change for many people, and it’s important for both caretakers and people in treatment to be mindful of this and to try to ensure that appropriate services are maintained for people during this time,” he said.

For example, 12-step programs traditionally meet in person, which is largely impossible during the pandemic. Some have moved meetings online, and other programs have turned to apps, such as the Addiction Policy Forum’s app Connections, an empirically validated digital therapy platform that lets patients and clinicians remain connected with remote check-ins.

The move to more telehealth may actually increase access, suggested Dr. Hodgins.

“There is no evidence that this is less effective, and in fact, its convenience might be an advantage in reaching more people,” he said. “More challenging is offering group therapies remotely, but this is also feasible.”

The treatment with the strongest evidence remains cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), Dr. Hodgins said.

“This therapy, in part, helps people become aware of their erroneous cognitions and to challenge them, but also helps people restructure their activities to change their habits,” he said. He also noted the rise of online therapy, whether supported by a therapist or entirely self-directed, such as Gambling Self-help.

“These programs typically provide cognitive behavior content but also content that comes from studying how people recover from gambling problems,” he said. “The challenge of completely self-directed approaches is follow-through. Like most online content, people tend to flit around more than they might in therapy.” Still, he added, research has shown good outcomes from these programs.

Dr. Potenza also noted that several organizations, including the International Society of Addiction Medicine and Children and Screens, have been hosting webinars related to COVID-19 coping and/or addiction that clinicians and patients might find helpful.
 

Identification of problematic behaviors

One challenge in watching for problematic gambling behaviors during the pandemic is the set of unusual living circumstances for most people right now. At almost no other time in history have people been primarily confined to their homes, many unable to go to work or working from home, with extra leisure time and nowhere to go.

“With the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of daily life has changed,” Dr. Potenza said. “It’s unclear whether certain behaviors that have become habitual during the pandemic, such as gaming or online gambling, will then interfere with daily life when the pandemic subsides.”

“The problem is, a small proportion of people who are very vulnerable will develop a disorder and might maintain it,” Dr. Kraus said. Those who already struggle with mental health and may be out of work have greater potential for problematic behaviors.

Dr. Potenza collaborated with other psychiatrists in drafting consensus guidelines on maintaining healthy use of the Internet specifically during the pandemic (Compr Psychiatry. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.10161/comppsych.2020.152180).

“It’s important to think about where one draws the line between normative everyday behaviors – behaviors that are not interfering with life functioning – and those that do interfere with life functioning,” Dr. Potenza said. “If someone is having difficulty making work or family or school obligations, these are important signs that the behavior may be problematic.”

He offered suggestions for things people can do to promote their health during the pandemic, such as having regular routines that include getting physical exercise and social interaction, dining with family if isolating together, and making time for self-care. He also recommended setting limits on the use of digital devices and aiming for a healthy balance in keeping up with the news. The idea is to stay aware of what’s happening without getting burned out or traumatized by news coverage.

Guidance for clinicians

An urgent need for research and guidelines related to gambling and the pandemic exists, the authors argued.

In the meantime, aside from various validated screeners available, Dr. Kraus offered some practical advice for clinicians checking in with their patients: “Ask your patients what they have been doing to cope with this difficult time.”

Some might mention their faith, family, or friends, and others might not have an answer or mention drinking, gaming, or engaging in other activities. “We all do things to cope. Sometimes you use healthy coping and sometimes you use unhealthy coping,” Dr. Kraus said. “I would have a dialogue with my patients around, ‘How are you getting through? What’s helping you? What are some things you’ve tried that are tripping you up?’ ”

If gambling in particular is a possible concern, he encouraged clinicians to ask their patients whether they have tried to quit or what would happen if they stopped gambling.

“What we’d expect is the problem gamblers will have more irritability, crankiness, difficulty with quitting,” he said.

Dr. Hodgins agreed that checking in on how patients’ lives and activities have changed, and their emotion reactions to those changes, is prudent.

“The change in activities might be healthy or might include increased addictive behaviors, including increased use of substances, gaming, pornography, food, and gambling,” he said.

In addition, the paper authors list several examples of guidelines that might be considered in drafting guidance for clinicians, including the following:

• Limiting the extent of gambling
• Not gambling to regulate negative emotions
• Not gambling in order to try to solve financial problems or financial concerns
• Not gambling under the influence of alcohol or drugs
• Carefully monitoring gambling-related time and financial expenditures
• Maintaining and establishing daily routines involving activities other than gambling
• Minding gambling-related attitudes and behaviors in the presence of minors
• Not starting to gamble because of stressors

The research did not receive external funding. Dr. Håkansson has received research funding from the Swedish Sport Foundation, the Swedish alcohol monopoly Systembolaget, and the Swedish state-owned gambling operator AB Svenska Spel. He is working with the company Kontigo Care on devices for gambling addiction follow-up care. Dr. Potenza has received consulting or advisory compensation from several entities, including the Addiction Policy Forum, AXA Gaming, Idorsia, Opiant, and RiverMend Health. Dr. Potenza has received research funding from Mohegan Sun casino and the National Center for Responsible Gaming. No other authors or outside sources had industry-related disclosures.

SOURCE: Håkansson A et al. J Addict Med. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000690.

The confluence of isolation, excess available time, and anxiety about illness or finances as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic have the potential to increase problem gambling behaviors during this public health emergency, so it’s essential to gather data and supply guidance on this issue, according to a call to action published May 18 in the Journal of Addiction Medicine.

humonia/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“When facing an unforeseen situation with confinement, fear of disease, and financial uncertainty for the future, problem gambling may be an important health hazard to monitor and prevent during and following the COVID-19 crisis, especially given current online gambling availability,” wrote Anders Håkansson, PhD, of Lund University in Sweden and coauthors.

Both stress and trauma have been linked to gambling problems, and both are occurring during the pandemic, said coauthor Marc N. Potenza, MD, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an interview.

“People are likely to be experiencing stress at levels they haven’t experienced previously,” Dr. Potenza said. While multiple factors can contribute to addictive behaviors, “with respect to the pandemic, one concern is that so-called negative reinforcement motivations – engaging in an addictive behavior to escape from depressed or negative mood states – may be a driving motivation for a significant number of people during this time,” he said.

David Hodgins, PhD, CPsych, a professor of psychology at the University of Calgary in Alberta, who was not involved with the commentary, noted that gambling relapse is triggered by “negative emotional states, interpersonal stress, and financial stress” – all three of which the pandemic contributes to.

Financial stress can especially “inflame erroneous gambling-related cognitions,” he said in an interview, including “beliefs such as the idea that gambling can solve financial problems, even when this is statistically almost impossible as debt increases, and that debt has been caused by gambling.”

Increased social isolation also is particularly problematic, pointed out Shane W. Kraus, PhD, from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Dr. Kraus also was not involved with the paper.

“If someone is already struggling with already negative emotions, negative feelings, thoughts, and depression, and you’re now isolating them quite a bit, that’s not going to be a recipe for success,” Dr. Kraus said in an interview.

The mental health effects of the pandemic could be extensive and long-lasting, and such effects often co-occur with addictive behaviors, Dr. Potenza said.

“We should be mindful of ways in which people develop addictions in these settings,” he said. “One of the aspects of the pandemic is that many people are at home for longer periods of time, and they use digital technologies more frequently.”

The use of digital technologies can include interaction on social media platforms and on meeting applications such as Zoom, but such use also offers opportunities for problematic gambling, gaming, and pornography use. The World Health Organization recognizes addiction disorders for gambling and for gaming, and online gaming platforms and pornography sites have reported substantial increases in their traffic during the pandemic, Dr. Potenza said.

The increase in frequency is unsurprising and not necessarily a concern by itself, Dr. Kraus said.

“It’s all about loss of control or difficulty engaging or disengaging,” Dr. Kraus said. “When you can’t stop doing something even if you like it or love it, when it interferes with your day-to-day activities and relationships, that’s when it’s a problem.”
 

Gambling online: Easy, available

The authors note that past research has identified increased gambling problems during economic crises in other countries.

“While currently speculative, financial hardships may promote gambling as individuals may be motivated to gamble to try to win money,” the authors suggested. “Although presently limited, existing data suggest that COVID-19–related financial concerns may increase gambling-related harms, and this possibility merits systematic research.”

But trends and characteristics of the gambling market, including direct effects from the pandemic, can potentially influence behaviors, too. Most casinos have closed during the pandemic, and most of the sports that people bet on have been canceled or postponed.

“Fewer people are gambling on sports, but they turn then to other areas,” Dr. Potenza said. “If they can’t bet on major league type sports, they might gamble on more local sporting events, or they may bet on other activities going on in society during the pandemic.”

But online gambling poses greater risk.

“Properties of online gambling may constitute a particular health hazard when many people are confined to their homes and have had rapid changes in working conditions, psychosocial stress, anxiety, and depression, as has been described in China,” the paper’s authors wrote. “Online gambling may be particularly concerning due to its availability and velocity” and association with higher debt levels.

In addition to online gaming’s ease and availability, past research has found patients report boredom and escapism as reasons they turned to it.

Again, boredom on its own is not necessarily a problem, but for those who already struggle with addictive behaviors, it can be a trigger, Dr. Kraus said.

“Boredom is very tough for them because it’s often associated with negative emotions,” such as dwelling on things not going well in their lives, he said. “In a pandemic, people are by themselves quite a bit, socially isolated, so for those who are struggling already with some depression or anxiety, it’s only going to be increased.”

Online gaming trends may vary with demographics, however. Dr. Kraus noted that his former clinic at the Veterans Administration has been seeing lower gambling in patients with addictive disorders, but those patients are also older and primarily frequented casinos.

“It’s going to depend on age and familiarity with technology,” he said, but even if older problem gamblers are not going to the Internet now, “let’s wait and see what happens in the next 2 or 3 months.”

The authors noted results from a small survey of patients in treatment for gambling addiction at the Bellvitge University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, where two of the coauthors work. They conducted telephone surveys with 26 patients about the first 4 weeks of sheltering in place because of the coronavirus. All but four of the patients were male, and their average age was 45 years.

“Most presented worries about increased uncertainties, such as the negative impact on their work, risk of COVID-19 infection of themselves or their loved ones and their treatment,” the authors reported.

Although 19% were completely abstinent, an additional 12% (n = 3) reported worsened gambling. In addition, almost half (46%) reported anxiety symptoms and more than a quarter (27%) had depressive symptoms.
 

Appropriate care

A particularly complicating factor of the pandemic is how it has disrupted traditional ways of seeking health care, particularly with how much mental health and other medical care has shifted to telehealth and online delivery, Dr. Potenza pointed out.

“This is a change for many people, and it’s important for both caretakers and people in treatment to be mindful of this and to try to ensure that appropriate services are maintained for people during this time,” he said.

For example, 12-step programs traditionally meet in person, which is largely impossible during the pandemic. Some have moved meetings online, and other programs have turned to apps, such as the Addiction Policy Forum’s app Connections, an empirically validated digital therapy platform that lets patients and clinicians remain connected with remote check-ins.

The move to more telehealth may actually increase access, suggested Dr. Hodgins.

“There is no evidence that this is less effective, and in fact, its convenience might be an advantage in reaching more people,” he said. “More challenging is offering group therapies remotely, but this is also feasible.”

The treatment with the strongest evidence remains cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), Dr. Hodgins said.

“This therapy, in part, helps people become aware of their erroneous cognitions and to challenge them, but also helps people restructure their activities to change their habits,” he said. He also noted the rise of online therapy, whether supported by a therapist or entirely self-directed, such as Gambling Self-help.

“These programs typically provide cognitive behavior content but also content that comes from studying how people recover from gambling problems,” he said. “The challenge of completely self-directed approaches is follow-through. Like most online content, people tend to flit around more than they might in therapy.” Still, he added, research has shown good outcomes from these programs.

Dr. Potenza also noted that several organizations, including the International Society of Addiction Medicine and Children and Screens, have been hosting webinars related to COVID-19 coping and/or addiction that clinicians and patients might find helpful.
 

Identification of problematic behaviors

One challenge in watching for problematic gambling behaviors during the pandemic is the set of unusual living circumstances for most people right now. At almost no other time in history have people been primarily confined to their homes, many unable to go to work or working from home, with extra leisure time and nowhere to go.

“With the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of daily life has changed,” Dr. Potenza said. “It’s unclear whether certain behaviors that have become habitual during the pandemic, such as gaming or online gambling, will then interfere with daily life when the pandemic subsides.”

“The problem is, a small proportion of people who are very vulnerable will develop a disorder and might maintain it,” Dr. Kraus said. Those who already struggle with mental health and may be out of work have greater potential for problematic behaviors.

Dr. Potenza collaborated with other psychiatrists in drafting consensus guidelines on maintaining healthy use of the Internet specifically during the pandemic (Compr Psychiatry. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.10161/comppsych.2020.152180).

“It’s important to think about where one draws the line between normative everyday behaviors – behaviors that are not interfering with life functioning – and those that do interfere with life functioning,” Dr. Potenza said. “If someone is having difficulty making work or family or school obligations, these are important signs that the behavior may be problematic.”

He offered suggestions for things people can do to promote their health during the pandemic, such as having regular routines that include getting physical exercise and social interaction, dining with family if isolating together, and making time for self-care. He also recommended setting limits on the use of digital devices and aiming for a healthy balance in keeping up with the news. The idea is to stay aware of what’s happening without getting burned out or traumatized by news coverage.

Guidance for clinicians

An urgent need for research and guidelines related to gambling and the pandemic exists, the authors argued.

In the meantime, aside from various validated screeners available, Dr. Kraus offered some practical advice for clinicians checking in with their patients: “Ask your patients what they have been doing to cope with this difficult time.”

Some might mention their faith, family, or friends, and others might not have an answer or mention drinking, gaming, or engaging in other activities. “We all do things to cope. Sometimes you use healthy coping and sometimes you use unhealthy coping,” Dr. Kraus said. “I would have a dialogue with my patients around, ‘How are you getting through? What’s helping you? What are some things you’ve tried that are tripping you up?’ ”

If gambling in particular is a possible concern, he encouraged clinicians to ask their patients whether they have tried to quit or what would happen if they stopped gambling.

“What we’d expect is the problem gamblers will have more irritability, crankiness, difficulty with quitting,” he said.

Dr. Hodgins agreed that checking in on how patients’ lives and activities have changed, and their emotion reactions to those changes, is prudent.

“The change in activities might be healthy or might include increased addictive behaviors, including increased use of substances, gaming, pornography, food, and gambling,” he said.

In addition, the paper authors list several examples of guidelines that might be considered in drafting guidance for clinicians, including the following:

• Limiting the extent of gambling
• Not gambling to regulate negative emotions
• Not gambling in order to try to solve financial problems or financial concerns
• Not gambling under the influence of alcohol or drugs
• Carefully monitoring gambling-related time and financial expenditures
• Maintaining and establishing daily routines involving activities other than gambling
• Minding gambling-related attitudes and behaviors in the presence of minors
• Not starting to gamble because of stressors

The research did not receive external funding. Dr. Håkansson has received research funding from the Swedish Sport Foundation, the Swedish alcohol monopoly Systembolaget, and the Swedish state-owned gambling operator AB Svenska Spel. He is working with the company Kontigo Care on devices for gambling addiction follow-up care. Dr. Potenza has received consulting or advisory compensation from several entities, including the Addiction Policy Forum, AXA Gaming, Idorsia, Opiant, and RiverMend Health. Dr. Potenza has received research funding from Mohegan Sun casino and the National Center for Responsible Gaming. No other authors or outside sources had industry-related disclosures.

SOURCE: Håkansson A et al. J Addict Med. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000690.

Among patients with COPD, the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia confers a nearly 30% increased risk of hospitalization, results from a pooled analysis of four studies showed.

“Mechanistic studies are still warranted to better elucidate how IgG and other immunoglobulins, in particular IgA, may contribute to the local airway host defense,” researchers led by Fernando Sergio Leitao Filho, MD, PhD, wrote in a study published in Chest (2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058). “Nevertheless, our results raise the possibility that, in select COPD patients, IgG replacement therapy may be effective in reducing the risk of COPD hospitalizations. Given the growing rate of COPD hospitalization in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is a pressing need for a large well-designed trial to test this hypothesis.”

In an effort to evaluate the effect of IgG levels on the cumulative incidence of COPD hospitalizations, Dr. Leitao Filho, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues drew from 2,259 patients who participated in four different trials: Azithromycin for Prevention of Exacerbations of COPD (MACRO), Simvastatin for the Prevention of Exacerbations in Moderate and Severe COPD (STATCOPE), the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT), and COPD Activity: Serotonin Transporter, Cytokines and Depression (CASCADE). The mean baseline age of study participants was 66 years, and 641 (28.4%) had hypogammaglobulinemia, which was defined as having a serum IgG levels of less than 7.0 g/L, while the remainder had normal IgG levels.

The pooled meta-analysis, which is believed to be the largest of its kind, revealed that the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia was associated with an incidence of COPD hospitalizations that was 1.29-fold higher than that observed among participants who had normal IgG levels (P = .01). The incidence was even higher among patients with prior COPD admissions (pooled subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.58; P < .01), yet the risk of COPD admissions was similar between IgG groups in patients with no prior hospitalizations (pooled SHR, 1.15; P = .34). Patients with hypogammaglobulinemia also showed significantly higher rates of COPD hospitalizations per person-year, compared with their counterparts who had normal IgG levels (0.48 vs. 0.29, respectively; P < .001.)

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that they measured serum IgG levels only at baseline “when participants were clinically stable; thus, the variability of IgG levels in a given individual over time and during the course of an AECOPD [severe acute exacerbation of COPD] is uncertain. Secondly, clinical data on corticosteroid use (formulations, dose, and length of use) were not readily available. However, systemic steroid use (one or more courses due to AECOPD prior to study entry) was accounted for in our analyses.”

The MACRO, STATCOPE, LOTT trials, and the CASCADE cohort were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and Department of Health & Human Services. The current study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and BC Lung Association. The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Leitao Filho SF et al. Chest. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058.

Among patients with COPD, the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia confers a nearly 30% increased risk of hospitalization, results from a pooled analysis of four studies showed.

“Mechanistic studies are still warranted to better elucidate how IgG and other immunoglobulins, in particular IgA, may contribute to the local airway host defense,” researchers led by Fernando Sergio Leitao Filho, MD, PhD, wrote in a study published in Chest (2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058). “Nevertheless, our results raise the possibility that, in select COPD patients, IgG replacement therapy may be effective in reducing the risk of COPD hospitalizations. Given the growing rate of COPD hospitalization in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is a pressing need for a large well-designed trial to test this hypothesis.”

In an effort to evaluate the effect of IgG levels on the cumulative incidence of COPD hospitalizations, Dr. Leitao Filho, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues drew from 2,259 patients who participated in four different trials: Azithromycin for Prevention of Exacerbations of COPD (MACRO), Simvastatin for the Prevention of Exacerbations in Moderate and Severe COPD (STATCOPE), the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT), and COPD Activity: Serotonin Transporter, Cytokines and Depression (CASCADE). The mean baseline age of study participants was 66 years, and 641 (28.4%) had hypogammaglobulinemia, which was defined as having a serum IgG levels of less than 7.0 g/L, while the remainder had normal IgG levels.

The pooled meta-analysis, which is believed to be the largest of its kind, revealed that the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia was associated with an incidence of COPD hospitalizations that was 1.29-fold higher than that observed among participants who had normal IgG levels (P = .01). The incidence was even higher among patients with prior COPD admissions (pooled subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.58; P < .01), yet the risk of COPD admissions was similar between IgG groups in patients with no prior hospitalizations (pooled SHR, 1.15; P = .34). Patients with hypogammaglobulinemia also showed significantly higher rates of COPD hospitalizations per person-year, compared with their counterparts who had normal IgG levels (0.48 vs. 0.29, respectively; P < .001.)

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that they measured serum IgG levels only at baseline “when participants were clinically stable; thus, the variability of IgG levels in a given individual over time and during the course of an AECOPD [severe acute exacerbation of COPD] is uncertain. Secondly, clinical data on corticosteroid use (formulations, dose, and length of use) were not readily available. However, systemic steroid use (one or more courses due to AECOPD prior to study entry) was accounted for in our analyses.”

The MACRO, STATCOPE, LOTT trials, and the CASCADE cohort were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and Department of Health & Human Services. The current study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and BC Lung Association. The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Leitao Filho SF et al. Chest. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058.

Among patients with COPD, the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia confers a nearly 30% increased risk of hospitalization, results from a pooled analysis of four studies showed.

“Mechanistic studies are still warranted to better elucidate how IgG and other immunoglobulins, in particular IgA, may contribute to the local airway host defense,” researchers led by Fernando Sergio Leitao Filho, MD, PhD, wrote in a study published in Chest (2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058). “Nevertheless, our results raise the possibility that, in select COPD patients, IgG replacement therapy may be effective in reducing the risk of COPD hospitalizations. Given the growing rate of COPD hospitalization in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is a pressing need for a large well-designed trial to test this hypothesis.”

In an effort to evaluate the effect of IgG levels on the cumulative incidence of COPD hospitalizations, Dr. Leitao Filho, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues drew from 2,259 patients who participated in four different trials: Azithromycin for Prevention of Exacerbations of COPD (MACRO), Simvastatin for the Prevention of Exacerbations in Moderate and Severe COPD (STATCOPE), the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT), and COPD Activity: Serotonin Transporter, Cytokines and Depression (CASCADE). The mean baseline age of study participants was 66 years, and 641 (28.4%) had hypogammaglobulinemia, which was defined as having a serum IgG levels of less than 7.0 g/L, while the remainder had normal IgG levels.

The pooled meta-analysis, which is believed to be the largest of its kind, revealed that the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia was associated with an incidence of COPD hospitalizations that was 1.29-fold higher than that observed among participants who had normal IgG levels (P = .01). The incidence was even higher among patients with prior COPD admissions (pooled subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.58; P < .01), yet the risk of COPD admissions was similar between IgG groups in patients with no prior hospitalizations (pooled SHR, 1.15; P = .34). Patients with hypogammaglobulinemia also showed significantly higher rates of COPD hospitalizations per person-year, compared with their counterparts who had normal IgG levels (0.48 vs. 0.29, respectively; P < .001.)

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that they measured serum IgG levels only at baseline “when participants were clinically stable; thus, the variability of IgG levels in a given individual over time and during the course of an AECOPD [severe acute exacerbation of COPD] is uncertain. Secondly, clinical data on corticosteroid use (formulations, dose, and length of use) were not readily available. However, systemic steroid use (one or more courses due to AECOPD prior to study entry) was accounted for in our analyses.”

The MACRO, STATCOPE, LOTT trials, and the CASCADE cohort were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and Department of Health & Human Services. The current study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and BC Lung Association. The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Leitao Filho SF et al. Chest. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.058.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ticagrelor (Brilinta/Brilique, AstraZeneca) for use with aspirin to cut the risk for a first myocardial infarction or stroke in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but no history of MI or stroke, AstraZeneca announced today. 

Patients falling under the new indication do not need to have diabetes, although THEMIS had entered patients with diabetes and CAD, the latter defined as a 50% or greater narrowing of a coronary artery or a history of coronary revascularization but without a history of MI or stroke. 

The trial showed a significant reduction in the rate of the primary efficacy end point (P = .04), a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke. But the risk of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding classification major bleeding was more than doubled in the ticagrelor group (P < .001) and the risk for intracranial hemorrhage went up 71% (P = .005). Net clinical benefit didn't differ significantly between the groups in an exploratory analysis. 

The benefit of dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor for the primary efficacy end point was even more pronounced in a prespecified THEMIS subanalysis of more than 11,000 patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention. In this group, the risk for  intracerebral hemorrhage didn't differ significantly between the groups, and the net clinical benefit favored ticagrelor by a significant 15%. 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ticagrelor (Brilinta/Brilique, AstraZeneca) for use with aspirin to cut the risk for a first myocardial infarction or stroke in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but no history of MI or stroke, AstraZeneca announced today. 

Patients falling under the new indication do not need to have diabetes, although THEMIS had entered patients with diabetes and CAD, the latter defined as a 50% or greater narrowing of a coronary artery or a history of coronary revascularization but without a history of MI or stroke. 

The trial showed a significant reduction in the rate of the primary efficacy end point (P = .04), a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke. But the risk of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding classification major bleeding was more than doubled in the ticagrelor group (P < .001) and the risk for intracranial hemorrhage went up 71% (P = .005). Net clinical benefit didn't differ significantly between the groups in an exploratory analysis. 

The benefit of dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor for the primary efficacy end point was even more pronounced in a prespecified THEMIS subanalysis of more than 11,000 patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention. In this group, the risk for  intracerebral hemorrhage didn't differ significantly between the groups, and the net clinical benefit favored ticagrelor by a significant 15%. 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ticagrelor (Brilinta/Brilique, AstraZeneca) for use with aspirin to cut the risk for a first myocardial infarction or stroke in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but no history of MI or stroke, AstraZeneca announced today. 

Patients falling under the new indication do not need to have diabetes, although THEMIS had entered patients with diabetes and CAD, the latter defined as a 50% or greater narrowing of a coronary artery or a history of coronary revascularization but without a history of MI or stroke. 

The trial showed a significant reduction in the rate of the primary efficacy end point (P = .04), a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke. But the risk of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding classification major bleeding was more than doubled in the ticagrelor group (P < .001) and the risk for intracranial hemorrhage went up 71% (P = .005). Net clinical benefit didn't differ significantly between the groups in an exploratory analysis. 

The benefit of dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor for the primary efficacy end point was even more pronounced in a prespecified THEMIS subanalysis of more than 11,000 patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention. In this group, the risk for  intracerebral hemorrhage didn't differ significantly between the groups, and the net clinical benefit favored ticagrelor by a significant 15%. 

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

Sejal Hathi, MD, and two colleagues had long kicked around the idea of starting a nonprofit group that would center on civic and legal advocacy.

Courtesy Dr. Sejal Hathi

Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the three friends – who have a mix of legal, medical, and advocacy backgrounds – began chatting by email and through Zoom video meetings about how to make the plan a reality.

“When COVID came around, we began talking about where we could make a difference and help people where help was needed most,” said Dr. Hathi, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “We decided the PPE issue makes a good first focus.”

The new organization – named Beacon – quickly mobilized, assembled their team, and launched a website. Beacon’s first project now aims to highlight and protect the legal rights of medical professionals who speak out about personal protection equipment (PPE) supply and other matters of public concern related to coronavirus.

In recent months, health care professionals have reported being reprimanded or even terminated for publicly discussing PPE shortages or sharing safety concerns. Other clinicians say they can’t share their experiences for fear of reprisal by their hospitals.

Courtesy John Paul Schnapper-Casteras

“The centrality of adequate PPE is pretty undeniable at this point,” said John Paul Schnapper-Casteras, JD, an attorney and cofounder of the organization. “In terms of speaking up about matters of workplace safety and public concern, when health care workers share knowledge, correct problems – and in some cases, blow the whistle – it affirmatively benefits medical science, disease control, and the public interest,” he said in an interview. “We have seen in other countries, the disastrous consequences that can stem from silencing medical professionals who try to speak out.”
 

Letter highlights hospitals’ obligations

As part of their efforts, Beacon leaders drafted a strongly worded letter on behalf of health care workers outlining the legal obligations of hospitals to ensure workplace safety, underscoring the federal protections that bar retaliation against employees who exercise their workplace rights. Whistleblower protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the False Claims Act, and the National Labor Relations Act, for instance, prohibit retaliation against employees for blowing the whistle on unsafe or unlawful conditions.

Beacon’s letter urges hospitals to adopt a uniform policy that recognizes “the importance and legitimacy of doctors, nurses, and medical professionals who research, write, and speak about the use and supply of PPE in addressing coronavirus.”

“We are deeply troubled by reports that medical professionals are being fired, retaliated against, disciplined, or threatened for speaking (or potentially speaking) about PPE shortages and related safety conditions that directly place their and their patients’ lives in danger,” the letter states. “As a matter of law, medical personnel have a wide range of rights that protect their employment status and ability to comment on matters of public concern (and provide a cause of action in court if these rights are violated).”

Dr. Hathi, who over the last decade has founded two social enterprises advancing women’s rights, said organizers have sent the letter to hospitals and health systems that were publicly reported or otherwise known to have threatened, terminated, or retaliated against employees for protesting PPE shortages or speaking up about unsafe working conditions during this crisis. The letter is available on the Beacon website.

“Many letters have been written [recently] criticizing hospitals for retaliating against their workers,” Dr. Hathi said. “Ours amplifies this voice. But it also serves as a tool for self-empowerment, a stark warning to health systems that their actions bear consequences, and an assurance to health workers across the country that we’re listening and we’re here to help them safeguard their rights and their dignity at work.”

Dr. Hathi and her colleagues have also circulated the letter on social media and other platforms as a petition that health care professionals and others can sign in support of fair and safe treatment of employees with respect to PPE. So far, the group has collected signatures from individuals, communities, and organizations representing about 35,000 people, Dr. Hathi said.

Workplace rights, legal options

Beacon leaders have also begun counseling and advising health care workers who have experienced retaliation or discipline associated with PPE issues. Educating medical professionals about their workplace rights and legal options is another key focus of the group, according to its founders.

“There are a flurry of reports coming our way about physicians and nurses, as well as other health care workers, who are for whatever reason being disciplined or retaliated against for simply seeking appropriate safety policies at their workplaces,” Dr. Hathi said. “What we’ve found is that many of them don’t even know what their options look like. Doctors, nurses, health care workers are not the typical type to engage politically, to speak out, [or to] advocate for themselves.”

In one instance, they heard from a physician who wanted to protect nurses at his hospital because they did not have masks and were being coughed on by COVID-19 patients. The doctor requested that his hospital supply masks to the nurses. After making the request, the physician was disciplined by hospital leadership, Dr. Hathi said. In another case, a physician assistant told the group she was terminated because she wanted to wear her own mask in a hospital that was treating COVID patients.

Courtesy Sheel Tyle

“She was not allowed to, and she was fired for even bringing it up,” said Sheel Tyle, JD, an attorney and Beacon cofounder.

Beacon intends to assist health care workers who face such retaliation and discipline in a number of ways, Mr. Tyle said. For instance, by helping an individual get compensation for what happened, aiding the professional in getting their job back, or helping the worker retain a severance package of some kind, he said.

“And then there is the larger public policy issue of preventing the hospital from being a bad actor,” Mr. Tyle said. “That can be done through state or federal complaints, largely under different statutes related to workplace protection or OSHA. Our group [has] lawyers that could represent clients individually as well as a number of friends who are attorneys in various states who we could partner with, depending on the situation.”

While the organization is positioned to represent health professionals in lawsuits if necessary, Mr. Tyle emphasized that litigation is not the intended goal of the group. Rather, they are seeking to deter hospitals and others from being “bad actors,” through any number of methods, including communication, advocacy, or complaints.

Ultimately, Dr. Hathi said she hopes the organization’s efforts activate health care workers as an organizing body and in the process, spark policy change at the federal level to better protect health care workers.

“The challenges we’re facing now – protecting workplace safety, employee voice, a living wage, adequate sick and family leave – long predate this pandemic,” Dr. Hathi said. “But they’ve deepened and acquired existential significance as, battered by policy failures and the unsparing virus itself, physicians shed their political indifference and join a growing nationwide chorus to restore workers’ rights and to fundamentally reimagine our broken healthcare system. Now, more than ever before, organizations like Beacon are vital for arming health workers in this fight.”

agallegos@mdedge.com

Sejal Hathi, MD, and two colleagues had long kicked around the idea of starting a nonprofit group that would center on civic and legal advocacy.

Courtesy Dr. Sejal Hathi

Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the three friends – who have a mix of legal, medical, and advocacy backgrounds – began chatting by email and through Zoom video meetings about how to make the plan a reality.

“When COVID came around, we began talking about where we could make a difference and help people where help was needed most,” said Dr. Hathi, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “We decided the PPE issue makes a good first focus.”

The new organization – named Beacon – quickly mobilized, assembled their team, and launched a website. Beacon’s first project now aims to highlight and protect the legal rights of medical professionals who speak out about personal protection equipment (PPE) supply and other matters of public concern related to coronavirus.

In recent months, health care professionals have reported being reprimanded or even terminated for publicly discussing PPE shortages or sharing safety concerns. Other clinicians say they can’t share their experiences for fear of reprisal by their hospitals.

Courtesy John Paul Schnapper-Casteras

“The centrality of adequate PPE is pretty undeniable at this point,” said John Paul Schnapper-Casteras, JD, an attorney and cofounder of the organization. “In terms of speaking up about matters of workplace safety and public concern, when health care workers share knowledge, correct problems – and in some cases, blow the whistle – it affirmatively benefits medical science, disease control, and the public interest,” he said in an interview. “We have seen in other countries, the disastrous consequences that can stem from silencing medical professionals who try to speak out.”
 

Letter highlights hospitals’ obligations

As part of their efforts, Beacon leaders drafted a strongly worded letter on behalf of health care workers outlining the legal obligations of hospitals to ensure workplace safety, underscoring the federal protections that bar retaliation against employees who exercise their workplace rights. Whistleblower protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the False Claims Act, and the National Labor Relations Act, for instance, prohibit retaliation against employees for blowing the whistle on unsafe or unlawful conditions.

Beacon’s letter urges hospitals to adopt a uniform policy that recognizes “the importance and legitimacy of doctors, nurses, and medical professionals who research, write, and speak about the use and supply of PPE in addressing coronavirus.”

“We are deeply troubled by reports that medical professionals are being fired, retaliated against, disciplined, or threatened for speaking (or potentially speaking) about PPE shortages and related safety conditions that directly place their and their patients’ lives in danger,” the letter states. “As a matter of law, medical personnel have a wide range of rights that protect their employment status and ability to comment on matters of public concern (and provide a cause of action in court if these rights are violated).”

Dr. Hathi, who over the last decade has founded two social enterprises advancing women’s rights, said organizers have sent the letter to hospitals and health systems that were publicly reported or otherwise known to have threatened, terminated, or retaliated against employees for protesting PPE shortages or speaking up about unsafe working conditions during this crisis. The letter is available on the Beacon website.

“Many letters have been written [recently] criticizing hospitals for retaliating against their workers,” Dr. Hathi said. “Ours amplifies this voice. But it also serves as a tool for self-empowerment, a stark warning to health systems that their actions bear consequences, and an assurance to health workers across the country that we’re listening and we’re here to help them safeguard their rights and their dignity at work.”

Dr. Hathi and her colleagues have also circulated the letter on social media and other platforms as a petition that health care professionals and others can sign in support of fair and safe treatment of employees with respect to PPE. So far, the group has collected signatures from individuals, communities, and organizations representing about 35,000 people, Dr. Hathi said.

Workplace rights, legal options

Beacon leaders have also begun counseling and advising health care workers who have experienced retaliation or discipline associated with PPE issues. Educating medical professionals about their workplace rights and legal options is another key focus of the group, according to its founders.

“There are a flurry of reports coming our way about physicians and nurses, as well as other health care workers, who are for whatever reason being disciplined or retaliated against for simply seeking appropriate safety policies at their workplaces,” Dr. Hathi said. “What we’ve found is that many of them don’t even know what their options look like. Doctors, nurses, health care workers are not the typical type to engage politically, to speak out, [or to] advocate for themselves.”

In one instance, they heard from a physician who wanted to protect nurses at his hospital because they did not have masks and were being coughed on by COVID-19 patients. The doctor requested that his hospital supply masks to the nurses. After making the request, the physician was disciplined by hospital leadership, Dr. Hathi said. In another case, a physician assistant told the group she was terminated because she wanted to wear her own mask in a hospital that was treating COVID patients.

Courtesy Sheel Tyle

“She was not allowed to, and she was fired for even bringing it up,” said Sheel Tyle, JD, an attorney and Beacon cofounder.

Beacon intends to assist health care workers who face such retaliation and discipline in a number of ways, Mr. Tyle said. For instance, by helping an individual get compensation for what happened, aiding the professional in getting their job back, or helping the worker retain a severance package of some kind, he said.

“And then there is the larger public policy issue of preventing the hospital from being a bad actor,” Mr. Tyle said. “That can be done through state or federal complaints, largely under different statutes related to workplace protection or OSHA. Our group [has] lawyers that could represent clients individually as well as a number of friends who are attorneys in various states who we could partner with, depending on the situation.”

While the organization is positioned to represent health professionals in lawsuits if necessary, Mr. Tyle emphasized that litigation is not the intended goal of the group. Rather, they are seeking to deter hospitals and others from being “bad actors,” through any number of methods, including communication, advocacy, or complaints.

Ultimately, Dr. Hathi said she hopes the organization’s efforts activate health care workers as an organizing body and in the process, spark policy change at the federal level to better protect health care workers.

“The challenges we’re facing now – protecting workplace safety, employee voice, a living wage, adequate sick and family leave – long predate this pandemic,” Dr. Hathi said. “But they’ve deepened and acquired existential significance as, battered by policy failures and the unsparing virus itself, physicians shed their political indifference and join a growing nationwide chorus to restore workers’ rights and to fundamentally reimagine our broken healthcare system. Now, more than ever before, organizations like Beacon are vital for arming health workers in this fight.”

agallegos@mdedge.com

Sejal Hathi, MD, and two colleagues had long kicked around the idea of starting a nonprofit group that would center on civic and legal advocacy.

Courtesy Dr. Sejal Hathi

Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the three friends – who have a mix of legal, medical, and advocacy backgrounds – began chatting by email and through Zoom video meetings about how to make the plan a reality.

“When COVID came around, we began talking about where we could make a difference and help people where help was needed most,” said Dr. Hathi, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “We decided the PPE issue makes a good first focus.”

The new organization – named Beacon – quickly mobilized, assembled their team, and launched a website. Beacon’s first project now aims to highlight and protect the legal rights of medical professionals who speak out about personal protection equipment (PPE) supply and other matters of public concern related to coronavirus.

In recent months, health care professionals have reported being reprimanded or even terminated for publicly discussing PPE shortages or sharing safety concerns. Other clinicians say they can’t share their experiences for fear of reprisal by their hospitals.

Courtesy John Paul Schnapper-Casteras

“The centrality of adequate PPE is pretty undeniable at this point,” said John Paul Schnapper-Casteras, JD, an attorney and cofounder of the organization. “In terms of speaking up about matters of workplace safety and public concern, when health care workers share knowledge, correct problems – and in some cases, blow the whistle – it affirmatively benefits medical science, disease control, and the public interest,” he said in an interview. “We have seen in other countries, the disastrous consequences that can stem from silencing medical professionals who try to speak out.”
 

Letter highlights hospitals’ obligations

As part of their efforts, Beacon leaders drafted a strongly worded letter on behalf of health care workers outlining the legal obligations of hospitals to ensure workplace safety, underscoring the federal protections that bar retaliation against employees who exercise their workplace rights. Whistleblower protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the False Claims Act, and the National Labor Relations Act, for instance, prohibit retaliation against employees for blowing the whistle on unsafe or unlawful conditions.

Beacon’s letter urges hospitals to adopt a uniform policy that recognizes “the importance and legitimacy of doctors, nurses, and medical professionals who research, write, and speak about the use and supply of PPE in addressing coronavirus.”

“We are deeply troubled by reports that medical professionals are being fired, retaliated against, disciplined, or threatened for speaking (or potentially speaking) about PPE shortages and related safety conditions that directly place their and their patients’ lives in danger,” the letter states. “As a matter of law, medical personnel have a wide range of rights that protect their employment status and ability to comment on matters of public concern (and provide a cause of action in court if these rights are violated).”

Dr. Hathi, who over the last decade has founded two social enterprises advancing women’s rights, said organizers have sent the letter to hospitals and health systems that were publicly reported or otherwise known to have threatened, terminated, or retaliated against employees for protesting PPE shortages or speaking up about unsafe working conditions during this crisis. The letter is available on the Beacon website.

“Many letters have been written [recently] criticizing hospitals for retaliating against their workers,” Dr. Hathi said. “Ours amplifies this voice. But it also serves as a tool for self-empowerment, a stark warning to health systems that their actions bear consequences, and an assurance to health workers across the country that we’re listening and we’re here to help them safeguard their rights and their dignity at work.”

Dr. Hathi and her colleagues have also circulated the letter on social media and other platforms as a petition that health care professionals and others can sign in support of fair and safe treatment of employees with respect to PPE. So far, the group has collected signatures from individuals, communities, and organizations representing about 35,000 people, Dr. Hathi said.

Workplace rights, legal options

Beacon leaders have also begun counseling and advising health care workers who have experienced retaliation or discipline associated with PPE issues. Educating medical professionals about their workplace rights and legal options is another key focus of the group, according to its founders.

“There are a flurry of reports coming our way about physicians and nurses, as well as other health care workers, who are for whatever reason being disciplined or retaliated against for simply seeking appropriate safety policies at their workplaces,” Dr. Hathi said. “What we’ve found is that many of them don’t even know what their options look like. Doctors, nurses, health care workers are not the typical type to engage politically, to speak out, [or to] advocate for themselves.”

In one instance, they heard from a physician who wanted to protect nurses at his hospital because they did not have masks and were being coughed on by COVID-19 patients. The doctor requested that his hospital supply masks to the nurses. After making the request, the physician was disciplined by hospital leadership, Dr. Hathi said. In another case, a physician assistant told the group she was terminated because she wanted to wear her own mask in a hospital that was treating COVID patients.

Courtesy Sheel Tyle

“She was not allowed to, and she was fired for even bringing it up,” said Sheel Tyle, JD, an attorney and Beacon cofounder.

Beacon intends to assist health care workers who face such retaliation and discipline in a number of ways, Mr. Tyle said. For instance, by helping an individual get compensation for what happened, aiding the professional in getting their job back, or helping the worker retain a severance package of some kind, he said.

“And then there is the larger public policy issue of preventing the hospital from being a bad actor,” Mr. Tyle said. “That can be done through state or federal complaints, largely under different statutes related to workplace protection or OSHA. Our group [has] lawyers that could represent clients individually as well as a number of friends who are attorneys in various states who we could partner with, depending on the situation.”

While the organization is positioned to represent health professionals in lawsuits if necessary, Mr. Tyle emphasized that litigation is not the intended goal of the group. Rather, they are seeking to deter hospitals and others from being “bad actors,” through any number of methods, including communication, advocacy, or complaints.

Ultimately, Dr. Hathi said she hopes the organization’s efforts activate health care workers as an organizing body and in the process, spark policy change at the federal level to better protect health care workers.

“The challenges we’re facing now – protecting workplace safety, employee voice, a living wage, adequate sick and family leave – long predate this pandemic,” Dr. Hathi said. “But they’ve deepened and acquired existential significance as, battered by policy failures and the unsparing virus itself, physicians shed their political indifference and join a growing nationwide chorus to restore workers’ rights and to fundamentally reimagine our broken healthcare system. Now, more than ever before, organizations like Beacon are vital for arming health workers in this fight.”

agallegos@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.

“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.

It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.

“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”

Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.

The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.

The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.

The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.

Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.

“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.

It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.

“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”

Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.

The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.

The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.

The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.

Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.

“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.

It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.

“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”

Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.

The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.

The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.

The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.

Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.

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