A study has shown a strong link between sleeping disturbances and depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

magicmine/Getty Images

Adults with clinically stable COPD who reported sleep problems were significantly more likely to report depression or anxiety, poor self-efficacy, and poor health-related quality of life, compared with those not reporting sleep problems, according to the findings from a study of 245 patients.

Sleep problems are common in patients with COPD and have been associated with poor COPD-related outcomes, wrote Sang Hee Lee, MD, of Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo-si, South Korea, and colleagues.

“However, there is a lack of research on factors associated with sleep disturbance in patients with COPD,” they wrote.

In a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study published in the Clinical Respiratory Journal, the researchers enrolled 245 adults with COPD who completed the COPD and Asthma Impact Scale (CASIS) to determine sleep impairment. The CASIS was developed to measure sleep-related problems associated with respiratory disease, and scored on a scale of 1-100, with higher scores indicating greater sleep impairment. The average CASIS score was 40.9. The average age of the patients was 67 years, and 92% were men.

Patients’ health-related quality of life, anxiety/depression, and self-efficacy were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES). The average scores on these measures were 36.0 for the SGRQ; 48.1 and 50.6, respectively, for the physical and mental components of the SF-36; 3.8 and 6.4, respectively, for the HADS-A and HADS-D measures of anxiety and depression; and 3.3 on the CSES.

Worse sleep in these patients was associated with worse scores on measures of mood. In a multivariate analysis, higher scores on all four measures of health-related quality of life were significantly associated with higher CASIS scores (P = .006 for SGRQ; P = .037 for SF-36, P < .001 for HADS, and P = .010 for CSES).

Although the CASIS did not allow for measurement of symptom severity and did not include many items related to breathing problems, the test “shows good internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and construct validity according to previous studies,” the researchers wrote. “The CASIS may be a good tool for evaluating sleep disturbances in COPD patients, and further study is needed,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional study design, lack of data on obstructive sleep apnea, and lack of information on specific treatments such as at-home oxygen use or high-dose steroid use, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a disease-specific sleep measure, and the study is the first known to include self-efficacy in relation to sleep quality in COPD patients, they reported.

The results highlight the association between depression, poor quality of life, and self-efficacy in relation to poor sleep, and suggest that “Sleep quality could be improved by enhancing HRQL and self-efficacy,” the researchers said. “Screening for mood disorder in patients with COPD is also needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee SH et al. Clin Respir J. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.1111/crj.13235.

A study has shown a strong link between sleeping disturbances and depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

magicmine/Getty Images

Adults with clinically stable COPD who reported sleep problems were significantly more likely to report depression or anxiety, poor self-efficacy, and poor health-related quality of life, compared with those not reporting sleep problems, according to the findings from a study of 245 patients.

Sleep problems are common in patients with COPD and have been associated with poor COPD-related outcomes, wrote Sang Hee Lee, MD, of Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo-si, South Korea, and colleagues.

“However, there is a lack of research on factors associated with sleep disturbance in patients with COPD,” they wrote.

In a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study published in the Clinical Respiratory Journal, the researchers enrolled 245 adults with COPD who completed the COPD and Asthma Impact Scale (CASIS) to determine sleep impairment. The CASIS was developed to measure sleep-related problems associated with respiratory disease, and scored on a scale of 1-100, with higher scores indicating greater sleep impairment. The average CASIS score was 40.9. The average age of the patients was 67 years, and 92% were men.

Patients’ health-related quality of life, anxiety/depression, and self-efficacy were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES). The average scores on these measures were 36.0 for the SGRQ; 48.1 and 50.6, respectively, for the physical and mental components of the SF-36; 3.8 and 6.4, respectively, for the HADS-A and HADS-D measures of anxiety and depression; and 3.3 on the CSES.

Worse sleep in these patients was associated with worse scores on measures of mood. In a multivariate analysis, higher scores on all four measures of health-related quality of life were significantly associated with higher CASIS scores (P = .006 for SGRQ; P = .037 for SF-36, P < .001 for HADS, and P = .010 for CSES).

Although the CASIS did not allow for measurement of symptom severity and did not include many items related to breathing problems, the test “shows good internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and construct validity according to previous studies,” the researchers wrote. “The CASIS may be a good tool for evaluating sleep disturbances in COPD patients, and further study is needed,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional study design, lack of data on obstructive sleep apnea, and lack of information on specific treatments such as at-home oxygen use or high-dose steroid use, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a disease-specific sleep measure, and the study is the first known to include self-efficacy in relation to sleep quality in COPD patients, they reported.

The results highlight the association between depression, poor quality of life, and self-efficacy in relation to poor sleep, and suggest that “Sleep quality could be improved by enhancing HRQL and self-efficacy,” the researchers said. “Screening for mood disorder in patients with COPD is also needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee SH et al. Clin Respir J. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.1111/crj.13235.

A study has shown a strong link between sleeping disturbances and depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

magicmine/Getty Images

Adults with clinically stable COPD who reported sleep problems were significantly more likely to report depression or anxiety, poor self-efficacy, and poor health-related quality of life, compared with those not reporting sleep problems, according to the findings from a study of 245 patients.

Sleep problems are common in patients with COPD and have been associated with poor COPD-related outcomes, wrote Sang Hee Lee, MD, of Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo-si, South Korea, and colleagues.

“However, there is a lack of research on factors associated with sleep disturbance in patients with COPD,” they wrote.

In a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study published in the Clinical Respiratory Journal, the researchers enrolled 245 adults with COPD who completed the COPD and Asthma Impact Scale (CASIS) to determine sleep impairment. The CASIS was developed to measure sleep-related problems associated with respiratory disease, and scored on a scale of 1-100, with higher scores indicating greater sleep impairment. The average CASIS score was 40.9. The average age of the patients was 67 years, and 92% were men.

Patients’ health-related quality of life, anxiety/depression, and self-efficacy were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES). The average scores on these measures were 36.0 for the SGRQ; 48.1 and 50.6, respectively, for the physical and mental components of the SF-36; 3.8 and 6.4, respectively, for the HADS-A and HADS-D measures of anxiety and depression; and 3.3 on the CSES.

Worse sleep in these patients was associated with worse scores on measures of mood. In a multivariate analysis, higher scores on all four measures of health-related quality of life were significantly associated with higher CASIS scores (P = .006 for SGRQ; P = .037 for SF-36, P < .001 for HADS, and P = .010 for CSES).

Although the CASIS did not allow for measurement of symptom severity and did not include many items related to breathing problems, the test “shows good internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and construct validity according to previous studies,” the researchers wrote. “The CASIS may be a good tool for evaluating sleep disturbances in COPD patients, and further study is needed,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional study design, lack of data on obstructive sleep apnea, and lack of information on specific treatments such as at-home oxygen use or high-dose steroid use, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a disease-specific sleep measure, and the study is the first known to include self-efficacy in relation to sleep quality in COPD patients, they reported.

The results highlight the association between depression, poor quality of life, and self-efficacy in relation to poor sleep, and suggest that “Sleep quality could be improved by enhancing HRQL and self-efficacy,” the researchers said. “Screening for mood disorder in patients with COPD is also needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee SH et al. Clin Respir J. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.1111/crj.13235.

By the time physicians turn 65 years old, more than 75% of those in low-risk specialties such as pediatric dermatology have been named in a lawsuit, compared with 99% of those in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology, according to Ilona J. Frieden, MD.

“We all know there’s a possibility that we could get named in a lawsuit,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “It could happen to any of us. Lawsuits are not uncommon, but few of us have received any kind of training for how to handle them.”

Based on her experience being named in a malpractice/wrongful death lawsuit, Dr. Frieden, who has had a nearly 4-decade career as a pediatric dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, offered the following tips for clinicians facing practice-related litigation:

First, immediately inform the risk management representatives at your institution or your malpractice insurance carrier. “Tell them about the situation and arrange to talk to a lawyer,” she advised.

Second, prepare to confront a range of emotions. “Depending on the circumstances, [that could be] fear, anger, dread, and defensiveness,” said Dr. Frieden, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at UCSF. “What surprised me was this sort of physical sensation. I felt like I had been kicked in the stomach. In retrospect, this is not such a surprising finding. It really is an assault on your professional identity, so it made sense to me as I thought about this.”

Third, slow yourself down. The litigation process typically takes 2-5 years, “so this is a marathon; this is not a sprint,” she said. “While you are waiting you will be told, ‘Don’t discuss this case with anyone.’ While this may be true for the specific details of the case, it isn’t true about what you are feeling and how this affects you. You can and you should talk to a trusted friend, to a spouse, or even to a therapist so that you can process what you’re going through and not feel alone.”

Fourth, try to focus on the patients that you help. Having a patient in your pediatric dermatology practice die “is a rare event,” she said. “Try to not let such an event define you in terms of your professional identity. Meanwhile [remember that] you’re helping lots and lots of people.”

Fifth, be humble, both for yourself and the experts you might turn to for advice when you’re facing a complex case. “Though I have decades of experience, I find myself feeling more willing rather than less willing to ask for help,” Dr. Frieden said. “Also, the culture has changed. We email colleagues all the time to say, ‘This doesn’t make sense. Can you please tell me what your thoughts are?’ ”

She closed her remarks by noting that physicians “put ourselves in harm’s way in the process of trying to do the best we can for patients. That is something we have to accept.” She reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

By the time physicians turn 65 years old, more than 75% of those in low-risk specialties such as pediatric dermatology have been named in a lawsuit, compared with 99% of those in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology, according to Ilona J. Frieden, MD.

“We all know there’s a possibility that we could get named in a lawsuit,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “It could happen to any of us. Lawsuits are not uncommon, but few of us have received any kind of training for how to handle them.”

Based on her experience being named in a malpractice/wrongful death lawsuit, Dr. Frieden, who has had a nearly 4-decade career as a pediatric dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, offered the following tips for clinicians facing practice-related litigation:

First, immediately inform the risk management representatives at your institution or your malpractice insurance carrier. “Tell them about the situation and arrange to talk to a lawyer,” she advised.

Second, prepare to confront a range of emotions. “Depending on the circumstances, [that could be] fear, anger, dread, and defensiveness,” said Dr. Frieden, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at UCSF. “What surprised me was this sort of physical sensation. I felt like I had been kicked in the stomach. In retrospect, this is not such a surprising finding. It really is an assault on your professional identity, so it made sense to me as I thought about this.”

Third, slow yourself down. The litigation process typically takes 2-5 years, “so this is a marathon; this is not a sprint,” she said. “While you are waiting you will be told, ‘Don’t discuss this case with anyone.’ While this may be true for the specific details of the case, it isn’t true about what you are feeling and how this affects you. You can and you should talk to a trusted friend, to a spouse, or even to a therapist so that you can process what you’re going through and not feel alone.”

Fourth, try to focus on the patients that you help. Having a patient in your pediatric dermatology practice die “is a rare event,” she said. “Try to not let such an event define you in terms of your professional identity. Meanwhile [remember that] you’re helping lots and lots of people.”

Fifth, be humble, both for yourself and the experts you might turn to for advice when you’re facing a complex case. “Though I have decades of experience, I find myself feeling more willing rather than less willing to ask for help,” Dr. Frieden said. “Also, the culture has changed. We email colleagues all the time to say, ‘This doesn’t make sense. Can you please tell me what your thoughts are?’ ”

She closed her remarks by noting that physicians “put ourselves in harm’s way in the process of trying to do the best we can for patients. That is something we have to accept.” She reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

By the time physicians turn 65 years old, more than 75% of those in low-risk specialties such as pediatric dermatology have been named in a lawsuit, compared with 99% of those in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology, according to Ilona J. Frieden, MD.

“We all know there’s a possibility that we could get named in a lawsuit,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “It could happen to any of us. Lawsuits are not uncommon, but few of us have received any kind of training for how to handle them.”

Based on her experience being named in a malpractice/wrongful death lawsuit, Dr. Frieden, who has had a nearly 4-decade career as a pediatric dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, offered the following tips for clinicians facing practice-related litigation:

First, immediately inform the risk management representatives at your institution or your malpractice insurance carrier. “Tell them about the situation and arrange to talk to a lawyer,” she advised.

Second, prepare to confront a range of emotions. “Depending on the circumstances, [that could be] fear, anger, dread, and defensiveness,” said Dr. Frieden, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at UCSF. “What surprised me was this sort of physical sensation. I felt like I had been kicked in the stomach. In retrospect, this is not such a surprising finding. It really is an assault on your professional identity, so it made sense to me as I thought about this.”

Third, slow yourself down. The litigation process typically takes 2-5 years, “so this is a marathon; this is not a sprint,” she said. “While you are waiting you will be told, ‘Don’t discuss this case with anyone.’ While this may be true for the specific details of the case, it isn’t true about what you are feeling and how this affects you. You can and you should talk to a trusted friend, to a spouse, or even to a therapist so that you can process what you’re going through and not feel alone.”

Fourth, try to focus on the patients that you help. Having a patient in your pediatric dermatology practice die “is a rare event,” she said. “Try to not let such an event define you in terms of your professional identity. Meanwhile [remember that] you’re helping lots and lots of people.”

Fifth, be humble, both for yourself and the experts you might turn to for advice when you’re facing a complex case. “Though I have decades of experience, I find myself feeling more willing rather than less willing to ask for help,” Dr. Frieden said. “Also, the culture has changed. We email colleagues all the time to say, ‘This doesn’t make sense. Can you please tell me what your thoughts are?’ ”

She closed her remarks by noting that physicians “put ourselves in harm’s way in the process of trying to do the best we can for patients. That is something we have to accept.” She reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A 10-year follow-up analysis based on one of cardiology’s most influential trials has shed further light on one of its key issues: how to sharpen selection of patients most likely to benefit from a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

In a new report from SCD-HeFT, the survival advantage in patients with heart failure seen 5 years after receiving ICDs, compared with a non-ICD control group, narrowed a bit but remained significant after an additional 5 years. But not all patients with devices shared in that long-term ICD benefit. Patients with either ischemic disease or nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) with devices showed a similar mortality risk reduction in the trial’s previously reported 5-year outcomes. That advantage, compared with non-ICD control patients, persisted throughout the subsequent 5 years for ischemic patients but tapered to nil for those with NICM.

The NICM patients “had what appears to be some accrual of benefit maybe out to about 6 years, and then the curves appear to come together where there’s no apparent further benefit after 6 years,” Jeanne E. Poole, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

In both the 10-year analysis and the earlier results, ICD survival gains went preferentially to patients who enrolled with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II symptoms. Patients who entered in NYHA class III “didn’t appear to have any benefit whatsoever” in either period, Dr. Poole said.

“The simple message is that the same groups of patients that benefited strongly from the ICD in the original SCD-HeFT – the NYHA class 2 patients and those with ischemic cardiomyopathy – were really the ones who benefited the greatest over the long term,” she said.

Dr. Poole is lead author on the SCD-HeFT 10-year analysis, which was published in the July 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Why the ICD survival effect disappeared midway in patients with NICM “is hard to sort out,” she said. Many in the control group were offered such devices after the trial concluded. Among those, it’s possible that disproportionately more control patients with NICM, compared with patients with ischemic disease, were fitted with ICDs that were also cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, Dr. Poole and her colleagues speculated. That could have shifted their late outcomes to be more in line with patients who had received ICDs when the trial started.

Or “it is possible that the intermediate-term benefit of ICD therapy in NICM is overwhelmed by nonarrhythmic death in extended follow-up” given that ICDs prolong survival only by preventing arrhythmic death, noted an editorial accompanying the new SCD-HeFT publication.

Another possibility: Because NICM is a heterogeneous disorder with many potential causes, perhaps “the absence of long-term mortality benefit among SCD-HeFT participants with NICM was due to an unintended but preferential enrollment of subtypes at relatively lower risk for arrhythmic death in the longer term,” proposed Eric C. Stecker, MD, MPH, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors in their editorial.

“What are the take-away messages from the current analysis by Poole et al?” they asked. “These findings strongly support the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy for the majority of patients with severe but mildly symptomatic ischemic cardiomyopathy who do not have an excessive comorbidity burden.”

But “the implications for patients with NICM are less clear,” they wrote. “Given evidence for intermediate-term benefit and the limitations inherent to assessing longer-term benefit, we do not believe it is appropriate to walk back guideline recommendations regarding ICD implantation for NICM patients.”

The findings in nonischemic patients invite comparison with the randomized DANISH trial, which entered only patients with NICM and, over more than 5 years, saw no primary-prevention ICD advantage for the end point of all-cause mortality.

But patients who received ICDs showed a reduction in arrhythmic death, a secondary end point. And mortality in the trial showed a significant interaction with patient age; survival went up sharply with ICDs for those younger than 60 years.

Also in DANISH, “the ICD treatment effect appears to vary over time, with an earlier phase showing possible survival benefit and a later phase showing attenuation of that benefit,” similar to what was seen long-term in SCD-HeFT, in which the interaction between mortality and time since implantation was significant at P = .0015, observe Dr. Poole and colleagues.

However, Dr. Poole cautioned when interviewed, patient management in DANISH, conducted exclusively in Denmark, may not have been representative of the rest of the world, complicating comparisons with other studies. For example, nearly 60% of all patients in DANISH had defibrillating CRT devices. Virtually everyone was on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers, and almost 60% were taking aldosterone inhibitors.

“DANISH is an unusually high bar and probably does not reflect all patients with heart failure, and certainly does not reflect patients in the United States in terms of those high levels of guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Poole said. The message from DANISH, she said, seems to be that patients with NICM who are definitely on goal-directed heart failure medications with CRT devices “probably don’t have a meaningful benefit from an ICD, on total mortality, because their sudden death rates are simply so low.”

SCD-HeFT had originally assigned 2,521 patients with heart failure of NYHA class II or III and an left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35% to receive an ICD, amiodarone without an ICD, or an amiodarone placebo and no ICD; patients in the latter cohorts made up the non-ICD control group.

Those who received an ICD, compared with the non-ICD control patients, showed a 23% drop in all-cause mortality over a median of 45.5 months ending on October 31, 2003, Dr. Poole and colleagues noted in their current report. The trial’s primary results were unveiled 2005.

The current analysis, based on data collected in 2010 and 2011, followed the 1,855 patients alive at the trial’s official conclusion and combined outcomes before and after that time for a median follow-up of 11 years, Dr. Poole and colleagues reported.

In the ICD group, the overall hazard ratio for mortality by intention-to-treat was 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98; P = .028), compared with the non-ICD control group.

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

A 10-year follow-up analysis based on one of cardiology’s most influential trials has shed further light on one of its key issues: how to sharpen selection of patients most likely to benefit from a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

In a new report from SCD-HeFT, the survival advantage in patients with heart failure seen 5 years after receiving ICDs, compared with a non-ICD control group, narrowed a bit but remained significant after an additional 5 years. But not all patients with devices shared in that long-term ICD benefit. Patients with either ischemic disease or nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) with devices showed a similar mortality risk reduction in the trial’s previously reported 5-year outcomes. That advantage, compared with non-ICD control patients, persisted throughout the subsequent 5 years for ischemic patients but tapered to nil for those with NICM.

The NICM patients “had what appears to be some accrual of benefit maybe out to about 6 years, and then the curves appear to come together where there’s no apparent further benefit after 6 years,” Jeanne E. Poole, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

In both the 10-year analysis and the earlier results, ICD survival gains went preferentially to patients who enrolled with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II symptoms. Patients who entered in NYHA class III “didn’t appear to have any benefit whatsoever” in either period, Dr. Poole said.

“The simple message is that the same groups of patients that benefited strongly from the ICD in the original SCD-HeFT – the NYHA class 2 patients and those with ischemic cardiomyopathy – were really the ones who benefited the greatest over the long term,” she said.

Dr. Poole is lead author on the SCD-HeFT 10-year analysis, which was published in the July 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Why the ICD survival effect disappeared midway in patients with NICM “is hard to sort out,” she said. Many in the control group were offered such devices after the trial concluded. Among those, it’s possible that disproportionately more control patients with NICM, compared with patients with ischemic disease, were fitted with ICDs that were also cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, Dr. Poole and her colleagues speculated. That could have shifted their late outcomes to be more in line with patients who had received ICDs when the trial started.

Or “it is possible that the intermediate-term benefit of ICD therapy in NICM is overwhelmed by nonarrhythmic death in extended follow-up” given that ICDs prolong survival only by preventing arrhythmic death, noted an editorial accompanying the new SCD-HeFT publication.

Another possibility: Because NICM is a heterogeneous disorder with many potential causes, perhaps “the absence of long-term mortality benefit among SCD-HeFT participants with NICM was due to an unintended but preferential enrollment of subtypes at relatively lower risk for arrhythmic death in the longer term,” proposed Eric C. Stecker, MD, MPH, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors in their editorial.

“What are the take-away messages from the current analysis by Poole et al?” they asked. “These findings strongly support the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy for the majority of patients with severe but mildly symptomatic ischemic cardiomyopathy who do not have an excessive comorbidity burden.”

But “the implications for patients with NICM are less clear,” they wrote. “Given evidence for intermediate-term benefit and the limitations inherent to assessing longer-term benefit, we do not believe it is appropriate to walk back guideline recommendations regarding ICD implantation for NICM patients.”

The findings in nonischemic patients invite comparison with the randomized DANISH trial, which entered only patients with NICM and, over more than 5 years, saw no primary-prevention ICD advantage for the end point of all-cause mortality.

But patients who received ICDs showed a reduction in arrhythmic death, a secondary end point. And mortality in the trial showed a significant interaction with patient age; survival went up sharply with ICDs for those younger than 60 years.

Also in DANISH, “the ICD treatment effect appears to vary over time, with an earlier phase showing possible survival benefit and a later phase showing attenuation of that benefit,” similar to what was seen long-term in SCD-HeFT, in which the interaction between mortality and time since implantation was significant at P = .0015, observe Dr. Poole and colleagues.

However, Dr. Poole cautioned when interviewed, patient management in DANISH, conducted exclusively in Denmark, may not have been representative of the rest of the world, complicating comparisons with other studies. For example, nearly 60% of all patients in DANISH had defibrillating CRT devices. Virtually everyone was on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers, and almost 60% were taking aldosterone inhibitors.

“DANISH is an unusually high bar and probably does not reflect all patients with heart failure, and certainly does not reflect patients in the United States in terms of those high levels of guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Poole said. The message from DANISH, she said, seems to be that patients with NICM who are definitely on goal-directed heart failure medications with CRT devices “probably don’t have a meaningful benefit from an ICD, on total mortality, because their sudden death rates are simply so low.”

SCD-HeFT had originally assigned 2,521 patients with heart failure of NYHA class II or III and an left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35% to receive an ICD, amiodarone without an ICD, or an amiodarone placebo and no ICD; patients in the latter cohorts made up the non-ICD control group.

Those who received an ICD, compared with the non-ICD control patients, showed a 23% drop in all-cause mortality over a median of 45.5 months ending on October 31, 2003, Dr. Poole and colleagues noted in their current report. The trial’s primary results were unveiled 2005.

The current analysis, based on data collected in 2010 and 2011, followed the 1,855 patients alive at the trial’s official conclusion and combined outcomes before and after that time for a median follow-up of 11 years, Dr. Poole and colleagues reported.

In the ICD group, the overall hazard ratio for mortality by intention-to-treat was 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98; P = .028), compared with the non-ICD control group.

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

A 10-year follow-up analysis based on one of cardiology’s most influential trials has shed further light on one of its key issues: how to sharpen selection of patients most likely to benefit from a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

In a new report from SCD-HeFT, the survival advantage in patients with heart failure seen 5 years after receiving ICDs, compared with a non-ICD control group, narrowed a bit but remained significant after an additional 5 years. But not all patients with devices shared in that long-term ICD benefit. Patients with either ischemic disease or nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) with devices showed a similar mortality risk reduction in the trial’s previously reported 5-year outcomes. That advantage, compared with non-ICD control patients, persisted throughout the subsequent 5 years for ischemic patients but tapered to nil for those with NICM.

The NICM patients “had what appears to be some accrual of benefit maybe out to about 6 years, and then the curves appear to come together where there’s no apparent further benefit after 6 years,” Jeanne E. Poole, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

In both the 10-year analysis and the earlier results, ICD survival gains went preferentially to patients who enrolled with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II symptoms. Patients who entered in NYHA class III “didn’t appear to have any benefit whatsoever” in either period, Dr. Poole said.

“The simple message is that the same groups of patients that benefited strongly from the ICD in the original SCD-HeFT – the NYHA class 2 patients and those with ischemic cardiomyopathy – were really the ones who benefited the greatest over the long term,” she said.

Dr. Poole is lead author on the SCD-HeFT 10-year analysis, which was published in the July 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Why the ICD survival effect disappeared midway in patients with NICM “is hard to sort out,” she said. Many in the control group were offered such devices after the trial concluded. Among those, it’s possible that disproportionately more control patients with NICM, compared with patients with ischemic disease, were fitted with ICDs that were also cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, Dr. Poole and her colleagues speculated. That could have shifted their late outcomes to be more in line with patients who had received ICDs when the trial started.

Or “it is possible that the intermediate-term benefit of ICD therapy in NICM is overwhelmed by nonarrhythmic death in extended follow-up” given that ICDs prolong survival only by preventing arrhythmic death, noted an editorial accompanying the new SCD-HeFT publication.

Another possibility: Because NICM is a heterogeneous disorder with many potential causes, perhaps “the absence of long-term mortality benefit among SCD-HeFT participants with NICM was due to an unintended but preferential enrollment of subtypes at relatively lower risk for arrhythmic death in the longer term,” proposed Eric C. Stecker, MD, MPH, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors in their editorial.

“What are the take-away messages from the current analysis by Poole et al?” they asked. “These findings strongly support the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy for the majority of patients with severe but mildly symptomatic ischemic cardiomyopathy who do not have an excessive comorbidity burden.”

But “the implications for patients with NICM are less clear,” they wrote. “Given evidence for intermediate-term benefit and the limitations inherent to assessing longer-term benefit, we do not believe it is appropriate to walk back guideline recommendations regarding ICD implantation for NICM patients.”

The findings in nonischemic patients invite comparison with the randomized DANISH trial, which entered only patients with NICM and, over more than 5 years, saw no primary-prevention ICD advantage for the end point of all-cause mortality.

But patients who received ICDs showed a reduction in arrhythmic death, a secondary end point. And mortality in the trial showed a significant interaction with patient age; survival went up sharply with ICDs for those younger than 60 years.

Also in DANISH, “the ICD treatment effect appears to vary over time, with an earlier phase showing possible survival benefit and a later phase showing attenuation of that benefit,” similar to what was seen long-term in SCD-HeFT, in which the interaction between mortality and time since implantation was significant at P = .0015, observe Dr. Poole and colleagues.

However, Dr. Poole cautioned when interviewed, patient management in DANISH, conducted exclusively in Denmark, may not have been representative of the rest of the world, complicating comparisons with other studies. For example, nearly 60% of all patients in DANISH had defibrillating CRT devices. Virtually everyone was on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers, and almost 60% were taking aldosterone inhibitors.

“DANISH is an unusually high bar and probably does not reflect all patients with heart failure, and certainly does not reflect patients in the United States in terms of those high levels of guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Poole said. The message from DANISH, she said, seems to be that patients with NICM who are definitely on goal-directed heart failure medications with CRT devices “probably don’t have a meaningful benefit from an ICD, on total mortality, because their sudden death rates are simply so low.”

SCD-HeFT had originally assigned 2,521 patients with heart failure of NYHA class II or III and an left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35% to receive an ICD, amiodarone without an ICD, or an amiodarone placebo and no ICD; patients in the latter cohorts made up the non-ICD control group.

Those who received an ICD, compared with the non-ICD control patients, showed a 23% drop in all-cause mortality over a median of 45.5 months ending on October 31, 2003, Dr. Poole and colleagues noted in their current report. The trial’s primary results were unveiled 2005.

The current analysis, based on data collected in 2010 and 2011, followed the 1,855 patients alive at the trial’s official conclusion and combined outcomes before and after that time for a median follow-up of 11 years, Dr. Poole and colleagues reported.

In the ICD group, the overall hazard ratio for mortality by intention-to-treat was 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98; P = .028), compared with the non-ICD control group.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the triple-therapy combination of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus cobimetinib (Cotellic) and vemurafenib (Zelboraf) for the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma, according to a press statement from Genentech, which owns all three drugs.

This is the first melanoma indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab; the other two drugs, cobimetinib and vemurafenib, are a MEK- plus BRAF-inhibitor combination previously approved for BRAF-mutated melanoma.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the randomized, phase 3 IMspire150 study from patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic or unresectable locally advanced melanoma.

Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was improved by 4.5 months with the triple therapy compared to the doublet.

The addition of atezolizumab to cobimetinib and vemurafenib led to a longer median PFS of 15.1 months, compared to 10.6 months with placebo plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 – 0.97; P = .025).

The most common adverse reactions (rate ≥ 20%) in patients who received the triple combination were rash (75%), musculoskeletal pain (62%), fatigue (51%), hepatotoxicity (50%), pyrexia (49%), nausea (30%), pruritus (26%), edema (26%), stomatitis (23%), hypothyroidism (22%), and photosensitivity reaction (21%).

The review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence that facilitates concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the triple-therapy combination of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus cobimetinib (Cotellic) and vemurafenib (Zelboraf) for the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma, according to a press statement from Genentech, which owns all three drugs.

This is the first melanoma indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab; the other two drugs, cobimetinib and vemurafenib, are a MEK- plus BRAF-inhibitor combination previously approved for BRAF-mutated melanoma.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the randomized, phase 3 IMspire150 study from patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic or unresectable locally advanced melanoma.

Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was improved by 4.5 months with the triple therapy compared to the doublet.

The addition of atezolizumab to cobimetinib and vemurafenib led to a longer median PFS of 15.1 months, compared to 10.6 months with placebo plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 – 0.97; P = .025).

The most common adverse reactions (rate ≥ 20%) in patients who received the triple combination were rash (75%), musculoskeletal pain (62%), fatigue (51%), hepatotoxicity (50%), pyrexia (49%), nausea (30%), pruritus (26%), edema (26%), stomatitis (23%), hypothyroidism (22%), and photosensitivity reaction (21%).

The review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence that facilitates concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the triple-therapy combination of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus cobimetinib (Cotellic) and vemurafenib (Zelboraf) for the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma, according to a press statement from Genentech, which owns all three drugs.

This is the first melanoma indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab; the other two drugs, cobimetinib and vemurafenib, are a MEK- plus BRAF-inhibitor combination previously approved for BRAF-mutated melanoma.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the randomized, phase 3 IMspire150 study from patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic or unresectable locally advanced melanoma.

Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was improved by 4.5 months with the triple therapy compared to the doublet.

The addition of atezolizumab to cobimetinib and vemurafenib led to a longer median PFS of 15.1 months, compared to 10.6 months with placebo plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 – 0.97; P = .025).

The most common adverse reactions (rate ≥ 20%) in patients who received the triple combination were rash (75%), musculoskeletal pain (62%), fatigue (51%), hepatotoxicity (50%), pyrexia (49%), nausea (30%), pruritus (26%), edema (26%), stomatitis (23%), hypothyroidism (22%), and photosensitivity reaction (21%).

The review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence that facilitates concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Improving hand hygiene, optimizing antibiotic order sets, and removing catheters sooner were among the interventions associated with a decreased risk of infections after hysterectomy, according to research presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

“Implementation of bundled interventions and an institutional focus on reducing infection can successfully reduce the burden of posthysterectomy infectious morbidity,” said study author Shitanshu Uppal, MBBS, an ob.gyn. specializing in gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

To assess the impact of quality improvement efforts on infectious morbidity after hysterectomy, Dr. Uppal and colleagues analyzed data from 1,867 hysterectomies performed between Oct. 8, 2015, and Oct. 7, 2018. Patients were at least 18 years old, younger than 90 years old, and underwent hysterectomy via any route at the University of Michigan Medical Center Hospital.

Interventions to reduce infections included the use of cefazolin as a preferred antibiotic, the addition of metronidazole to first-generation cephalosporins for antibiotic prophylaxis, subcuticular closure of open incisions, and earlier removal of Foley catheters. In addition, the institution evaluated and shared information about doctors’ hand hygiene, implemented enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, and held periodic meetings with doctors to discuss efforts to reduce infections. Most interventions were implemented by November 2017.

The primary outcome was overall infection rate in the 30 days after surgery for each of the 3 years included the study. Infections included superficial surgical site infections, deep infections, Clostridium difficile infections, and urinary tract infections, among others.

Patients’ baseline clinical characteristics did not differ during the 3 years studied. Length of stay decreased, which may be attributed to increased use of ERAS protocols and institution of same-day discharge in laparoscopic cases, Dr. Uppal said. The rate of malignancy on final pathology decreased from 29% in year 1 to 23% in year 3. The rate of laparoscopic surgery increased from 55% to 64%.

Infectious morbidity rates decreased from 7% in year 1 (47 infections per 644 cases) to 4% in year 3 (22 infections per 616 cases).

“We saw a reduction in infection rate in all categories,” said Dr. Uppal. “However, the reduction in urinary tract infection as well as superficial surgical site infection was most pronounced.”

After adjustment for the route of surgery, body mass index, age, malignancy on final pathology, modality of surgery, and comorbidities, performance of hysterectomy in year 3 was independently predictive of lower rates of infectious morbidity by 56%.

In addition, the standardized incidence ratio for surgical site infection as reported by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services decreased. In December 2016, Michigan Medicine’s ratio was 1.057. At the end of 2018, the projected ratio was 0.243.

The interventions started on different dates, and “we are unable to conclude, from all the implemented interventions, which one worked,” Dr. Uppal noted.

“I hope the elements from this quality improvement initiative will become the standard of care in order to benefit our patients,” said Amy Park, MD, section head of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at Cleveland Clinic.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Uppal S et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 16.

Improving hand hygiene, optimizing antibiotic order sets, and removing catheters sooner were among the interventions associated with a decreased risk of infections after hysterectomy, according to research presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

“Implementation of bundled interventions and an institutional focus on reducing infection can successfully reduce the burden of posthysterectomy infectious morbidity,” said study author Shitanshu Uppal, MBBS, an ob.gyn. specializing in gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

To assess the impact of quality improvement efforts on infectious morbidity after hysterectomy, Dr. Uppal and colleagues analyzed data from 1,867 hysterectomies performed between Oct. 8, 2015, and Oct. 7, 2018. Patients were at least 18 years old, younger than 90 years old, and underwent hysterectomy via any route at the University of Michigan Medical Center Hospital.

Interventions to reduce infections included the use of cefazolin as a preferred antibiotic, the addition of metronidazole to first-generation cephalosporins for antibiotic prophylaxis, subcuticular closure of open incisions, and earlier removal of Foley catheters. In addition, the institution evaluated and shared information about doctors’ hand hygiene, implemented enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, and held periodic meetings with doctors to discuss efforts to reduce infections. Most interventions were implemented by November 2017.

The primary outcome was overall infection rate in the 30 days after surgery for each of the 3 years included the study. Infections included superficial surgical site infections, deep infections, Clostridium difficile infections, and urinary tract infections, among others.

Patients’ baseline clinical characteristics did not differ during the 3 years studied. Length of stay decreased, which may be attributed to increased use of ERAS protocols and institution of same-day discharge in laparoscopic cases, Dr. Uppal said. The rate of malignancy on final pathology decreased from 29% in year 1 to 23% in year 3. The rate of laparoscopic surgery increased from 55% to 64%.

Infectious morbidity rates decreased from 7% in year 1 (47 infections per 644 cases) to 4% in year 3 (22 infections per 616 cases).

“We saw a reduction in infection rate in all categories,” said Dr. Uppal. “However, the reduction in urinary tract infection as well as superficial surgical site infection was most pronounced.”

After adjustment for the route of surgery, body mass index, age, malignancy on final pathology, modality of surgery, and comorbidities, performance of hysterectomy in year 3 was independently predictive of lower rates of infectious morbidity by 56%.

In addition, the standardized incidence ratio for surgical site infection as reported by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services decreased. In December 2016, Michigan Medicine’s ratio was 1.057. At the end of 2018, the projected ratio was 0.243.

The interventions started on different dates, and “we are unable to conclude, from all the implemented interventions, which one worked,” Dr. Uppal noted.

“I hope the elements from this quality improvement initiative will become the standard of care in order to benefit our patients,” said Amy Park, MD, section head of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at Cleveland Clinic.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Uppal S et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 16.

Improving hand hygiene, optimizing antibiotic order sets, and removing catheters sooner were among the interventions associated with a decreased risk of infections after hysterectomy, according to research presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

“Implementation of bundled interventions and an institutional focus on reducing infection can successfully reduce the burden of posthysterectomy infectious morbidity,” said study author Shitanshu Uppal, MBBS, an ob.gyn. specializing in gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

To assess the impact of quality improvement efforts on infectious morbidity after hysterectomy, Dr. Uppal and colleagues analyzed data from 1,867 hysterectomies performed between Oct. 8, 2015, and Oct. 7, 2018. Patients were at least 18 years old, younger than 90 years old, and underwent hysterectomy via any route at the University of Michigan Medical Center Hospital.

Interventions to reduce infections included the use of cefazolin as a preferred antibiotic, the addition of metronidazole to first-generation cephalosporins for antibiotic prophylaxis, subcuticular closure of open incisions, and earlier removal of Foley catheters. In addition, the institution evaluated and shared information about doctors’ hand hygiene, implemented enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, and held periodic meetings with doctors to discuss efforts to reduce infections. Most interventions were implemented by November 2017.

The primary outcome was overall infection rate in the 30 days after surgery for each of the 3 years included the study. Infections included superficial surgical site infections, deep infections, Clostridium difficile infections, and urinary tract infections, among others.

Patients’ baseline clinical characteristics did not differ during the 3 years studied. Length of stay decreased, which may be attributed to increased use of ERAS protocols and institution of same-day discharge in laparoscopic cases, Dr. Uppal said. The rate of malignancy on final pathology decreased from 29% in year 1 to 23% in year 3. The rate of laparoscopic surgery increased from 55% to 64%.

Infectious morbidity rates decreased from 7% in year 1 (47 infections per 644 cases) to 4% in year 3 (22 infections per 616 cases).

“We saw a reduction in infection rate in all categories,” said Dr. Uppal. “However, the reduction in urinary tract infection as well as superficial surgical site infection was most pronounced.”

After adjustment for the route of surgery, body mass index, age, malignancy on final pathology, modality of surgery, and comorbidities, performance of hysterectomy in year 3 was independently predictive of lower rates of infectious morbidity by 56%.

In addition, the standardized incidence ratio for surgical site infection as reported by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services decreased. In December 2016, Michigan Medicine’s ratio was 1.057. At the end of 2018, the projected ratio was 0.243.

The interventions started on different dates, and “we are unable to conclude, from all the implemented interventions, which one worked,” Dr. Uppal noted.

“I hope the elements from this quality improvement initiative will become the standard of care in order to benefit our patients,” said Amy Park, MD, section head of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at Cleveland Clinic.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Uppal S et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 16.

[polldaddy:10586792]

[polldaddy:10586792]

[polldaddy:10586792]

An erythematous rash was the most common cutaneous manifestation in patients with COVID-19, followed by chilblain-like lesions and urticaria-like lesions in a systematic review of mostly European studies.

Qing Zhao, MD, Xiaokai Fang, MD, and their colleagues at the Shandong Provincial Hospital for Skin Diseases & Shandong Provincial Institute of Dermatology and Venereology, in Jinan, China, reported the results of a literature review of 44 articles published through May 2020 that included 507 patients with cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. The review was published in the Journal of The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Nearly all of the patients (96%) were from Europe, and more than half were women (60%), with an average age of 49 years. Most patients had multiple skin symptoms, with the most common being erythema (44%), chilblain-like lesions (20%), urticaria-like lesions (16%), vesicular manifestations (13%), livedo/necrosis (6%), and petechiae (almost 2%). The authors described erythema as being present in specific sites, such as the trunk, extremities, flexural regions, face, and mucous membranes. Slightly less than half of all patients had significant pruritus.

Data on systemic COVID-19 symptoms were available for 431 patients and included fever in about two-thirds of patients and cough in almost 70%, with dyspnea in almost half of patients. Almost 60% had fatigue, and almost 60% had asthenia. Information about the onset of skin symptoms was available in 88 patients; of these patients, lesions were seen an average of almost 10 days after systemic symptoms appeared and, in almost 15%, were the first symptoms noted.

Histopathologic exams were done for only 23 patients and, in all cases, showed “inflammatory features without specific pathological changes, such as lymphocyte infiltration.” In one study, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing of skin biopsy specimens tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Expression of ACE2, the receptor of SARS-CoV-2, in the skin was evaluated in six of the studies. “Higher ACE2 expression was identified in keratinocytes, mainly in differentiating keratinocytes and basal cells compared to the other cells of skin tissues,” the authors wrote. These results were confirmed with immunohistochemistry, which, they said, found “ACE2-positive keratinocytes in the stratum basal, the stratum spinosum, and the stratum granulosum of epiderma.” They added that this provides evidence “for percutaneous infection or the entry of virus into patients through skin tissues,” but cautioned that more research is needed.

The authors acknowledged that there are still many unanswered questions about COVID-19, and that more clinical data and research are needed, to improve the understanding of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19.

Pathogenesis of different cutaneous manifestations may be different, Dr. Femia said. For example, urticaria and morbilliform eruption were described by the authors of the review as more benign eruptions, but pathogenesis may differ from that of so-called COVID toes and from the pathogenesis of purpura and ulcerations seen in patients with more severe disease, she noted. It is plausible, she added, that purpura and ulcerations may be a “direct invasion of SARS-CoV-2 into endothelial cells,” which creates secondary processes “that ultimately destroy the skin.”

Urticaria and morbilliform eruptions, on the other hand, “are more simply that the immune system is recognizing COVID, and in doing so, is also recognizing some antigens in the skin and creating a hypersensitive response to the skin” and has “nothing to do with the SARS-CoV-2 virus actually being in that location,” she said.

It is important to differentiate between patients who have skin manifestations attributed to COVID-19 and those with manifestations independent of COVID-19, which is difficult, Dr. Femia noted. A patient with COVID-19 and a cutaneous manifestation may be having a reaction to a medication. “It’s important to have a critical eye and to remember that, when we see these manifestations, we should always be investigating whether there was an alternative cause so that we can better learn what exactly we should be attributing to this infection,” she said

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the authors of the review had presented interesting work, but made some “assumptions that need to be proven.” Dr. Friedman also was not involved in the research, but agreed in an interview with the assessment that it is unlikely SARS-CoV-2 would penetrate the skin. While some viruses – such as the poxvirus that causes molluscum contagiosum and the herpes simplex virus – invade keratinocytes specifically, there is a particular clinical phenotype that results that is associated with changes in the epidermis. However, “the skin manifestations of COVID-19 do not fit with direct skin invasion, [but] rather the immune response to systemic disease,” he said.

“[I]n terms of systemic invasion through the skin, it is possible, but this study certainly doesn’t show that. The presence/expression of ACE2 in the epidermis doesn’t translate to route of infection,” Dr. Friedman said..

The study received financial support from Shandong First Medical University, the Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences and the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Femia and Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhao Q et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jun 28. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16778.

An erythematous rash was the most common cutaneous manifestation in patients with COVID-19, followed by chilblain-like lesions and urticaria-like lesions in a systematic review of mostly European studies.

Qing Zhao, MD, Xiaokai Fang, MD, and their colleagues at the Shandong Provincial Hospital for Skin Diseases & Shandong Provincial Institute of Dermatology and Venereology, in Jinan, China, reported the results of a literature review of 44 articles published through May 2020 that included 507 patients with cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. The review was published in the Journal of The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Nearly all of the patients (96%) were from Europe, and more than half were women (60%), with an average age of 49 years. Most patients had multiple skin symptoms, with the most common being erythema (44%), chilblain-like lesions (20%), urticaria-like lesions (16%), vesicular manifestations (13%), livedo/necrosis (6%), and petechiae (almost 2%). The authors described erythema as being present in specific sites, such as the trunk, extremities, flexural regions, face, and mucous membranes. Slightly less than half of all patients had significant pruritus.

Data on systemic COVID-19 symptoms were available for 431 patients and included fever in about two-thirds of patients and cough in almost 70%, with dyspnea in almost half of patients. Almost 60% had fatigue, and almost 60% had asthenia. Information about the onset of skin symptoms was available in 88 patients; of these patients, lesions were seen an average of almost 10 days after systemic symptoms appeared and, in almost 15%, were the first symptoms noted.

Histopathologic exams were done for only 23 patients and, in all cases, showed “inflammatory features without specific pathological changes, such as lymphocyte infiltration.” In one study, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing of skin biopsy specimens tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Expression of ACE2, the receptor of SARS-CoV-2, in the skin was evaluated in six of the studies. “Higher ACE2 expression was identified in keratinocytes, mainly in differentiating keratinocytes and basal cells compared to the other cells of skin tissues,” the authors wrote. These results were confirmed with immunohistochemistry, which, they said, found “ACE2-positive keratinocytes in the stratum basal, the stratum spinosum, and the stratum granulosum of epiderma.” They added that this provides evidence “for percutaneous infection or the entry of virus into patients through skin tissues,” but cautioned that more research is needed.

The authors acknowledged that there are still many unanswered questions about COVID-19, and that more clinical data and research are needed, to improve the understanding of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19.

Pathogenesis of different cutaneous manifestations may be different, Dr. Femia said. For example, urticaria and morbilliform eruption were described by the authors of the review as more benign eruptions, but pathogenesis may differ from that of so-called COVID toes and from the pathogenesis of purpura and ulcerations seen in patients with more severe disease, she noted. It is plausible, she added, that purpura and ulcerations may be a “direct invasion of SARS-CoV-2 into endothelial cells,” which creates secondary processes “that ultimately destroy the skin.”

Urticaria and morbilliform eruptions, on the other hand, “are more simply that the immune system is recognizing COVID, and in doing so, is also recognizing some antigens in the skin and creating a hypersensitive response to the skin” and has “nothing to do with the SARS-CoV-2 virus actually being in that location,” she said.

It is important to differentiate between patients who have skin manifestations attributed to COVID-19 and those with manifestations independent of COVID-19, which is difficult, Dr. Femia noted. A patient with COVID-19 and a cutaneous manifestation may be having a reaction to a medication. “It’s important to have a critical eye and to remember that, when we see these manifestations, we should always be investigating whether there was an alternative cause so that we can better learn what exactly we should be attributing to this infection,” she said

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the authors of the review had presented interesting work, but made some “assumptions that need to be proven.” Dr. Friedman also was not involved in the research, but agreed in an interview with the assessment that it is unlikely SARS-CoV-2 would penetrate the skin. While some viruses – such as the poxvirus that causes molluscum contagiosum and the herpes simplex virus – invade keratinocytes specifically, there is a particular clinical phenotype that results that is associated with changes in the epidermis. However, “the skin manifestations of COVID-19 do not fit with direct skin invasion, [but] rather the immune response to systemic disease,” he said.

“[I]n terms of systemic invasion through the skin, it is possible, but this study certainly doesn’t show that. The presence/expression of ACE2 in the epidermis doesn’t translate to route of infection,” Dr. Friedman said..

The study received financial support from Shandong First Medical University, the Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences and the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Femia and Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhao Q et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jun 28. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16778.

An erythematous rash was the most common cutaneous manifestation in patients with COVID-19, followed by chilblain-like lesions and urticaria-like lesions in a systematic review of mostly European studies.

Qing Zhao, MD, Xiaokai Fang, MD, and their colleagues at the Shandong Provincial Hospital for Skin Diseases & Shandong Provincial Institute of Dermatology and Venereology, in Jinan, China, reported the results of a literature review of 44 articles published through May 2020 that included 507 patients with cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. The review was published in the Journal of The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Nearly all of the patients (96%) were from Europe, and more than half were women (60%), with an average age of 49 years. Most patients had multiple skin symptoms, with the most common being erythema (44%), chilblain-like lesions (20%), urticaria-like lesions (16%), vesicular manifestations (13%), livedo/necrosis (6%), and petechiae (almost 2%). The authors described erythema as being present in specific sites, such as the trunk, extremities, flexural regions, face, and mucous membranes. Slightly less than half of all patients had significant pruritus.

Data on systemic COVID-19 symptoms were available for 431 patients and included fever in about two-thirds of patients and cough in almost 70%, with dyspnea in almost half of patients. Almost 60% had fatigue, and almost 60% had asthenia. Information about the onset of skin symptoms was available in 88 patients; of these patients, lesions were seen an average of almost 10 days after systemic symptoms appeared and, in almost 15%, were the first symptoms noted.

Histopathologic exams were done for only 23 patients and, in all cases, showed “inflammatory features without specific pathological changes, such as lymphocyte infiltration.” In one study, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing of skin biopsy specimens tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Expression of ACE2, the receptor of SARS-CoV-2, in the skin was evaluated in six of the studies. “Higher ACE2 expression was identified in keratinocytes, mainly in differentiating keratinocytes and basal cells compared to the other cells of skin tissues,” the authors wrote. These results were confirmed with immunohistochemistry, which, they said, found “ACE2-positive keratinocytes in the stratum basal, the stratum spinosum, and the stratum granulosum of epiderma.” They added that this provides evidence “for percutaneous infection or the entry of virus into patients through skin tissues,” but cautioned that more research is needed.

The authors acknowledged that there are still many unanswered questions about COVID-19, and that more clinical data and research are needed, to improve the understanding of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19.

Pathogenesis of different cutaneous manifestations may be different, Dr. Femia said. For example, urticaria and morbilliform eruption were described by the authors of the review as more benign eruptions, but pathogenesis may differ from that of so-called COVID toes and from the pathogenesis of purpura and ulcerations seen in patients with more severe disease, she noted. It is plausible, she added, that purpura and ulcerations may be a “direct invasion of SARS-CoV-2 into endothelial cells,” which creates secondary processes “that ultimately destroy the skin.”

Urticaria and morbilliform eruptions, on the other hand, “are more simply that the immune system is recognizing COVID, and in doing so, is also recognizing some antigens in the skin and creating a hypersensitive response to the skin” and has “nothing to do with the SARS-CoV-2 virus actually being in that location,” she said.

It is important to differentiate between patients who have skin manifestations attributed to COVID-19 and those with manifestations independent of COVID-19, which is difficult, Dr. Femia noted. A patient with COVID-19 and a cutaneous manifestation may be having a reaction to a medication. “It’s important to have a critical eye and to remember that, when we see these manifestations, we should always be investigating whether there was an alternative cause so that we can better learn what exactly we should be attributing to this infection,” she said

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the authors of the review had presented interesting work, but made some “assumptions that need to be proven.” Dr. Friedman also was not involved in the research, but agreed in an interview with the assessment that it is unlikely SARS-CoV-2 would penetrate the skin. While some viruses – such as the poxvirus that causes molluscum contagiosum and the herpes simplex virus – invade keratinocytes specifically, there is a particular clinical phenotype that results that is associated with changes in the epidermis. However, “the skin manifestations of COVID-19 do not fit with direct skin invasion, [but] rather the immune response to systemic disease,” he said.

“[I]n terms of systemic invasion through the skin, it is possible, but this study certainly doesn’t show that. The presence/expression of ACE2 in the epidermis doesn’t translate to route of infection,” Dr. Friedman said..

The study received financial support from Shandong First Medical University, the Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences and the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Femia and Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhao Q et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jun 28. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16778.

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

It turns out that a pandemic, at least this COVID-19 version, can be a challenge for folks like me who are seldom at a loss for words. The pandemic has so overwhelmed every corner of our lives that it is hard to think of another topic on which to pontificate and still not tromp on someone’s political toes. One can always write about the pandemic itself, and I’ve tried that, but as the curtain is gradually being pulled back on this crafty little germ one runs the risk of making an observation today that will be disproved in a week or 2. However, I can’t suppress my urge to write, and so I have decided to share a few brief random observations. Of course they are related to the pandemic. And of course I realize that there is a better than fifty percent chance that they will be proved wrong by the time you read my next Letters from Maine.

Under the radar

Phynart Studio/Getty Images

Two of the many mysteries about SARS-CoV-2 involve young children who as a group appear to be less easily infected than adults and even when infected seem to be less likely to spread the disease to other people, particularly adults. One explanation posited by some researchers in France is that young children are less likely to have symptoms such as cough and are less powerful speakers and so might be less likely to spew out a significant number of infected aerosolized droplets (“How to Reopen Schools: What Science and Other Countries Teach Us.” By Pam Belluck, Apoorva Mandavill, and Benedict Carey. New York Times, July 11, 2020). While there are probably several factors to explain this observation, one may be that young children are short, seldom taller than an adult waistline. I suspect the majority of aerosols they emit fall and inactivate harmlessly to the floor several feet below an adult’s nose and mouth. Regardless of the explanation, it appears to be good news for the opening of schools, at least for the early grades.

Forget the deep cleaning

There has been a glut of news stories about reopening schools, and many of these stories are accompanied by images of school custodians with buckets, mops, spray bottles, and sponges scouring desks and walls. The most recent image in our local newspaper was of someone scrubbing the underside of a desk. I know it’s taking the World Health Organization an unconscionable period of time to acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, but the rest of us should have gotten the message long ago and been directing our attention to air handling and ventilation. The urge to scrub and deep clean is a hard habit to break, but this nasty bug is not like influenza or a flesh eating bacteria in which deep cleaning might help. A better image to attach to a story on school reopening would be one of a custodian with a screwdriver struggling to pry open a classroom window that had been painted shut a decade ago.

Managing the inevitable

Middlebury College in Vermont and Bowdoin College here in Brunswick, Maine, are similar in many respects because they are small and situated in relatively isolated small New England towns with good track records for pandemic management. Middlebury has elected to invite all its 2,750 students back to campus, whereas Bowdoin has decided to allow only incoming first years and transfer students (for a total of about 600) to return. Both schools will institute similar testing and social distancing protocols and restrict students from access to their respective towns (“A Tale of 2 Colleges.” By Bill Burger. Inside Higher Ed, June 29,2020). It will be an interesting experiment. I’m voting for Middlebury and not because my son and daughter-in-law are alums, but because I think Middlebury seems to have acknowledged that no matter how diligent one is in creating a SARS-CoV-2–free environment at the outset, these are college kids and there will be some cases on both campuses. It is on how those inevitable realities are managed and contained that an institution should be judged.

Patience

Unfortunately, the pandemic has exposed some of our weaknesses as a nation. We always have been a restless and impatient population eager to get moving and it has driven us to greatness. Hopefully, patience will be a lesson that we will learn, along with many others.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

It turns out that a pandemic, at least this COVID-19 version, can be a challenge for folks like me who are seldom at a loss for words. The pandemic has so overwhelmed every corner of our lives that it is hard to think of another topic on which to pontificate and still not tromp on someone’s political toes. One can always write about the pandemic itself, and I’ve tried that, but as the curtain is gradually being pulled back on this crafty little germ one runs the risk of making an observation today that will be disproved in a week or 2. However, I can’t suppress my urge to write, and so I have decided to share a few brief random observations. Of course they are related to the pandemic. And of course I realize that there is a better than fifty percent chance that they will be proved wrong by the time you read my next Letters from Maine.

Under the radar

Phynart Studio/Getty Images

Two of the many mysteries about SARS-CoV-2 involve young children who as a group appear to be less easily infected than adults and even when infected seem to be less likely to spread the disease to other people, particularly adults. One explanation posited by some researchers in France is that young children are less likely to have symptoms such as cough and are less powerful speakers and so might be less likely to spew out a significant number of infected aerosolized droplets (“How to Reopen Schools: What Science and Other Countries Teach Us.” By Pam Belluck, Apoorva Mandavill, and Benedict Carey. New York Times, July 11, 2020). While there are probably several factors to explain this observation, one may be that young children are short, seldom taller than an adult waistline. I suspect the majority of aerosols they emit fall and inactivate harmlessly to the floor several feet below an adult’s nose and mouth. Regardless of the explanation, it appears to be good news for the opening of schools, at least for the early grades.

Forget the deep cleaning

There has been a glut of news stories about reopening schools, and many of these stories are accompanied by images of school custodians with buckets, mops, spray bottles, and sponges scouring desks and walls. The most recent image in our local newspaper was of someone scrubbing the underside of a desk. I know it’s taking the World Health Organization an unconscionable period of time to acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, but the rest of us should have gotten the message long ago and been directing our attention to air handling and ventilation. The urge to scrub and deep clean is a hard habit to break, but this nasty bug is not like influenza or a flesh eating bacteria in which deep cleaning might help. A better image to attach to a story on school reopening would be one of a custodian with a screwdriver struggling to pry open a classroom window that had been painted shut a decade ago.

Managing the inevitable

Middlebury College in Vermont and Bowdoin College here in Brunswick, Maine, are similar in many respects because they are small and situated in relatively isolated small New England towns with good track records for pandemic management. Middlebury has elected to invite all its 2,750 students back to campus, whereas Bowdoin has decided to allow only incoming first years and transfer students (for a total of about 600) to return. Both schools will institute similar testing and social distancing protocols and restrict students from access to their respective towns (“A Tale of 2 Colleges.” By Bill Burger. Inside Higher Ed, June 29,2020). It will be an interesting experiment. I’m voting for Middlebury and not because my son and daughter-in-law are alums, but because I think Middlebury seems to have acknowledged that no matter how diligent one is in creating a SARS-CoV-2–free environment at the outset, these are college kids and there will be some cases on both campuses. It is on how those inevitable realities are managed and contained that an institution should be judged.

Patience

Unfortunately, the pandemic has exposed some of our weaknesses as a nation. We always have been a restless and impatient population eager to get moving and it has driven us to greatness. Hopefully, patience will be a lesson that we will learn, along with many others.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

It turns out that a pandemic, at least this COVID-19 version, can be a challenge for folks like me who are seldom at a loss for words. The pandemic has so overwhelmed every corner of our lives that it is hard to think of another topic on which to pontificate and still not tromp on someone’s political toes. One can always write about the pandemic itself, and I’ve tried that, but as the curtain is gradually being pulled back on this crafty little germ one runs the risk of making an observation today that will be disproved in a week or 2. However, I can’t suppress my urge to write, and so I have decided to share a few brief random observations. Of course they are related to the pandemic. And of course I realize that there is a better than fifty percent chance that they will be proved wrong by the time you read my next Letters from Maine.

Under the radar

Phynart Studio/Getty Images

Two of the many mysteries about SARS-CoV-2 involve young children who as a group appear to be less easily infected than adults and even when infected seem to be less likely to spread the disease to other people, particularly adults. One explanation posited by some researchers in France is that young children are less likely to have symptoms such as cough and are less powerful speakers and so might be less likely to spew out a significant number of infected aerosolized droplets (“How to Reopen Schools: What Science and Other Countries Teach Us.” By Pam Belluck, Apoorva Mandavill, and Benedict Carey. New York Times, July 11, 2020). While there are probably several factors to explain this observation, one may be that young children are short, seldom taller than an adult waistline. I suspect the majority of aerosols they emit fall and inactivate harmlessly to the floor several feet below an adult’s nose and mouth. Regardless of the explanation, it appears to be good news for the opening of schools, at least for the early grades.

Forget the deep cleaning

There has been a glut of news stories about reopening schools, and many of these stories are accompanied by images of school custodians with buckets, mops, spray bottles, and sponges scouring desks and walls. The most recent image in our local newspaper was of someone scrubbing the underside of a desk. I know it’s taking the World Health Organization an unconscionable period of time to acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, but the rest of us should have gotten the message long ago and been directing our attention to air handling and ventilation. The urge to scrub and deep clean is a hard habit to break, but this nasty bug is not like influenza or a flesh eating bacteria in which deep cleaning might help. A better image to attach to a story on school reopening would be one of a custodian with a screwdriver struggling to pry open a classroom window that had been painted shut a decade ago.

Managing the inevitable

Middlebury College in Vermont and Bowdoin College here in Brunswick, Maine, are similar in many respects because they are small and situated in relatively isolated small New England towns with good track records for pandemic management. Middlebury has elected to invite all its 2,750 students back to campus, whereas Bowdoin has decided to allow only incoming first years and transfer students (for a total of about 600) to return. Both schools will institute similar testing and social distancing protocols and restrict students from access to their respective towns (“A Tale of 2 Colleges.” By Bill Burger. Inside Higher Ed, June 29,2020). It will be an interesting experiment. I’m voting for Middlebury and not because my son and daughter-in-law are alums, but because I think Middlebury seems to have acknowledged that no matter how diligent one is in creating a SARS-CoV-2–free environment at the outset, these are college kids and there will be some cases on both campuses. It is on how those inevitable realities are managed and contained that an institution should be judged.

Patience

Unfortunately, the pandemic has exposed some of our weaknesses as a nation. We always have been a restless and impatient population eager to get moving and it has driven us to greatness. Hopefully, patience will be a lesson that we will learn, along with many others.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Biomedical science is ever changing, and what may be believed in one era – for instance, bloodletting can cure disease or lobotomies can treat psychiatric disorders – may not be accepted in the next. However, one medical advance stands out in terms of maintaining and sustaining our health: vaccines. The data comparing morbidity and mortality before and after widespread vaccination are staggering. Before the smallpox vaccine, nearly 49,000 people were infected and more than 1,500 died annually from smallpox; by 1977, the vaccine eradicated the disease in the United States.¹ Polio caused paralytic disease in more than 16,000 people per year in the United States, including, perhaps most famously, President Franklin Roosevelt. After development of the polio vaccine, cases and deaths dropped to zero.²

Despite the evidence indicating the effectiveness of vaccines to reduce disease and death, rates of vaccination in the United States remain low among adults, ranging from about 23% for pneumococcal disease to 45% for seasonal influenza.³ Childhood immunization in 2017 hovered around 70% for those receiving all the recommended vaccines.⁴ Clearly there is room for improvement.

A woman’s ob.gyn. may be the only medical professional she sees regularly, and her annual well visit may be the only time she receives information regarding her weight and blood pressure, or reviews her current medications. For women who are planning pregnancy, pregnant, or post partum, ob.gyn. consultations present unique opportunities to increase patient engagement in healthy behaviors, such as diet, exercise, and regular sleep, because women are highly motivated to do what is best for their babies.

Immunization during pregnancy not only reduces the mother’s risk of severe disease, which can lead to complications, defects, and fetal or perinatal death, but also has been shown to improve the neonate’s ability to fight infection and may reduce vertical transmission of certain diseases. In this era of COVID-19 where we have no vaccine but we have evidence that pregnant women may be at greater risk for severe disease,⁵ routine immunizations are vital to maternal and fetal health.

We have invited Laura E. Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, to address the importance of vaccination and the role of the ob.gyn. in advocating for this life-saving preventive health measure. Dr. Riley disclosed she is an author for Up to Date and was a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline about a cytomegalovirus vaccine. 

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999 Apr 2;48(12);243-8.

2. JAMA. 2007 Nov 14;298(18):2155-63.

3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017 May 5;66(11);1-28.

4. CDC National Center for Health Statistics FastStats on Immunization.

5. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Jun 26;69(25);769-75.

Biomedical science is ever changing, and what may be believed in one era – for instance, bloodletting can cure disease or lobotomies can treat psychiatric disorders – may not be accepted in the next. However, one medical advance stands out in terms of maintaining and sustaining our health: vaccines. The data comparing morbidity and mortality before and after widespread vaccination are staggering. Before the smallpox vaccine, nearly 49,000 people were infected and more than 1,500 died annually from smallpox; by 1977, the vaccine eradicated the disease in the United States.¹ Polio caused paralytic disease in more than 16,000 people per year in the United States, including, perhaps most famously, President Franklin Roosevelt. After development of the polio vaccine, cases and deaths dropped to zero.²

Despite the evidence indicating the effectiveness of vaccines to reduce disease and death, rates of vaccination in the United States remain low among adults, ranging from about 23% for pneumococcal disease to 45% for seasonal influenza.³ Childhood immunization in 2017 hovered around 70% for those receiving all the recommended vaccines.⁴ Clearly there is room for improvement.

A woman’s ob.gyn. may be the only medical professional she sees regularly, and her annual well visit may be the only time she receives information regarding her weight and blood pressure, or reviews her current medications. For women who are planning pregnancy, pregnant, or post partum, ob.gyn. consultations present unique opportunities to increase patient engagement in healthy behaviors, such as diet, exercise, and regular sleep, because women are highly motivated to do what is best for their babies.

Immunization during pregnancy not only reduces the mother’s risk of severe disease, which can lead to complications, defects, and fetal or perinatal death, but also has been shown to improve the neonate’s ability to fight infection and may reduce vertical transmission of certain diseases. In this era of COVID-19 where we have no vaccine but we have evidence that pregnant women may be at greater risk for severe disease,⁵ routine immunizations are vital to maternal and fetal health.

We have invited Laura E. Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, to address the importance of vaccination and the role of the ob.gyn. in advocating for this life-saving preventive health measure. Dr. Riley disclosed she is an author for Up to Date and was a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline about a cytomegalovirus vaccine. 

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999 Apr 2;48(12);243-8.

2. JAMA. 2007 Nov 14;298(18):2155-63.

3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017 May 5;66(11);1-28.

4. CDC National Center for Health Statistics FastStats on Immunization.

5. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Jun 26;69(25);769-75.

Biomedical science is ever changing, and what may be believed in one era – for instance, bloodletting can cure disease or lobotomies can treat psychiatric disorders – may not be accepted in the next. However, one medical advance stands out in terms of maintaining and sustaining our health: vaccines. The data comparing morbidity and mortality before and after widespread vaccination are staggering. Before the smallpox vaccine, nearly 49,000 people were infected and more than 1,500 died annually from smallpox; by 1977, the vaccine eradicated the disease in the United States.¹ Polio caused paralytic disease in more than 16,000 people per year in the United States, including, perhaps most famously, President Franklin Roosevelt. After development of the polio vaccine, cases and deaths dropped to zero.²

Despite the evidence indicating the effectiveness of vaccines to reduce disease and death, rates of vaccination in the United States remain low among adults, ranging from about 23% for pneumococcal disease to 45% for seasonal influenza.³ Childhood immunization in 2017 hovered around 70% for those receiving all the recommended vaccines.⁴ Clearly there is room for improvement.

A woman’s ob.gyn. may be the only medical professional she sees regularly, and her annual well visit may be the only time she receives information regarding her weight and blood pressure, or reviews her current medications. For women who are planning pregnancy, pregnant, or post partum, ob.gyn. consultations present unique opportunities to increase patient engagement in healthy behaviors, such as diet, exercise, and regular sleep, because women are highly motivated to do what is best for their babies.

Immunization during pregnancy not only reduces the mother’s risk of severe disease, which can lead to complications, defects, and fetal or perinatal death, but also has been shown to improve the neonate’s ability to fight infection and may reduce vertical transmission of certain diseases. In this era of COVID-19 where we have no vaccine but we have evidence that pregnant women may be at greater risk for severe disease,⁵ routine immunizations are vital to maternal and fetal health.

We have invited Laura E. Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, to address the importance of vaccination and the role of the ob.gyn. in advocating for this life-saving preventive health measure. Dr. Riley disclosed she is an author for Up to Date and was a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline about a cytomegalovirus vaccine. 

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999 Apr 2;48(12);243-8.

2. JAMA. 2007 Nov 14;298(18):2155-63.

3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017 May 5;66(11);1-28.

4. CDC National Center for Health Statistics FastStats on Immunization.

5. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Jun 26;69(25);769-75.