A successful vaccine for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection will probably need to incorporate T-cell epitopes to induce a long-term memory T-cell immune response to the virus, Mehrdad Matloubian, MD, PhD, predicted at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies may not be sufficient to reliably provide sustained protection against infection. In mouse studies, T-cell immunity has protected against reinfection with the novel coronaviruses. And in some but not all studies of patients infected with the SARS virus, which shares 80% genetic overlap with the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, neutralizing antibodies have waned over time.

“In one study, 20 of 26 patients with SARS had lost their antibody response by 6 years post infection. And they had no B-cell immunity against the SARS antigens. The good news is they did have T-cell memory against SARS virus, and people with more severe disease tended to have more T-cell memory against SARS. All of this has really important implications for vaccine development,” observed Dr. Matloubian, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Matloubian is among those who are convinced that the ongoing massive global accelerated effort to develop a safe and effective vaccine affords the best opportunity to gain the upper hand in the COVID-19 pandemic. A large array of vaccines are in development.

A key safety concern to watch for in the coming months is whether a vaccine candidate is able to sidestep the issue of antibody-dependent enhancement, whereby prior infection with a non-SARS coronavirus, such as those that cause the common cold, might result in creation of rogue subneutralizing coronavirus antibodies in response to vaccination. There is concern that these nonneutralizing antibodies could facilitate entry of the virus into monocytes and other cells lacking the ACE2 receptor, its usual portal of entry. This in turn could trigger expanded viral replication, a hyperinflammatory response, and viral spread to sites beyond the lung, such as the heart or kidneys.
 

Little optimism about antivirals’ impact

Dr. Matloubian predicted that antiviral medications, including the much-ballyhooed remdesivir, are unlikely to be a game changer in the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s because most patients who become symptomatic don’t do so until at least 2 days post infection. By that point, their viral load has already peaked and is waning and the B- and T-cell immune responses are starting to gear up.

“Timing seems to be everything when it comes to treatment with antivirals,” he observed. “The virus titer is usually declining by the time people present with severe COVID-19, suggesting that at this time antiviral therapy might be of little use to change the course of the disease, especially if it’s mainly immune-mediated by then. Even with influenza virus, there’s a really short window where Tamiflu [oseltamivir] is effective. It’s going to be the same case for antivirals used for treatment of COVID-19.”

He noted that in a placebo-controlled, randomized trial of remdesivir in 236 Chinese patients with severe COVID-19, intravenous remdesivir wasn’t associated with a significantly shorter time to clinical improvement, although there was a trend in that direction in the subgroup with symptom duration of 10 days or less at initiation of treatment.

A National Institutes of Health press release announcing that remdesivir had a positive impact on duration of hospitalization in a separate randomized trial drew enormous attention from a public desperate for good news. However, the full study has yet to be published, and it’s unclear when during the disease course the antiviral agent was started.

“We need a blockbuster antiviral that’s oral, highly effective, and doesn’t have any side effects to be used in prophylaxis of health care workers and for people who are exposed by family members being infected. And so far there is no such thing, even on the horizon,” according to the rheumatologist.

Fellow panelist Jinoos Yazdany, MD, concurred.

“As we talk to experts around the country, it seems like there isn’t very much optimism about such a blockbuster drug. Most people are actually putting their hope in a vaccine,” said Dr. Yazdany, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of rheumatology at San Francisco General Hospital.

Another research priority is identification of biomarkers in blood or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid to identify early on the subgroup of infected patients who are likely to crash and develop severe disease. That would permit a targeted approach to inhibition of the inflammatory pathways contributing to development of acute respiratory distress syndrome before this full-blown cytokine storm-like syndrome can occur. There is great interest in trying to achieve this by repurposing many biologic agents widely used by rheumatologists, including the interleukin-1 blocker anakinra (Kineret) and the IL-6 blocker tocilizumab (Actemra).

Dr. Matloubian reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A successful vaccine for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection will probably need to incorporate T-cell epitopes to induce a long-term memory T-cell immune response to the virus, Mehrdad Matloubian, MD, PhD, predicted at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies may not be sufficient to reliably provide sustained protection against infection. In mouse studies, T-cell immunity has protected against reinfection with the novel coronaviruses. And in some but not all studies of patients infected with the SARS virus, which shares 80% genetic overlap with the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, neutralizing antibodies have waned over time.

“In one study, 20 of 26 patients with SARS had lost their antibody response by 6 years post infection. And they had no B-cell immunity against the SARS antigens. The good news is they did have T-cell memory against SARS virus, and people with more severe disease tended to have more T-cell memory against SARS. All of this has really important implications for vaccine development,” observed Dr. Matloubian, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Matloubian is among those who are convinced that the ongoing massive global accelerated effort to develop a safe and effective vaccine affords the best opportunity to gain the upper hand in the COVID-19 pandemic. A large array of vaccines are in development.

A key safety concern to watch for in the coming months is whether a vaccine candidate is able to sidestep the issue of antibody-dependent enhancement, whereby prior infection with a non-SARS coronavirus, such as those that cause the common cold, might result in creation of rogue subneutralizing coronavirus antibodies in response to vaccination. There is concern that these nonneutralizing antibodies could facilitate entry of the virus into monocytes and other cells lacking the ACE2 receptor, its usual portal of entry. This in turn could trigger expanded viral replication, a hyperinflammatory response, and viral spread to sites beyond the lung, such as the heart or kidneys.
 

Little optimism about antivirals’ impact

Dr. Matloubian predicted that antiviral medications, including the much-ballyhooed remdesivir, are unlikely to be a game changer in the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s because most patients who become symptomatic don’t do so until at least 2 days post infection. By that point, their viral load has already peaked and is waning and the B- and T-cell immune responses are starting to gear up.

“Timing seems to be everything when it comes to treatment with antivirals,” he observed. “The virus titer is usually declining by the time people present with severe COVID-19, suggesting that at this time antiviral therapy might be of little use to change the course of the disease, especially if it’s mainly immune-mediated by then. Even with influenza virus, there’s a really short window where Tamiflu [oseltamivir] is effective. It’s going to be the same case for antivirals used for treatment of COVID-19.”

He noted that in a placebo-controlled, randomized trial of remdesivir in 236 Chinese patients with severe COVID-19, intravenous remdesivir wasn’t associated with a significantly shorter time to clinical improvement, although there was a trend in that direction in the subgroup with symptom duration of 10 days or less at initiation of treatment.

A National Institutes of Health press release announcing that remdesivir had a positive impact on duration of hospitalization in a separate randomized trial drew enormous attention from a public desperate for good news. However, the full study has yet to be published, and it’s unclear when during the disease course the antiviral agent was started.

“We need a blockbuster antiviral that’s oral, highly effective, and doesn’t have any side effects to be used in prophylaxis of health care workers and for people who are exposed by family members being infected. And so far there is no such thing, even on the horizon,” according to the rheumatologist.

Fellow panelist Jinoos Yazdany, MD, concurred.

“As we talk to experts around the country, it seems like there isn’t very much optimism about such a blockbuster drug. Most people are actually putting their hope in a vaccine,” said Dr. Yazdany, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of rheumatology at San Francisco General Hospital.

Another research priority is identification of biomarkers in blood or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid to identify early on the subgroup of infected patients who are likely to crash and develop severe disease. That would permit a targeted approach to inhibition of the inflammatory pathways contributing to development of acute respiratory distress syndrome before this full-blown cytokine storm-like syndrome can occur. There is great interest in trying to achieve this by repurposing many biologic agents widely used by rheumatologists, including the interleukin-1 blocker anakinra (Kineret) and the IL-6 blocker tocilizumab (Actemra).

Dr. Matloubian reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A successful vaccine for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection will probably need to incorporate T-cell epitopes to induce a long-term memory T-cell immune response to the virus, Mehrdad Matloubian, MD, PhD, predicted at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies may not be sufficient to reliably provide sustained protection against infection. In mouse studies, T-cell immunity has protected against reinfection with the novel coronaviruses. And in some but not all studies of patients infected with the SARS virus, which shares 80% genetic overlap with the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, neutralizing antibodies have waned over time.

“In one study, 20 of 26 patients with SARS had lost their antibody response by 6 years post infection. And they had no B-cell immunity against the SARS antigens. The good news is they did have T-cell memory against SARS virus, and people with more severe disease tended to have more T-cell memory against SARS. All of this has really important implications for vaccine development,” observed Dr. Matloubian, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Matloubian is among those who are convinced that the ongoing massive global accelerated effort to develop a safe and effective vaccine affords the best opportunity to gain the upper hand in the COVID-19 pandemic. A large array of vaccines are in development.

A key safety concern to watch for in the coming months is whether a vaccine candidate is able to sidestep the issue of antibody-dependent enhancement, whereby prior infection with a non-SARS coronavirus, such as those that cause the common cold, might result in creation of rogue subneutralizing coronavirus antibodies in response to vaccination. There is concern that these nonneutralizing antibodies could facilitate entry of the virus into monocytes and other cells lacking the ACE2 receptor, its usual portal of entry. This in turn could trigger expanded viral replication, a hyperinflammatory response, and viral spread to sites beyond the lung, such as the heart or kidneys.
 

Little optimism about antivirals’ impact

Dr. Matloubian predicted that antiviral medications, including the much-ballyhooed remdesivir, are unlikely to be a game changer in the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s because most patients who become symptomatic don’t do so until at least 2 days post infection. By that point, their viral load has already peaked and is waning and the B- and T-cell immune responses are starting to gear up.

“Timing seems to be everything when it comes to treatment with antivirals,” he observed. “The virus titer is usually declining by the time people present with severe COVID-19, suggesting that at this time antiviral therapy might be of little use to change the course of the disease, especially if it’s mainly immune-mediated by then. Even with influenza virus, there’s a really short window where Tamiflu [oseltamivir] is effective. It’s going to be the same case for antivirals used for treatment of COVID-19.”

He noted that in a placebo-controlled, randomized trial of remdesivir in 236 Chinese patients with severe COVID-19, intravenous remdesivir wasn’t associated with a significantly shorter time to clinical improvement, although there was a trend in that direction in the subgroup with symptom duration of 10 days or less at initiation of treatment.

A National Institutes of Health press release announcing that remdesivir had a positive impact on duration of hospitalization in a separate randomized trial drew enormous attention from a public desperate for good news. However, the full study has yet to be published, and it’s unclear when during the disease course the antiviral agent was started.

“We need a blockbuster antiviral that’s oral, highly effective, and doesn’t have any side effects to be used in prophylaxis of health care workers and for people who are exposed by family members being infected. And so far there is no such thing, even on the horizon,” according to the rheumatologist.

Fellow panelist Jinoos Yazdany, MD, concurred.

“As we talk to experts around the country, it seems like there isn’t very much optimism about such a blockbuster drug. Most people are actually putting their hope in a vaccine,” said Dr. Yazdany, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of rheumatology at San Francisco General Hospital.

Another research priority is identification of biomarkers in blood or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid to identify early on the subgroup of infected patients who are likely to crash and develop severe disease. That would permit a targeted approach to inhibition of the inflammatory pathways contributing to development of acute respiratory distress syndrome before this full-blown cytokine storm-like syndrome can occur. There is great interest in trying to achieve this by repurposing many biologic agents widely used by rheumatologists, including the interleukin-1 blocker anakinra (Kineret) and the IL-6 blocker tocilizumab (Actemra).

Dr. Matloubian reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association has developed a “conceptual framework” to assist emergency medical service (EMS) providers and in-hospital triage teams handle suspected cases of acute stroke during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics. A key goal is to ensure timely transfer of patients while minimizing the risk of infectious exposure for EMS personnel, coworkers, and other patients, the writing group says.

“Acute ischemic stroke is still a highly devastating disease and the Time Is Brain paradigm remains true during the COVID-19 pandemic as well,” said writing group chair Mayank Goyal, MD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.)

“We have highly effective and proven treatments available. As such, treatment delays due to additional screening requirements and personal protection equipment (PPE) should be kept at a minimum,” Dr. Goyal said.

“Practicing COVID-19 stroke work flows, through simulation training, can help to reduce treatment delays, minimize the risk of infectious exposure for patients and staff, and help alleviate stress,” he added.
 

A new layer of complexity

The guidance statement, Prehospital Triage of Acute Stroke Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic, was published online May 13 in the journal Stroke.

“The need to limit infectious spread during the COVID-19 pandemic has added a new layer of complexity to prehospital stroke triage and transfer,” the writing group noted. “Timely and enhanced” communication between EMS, hospitals, and local coordinating authorities are critical, especially ambulance-and facility-based telestroke networks, they wrote.

The main factors to guide the triage decision are the likelihood of a large vessel occlusion; the magnitude of additional delays because of interhospital transfer and work flow efficiency at the primary stroke center or acute stroke ready hospital; the need for advanced critical care resources; and the available bed, staff, and PPE resources at the hospitals.

The group said it “seems reasonable” to lower the threshold to bypass hospitals that can’t provide acute stroke treatment in favor of transporting to a hospital that is “stroke ready,” particularly in patients likely to require advanced care. They cautioned, however, that taking all acute stroke patients to a comprehensive stroke center could overwhelm these centers and lead to clustering of COVID-19 patients.

They said it is equally important to ensure “necessary transfers” of stroke patients who would benefit from endovascular therapy or neurocritical care and avoid unnecessary patient transfers. “Doing so will likely require local hospital boards and health care authorities to collaborate and establish local guidelines and protocols,” the writing group said.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever to ensure that stroke patients are taken to the right hospital that can meet their urgent needs at the outset,” Dr. Goyal commented in an AHA news release.

The writing group emphasized that the principles put forth in the document are intended as suggestions rather than strict rules and will be adapted and updated to meet the evolving needs during the COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics.

“The process of improving stroke work flow and getting the correct patient to the correct hospital fast is dependent on training, protocols, simulation, technology, and – probably most importantly – teamwork. These principles are extremely important during the current pandemic but will be useful in improving stroke care afterwards as well,” Dr. Goyal said.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing committee are on several AHA/ASA Council Science Subcommittees, including the Emergency Neurovascular Care, the Telestroke, and the Neurovascular Intervention committees. Goyal is a consultant for Medtronic, Stryker, Microvention, GE Healthcare, and Mentice. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association has developed a “conceptual framework” to assist emergency medical service (EMS) providers and in-hospital triage teams handle suspected cases of acute stroke during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics. A key goal is to ensure timely transfer of patients while minimizing the risk of infectious exposure for EMS personnel, coworkers, and other patients, the writing group says.

“Acute ischemic stroke is still a highly devastating disease and the Time Is Brain paradigm remains true during the COVID-19 pandemic as well,” said writing group chair Mayank Goyal, MD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.)

“We have highly effective and proven treatments available. As such, treatment delays due to additional screening requirements and personal protection equipment (PPE) should be kept at a minimum,” Dr. Goyal said.

“Practicing COVID-19 stroke work flows, through simulation training, can help to reduce treatment delays, minimize the risk of infectious exposure for patients and staff, and help alleviate stress,” he added.
 

A new layer of complexity

The guidance statement, Prehospital Triage of Acute Stroke Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic, was published online May 13 in the journal Stroke.

“The need to limit infectious spread during the COVID-19 pandemic has added a new layer of complexity to prehospital stroke triage and transfer,” the writing group noted. “Timely and enhanced” communication between EMS, hospitals, and local coordinating authorities are critical, especially ambulance-and facility-based telestroke networks, they wrote.

The main factors to guide the triage decision are the likelihood of a large vessel occlusion; the magnitude of additional delays because of interhospital transfer and work flow efficiency at the primary stroke center or acute stroke ready hospital; the need for advanced critical care resources; and the available bed, staff, and PPE resources at the hospitals.

The group said it “seems reasonable” to lower the threshold to bypass hospitals that can’t provide acute stroke treatment in favor of transporting to a hospital that is “stroke ready,” particularly in patients likely to require advanced care. They cautioned, however, that taking all acute stroke patients to a comprehensive stroke center could overwhelm these centers and lead to clustering of COVID-19 patients.

They said it is equally important to ensure “necessary transfers” of stroke patients who would benefit from endovascular therapy or neurocritical care and avoid unnecessary patient transfers. “Doing so will likely require local hospital boards and health care authorities to collaborate and establish local guidelines and protocols,” the writing group said.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever to ensure that stroke patients are taken to the right hospital that can meet their urgent needs at the outset,” Dr. Goyal commented in an AHA news release.

The writing group emphasized that the principles put forth in the document are intended as suggestions rather than strict rules and will be adapted and updated to meet the evolving needs during the COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics.

“The process of improving stroke work flow and getting the correct patient to the correct hospital fast is dependent on training, protocols, simulation, technology, and – probably most importantly – teamwork. These principles are extremely important during the current pandemic but will be useful in improving stroke care afterwards as well,” Dr. Goyal said.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing committee are on several AHA/ASA Council Science Subcommittees, including the Emergency Neurovascular Care, the Telestroke, and the Neurovascular Intervention committees. Goyal is a consultant for Medtronic, Stryker, Microvention, GE Healthcare, and Mentice. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association has developed a “conceptual framework” to assist emergency medical service (EMS) providers and in-hospital triage teams handle suspected cases of acute stroke during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics. A key goal is to ensure timely transfer of patients while minimizing the risk of infectious exposure for EMS personnel, coworkers, and other patients, the writing group says.

“Acute ischemic stroke is still a highly devastating disease and the Time Is Brain paradigm remains true during the COVID-19 pandemic as well,” said writing group chair Mayank Goyal, MD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.)

“We have highly effective and proven treatments available. As such, treatment delays due to additional screening requirements and personal protection equipment (PPE) should be kept at a minimum,” Dr. Goyal said.

“Practicing COVID-19 stroke work flows, through simulation training, can help to reduce treatment delays, minimize the risk of infectious exposure for patients and staff, and help alleviate stress,” he added.
 

A new layer of complexity

The guidance statement, Prehospital Triage of Acute Stroke Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic, was published online May 13 in the journal Stroke.

“The need to limit infectious spread during the COVID-19 pandemic has added a new layer of complexity to prehospital stroke triage and transfer,” the writing group noted. “Timely and enhanced” communication between EMS, hospitals, and local coordinating authorities are critical, especially ambulance-and facility-based telestroke networks, they wrote.

The main factors to guide the triage decision are the likelihood of a large vessel occlusion; the magnitude of additional delays because of interhospital transfer and work flow efficiency at the primary stroke center or acute stroke ready hospital; the need for advanced critical care resources; and the available bed, staff, and PPE resources at the hospitals.

The group said it “seems reasonable” to lower the threshold to bypass hospitals that can’t provide acute stroke treatment in favor of transporting to a hospital that is “stroke ready,” particularly in patients likely to require advanced care. They cautioned, however, that taking all acute stroke patients to a comprehensive stroke center could overwhelm these centers and lead to clustering of COVID-19 patients.

They said it is equally important to ensure “necessary transfers” of stroke patients who would benefit from endovascular therapy or neurocritical care and avoid unnecessary patient transfers. “Doing so will likely require local hospital boards and health care authorities to collaborate and establish local guidelines and protocols,” the writing group said.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever to ensure that stroke patients are taken to the right hospital that can meet their urgent needs at the outset,” Dr. Goyal commented in an AHA news release.

The writing group emphasized that the principles put forth in the document are intended as suggestions rather than strict rules and will be adapted and updated to meet the evolving needs during the COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics.

“The process of improving stroke work flow and getting the correct patient to the correct hospital fast is dependent on training, protocols, simulation, technology, and – probably most importantly – teamwork. These principles are extremely important during the current pandemic but will be useful in improving stroke care afterwards as well,” Dr. Goyal said.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing committee are on several AHA/ASA Council Science Subcommittees, including the Emergency Neurovascular Care, the Telestroke, and the Neurovascular Intervention committees. Goyal is a consultant for Medtronic, Stryker, Microvention, GE Healthcare, and Mentice. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of invasive Staphylococcus pneumoniae. Multiple myeloma (MM) patients, in particular, have been found to have one of the highest incidences of invasive pneumococcal disease. However, researchers found that a full three-dose vaccination regimen by 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13) vaccine was protective in MM patients when provided between treatment courses, according to a study reported in Vaccine.

The researchers performed a prospective study of 18 adult patients who were vaccinated with PCV13, compared with 18 control-matched patients from 2017 to 2020. The three-dose vaccination regimen was provided between treatment courses with novel target agents (bortezomib, lenalidomide, ixazomib) with a minimum of a 1-month interval. They used the incidence of pneumonias during the one-year observation period as the primary outcome.

Totally there were 12 cases (33.3%) of clinically and radiologically confirmed pneumonias in the entire study group (n = 36), with a distribution between the vaccinated and nonvaccinated groups of 3 (16.7%) and 9 (50%). respectively (P = .037).

The absolute risk reduction seen with vaccination was 33.3%, and the number needed to treat with PCV13 vaccination in MM patients receiving novel agents was 3.0; (95% confidence interval 1.61-22.1). In addition, there were no adverse effects seen from vaccination, according to the authors.

“Despite the expected decrease in immunological response to vaccination during the chemotherapy, we have shown the clinical effectiveness of a PCV13 vaccination schedule based on 3 doses given with a minimum 1 month interval between the courses of novel agents,” the investigators concluded.

The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stoma I et al. Vaccine. 2020 May 14; doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.024.

Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of invasive Staphylococcus pneumoniae. Multiple myeloma (MM) patients, in particular, have been found to have one of the highest incidences of invasive pneumococcal disease. However, researchers found that a full three-dose vaccination regimen by 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13) vaccine was protective in MM patients when provided between treatment courses, according to a study reported in Vaccine.

The researchers performed a prospective study of 18 adult patients who were vaccinated with PCV13, compared with 18 control-matched patients from 2017 to 2020. The three-dose vaccination regimen was provided between treatment courses with novel target agents (bortezomib, lenalidomide, ixazomib) with a minimum of a 1-month interval. They used the incidence of pneumonias during the one-year observation period as the primary outcome.

Totally there were 12 cases (33.3%) of clinically and radiologically confirmed pneumonias in the entire study group (n = 36), with a distribution between the vaccinated and nonvaccinated groups of 3 (16.7%) and 9 (50%). respectively (P = .037).

The absolute risk reduction seen with vaccination was 33.3%, and the number needed to treat with PCV13 vaccination in MM patients receiving novel agents was 3.0; (95% confidence interval 1.61-22.1). In addition, there were no adverse effects seen from vaccination, according to the authors.

“Despite the expected decrease in immunological response to vaccination during the chemotherapy, we have shown the clinical effectiveness of a PCV13 vaccination schedule based on 3 doses given with a minimum 1 month interval between the courses of novel agents,” the investigators concluded.

The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stoma I et al. Vaccine. 2020 May 14; doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.024.

Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of invasive Staphylococcus pneumoniae. Multiple myeloma (MM) patients, in particular, have been found to have one of the highest incidences of invasive pneumococcal disease. However, researchers found that a full three-dose vaccination regimen by 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13) vaccine was protective in MM patients when provided between treatment courses, according to a study reported in Vaccine.

The researchers performed a prospective study of 18 adult patients who were vaccinated with PCV13, compared with 18 control-matched patients from 2017 to 2020. The three-dose vaccination regimen was provided between treatment courses with novel target agents (bortezomib, lenalidomide, ixazomib) with a minimum of a 1-month interval. They used the incidence of pneumonias during the one-year observation period as the primary outcome.

Totally there were 12 cases (33.3%) of clinically and radiologically confirmed pneumonias in the entire study group (n = 36), with a distribution between the vaccinated and nonvaccinated groups of 3 (16.7%) and 9 (50%). respectively (P = .037).

The absolute risk reduction seen with vaccination was 33.3%, and the number needed to treat with PCV13 vaccination in MM patients receiving novel agents was 3.0; (95% confidence interval 1.61-22.1). In addition, there were no adverse effects seen from vaccination, according to the authors.

“Despite the expected decrease in immunological response to vaccination during the chemotherapy, we have shown the clinical effectiveness of a PCV13 vaccination schedule based on 3 doses given with a minimum 1 month interval between the courses of novel agents,” the investigators concluded.

The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stoma I et al. Vaccine. 2020 May 14; doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.024.

The Food and Drug Administration approved olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca) for deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or somatic homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

The drug is limited to use in men who have progressed following prior treatment with enzalutamide or abiraterone.

Olaparib becomes the second PARP inhibitor approved by the FDA for use in prostate cancer this week. Earlier, rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) was approved for use in patients with mCRPC that harbor deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic).

Olaparib is also indicated for use in ovarian, breast, and pancreatic cancers.

The FDA also approved two companion diagnostic devices for treatment with olaparib: the FoundationOne CDx test (Foundation Medicine) for the selection of patients carrying HRR gene alterations and the BRACAnalysis CDx test (Myriad Genetic Laboratories) for the selection of patients carrying germline BRCA1/2 alterations.

The approval was based on results from the open-label, multicenter PROfound trial, which randomly assigned 387 patients to olaparib 300 mg twice daily and to investigator’s choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate. All patients received a GnRH analogue or had prior bilateral orchiectomy.

The study involved two cohorts. Patients with mutations in either BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM were randomly assigned in cohort A (n = 245); patients with mutations among 12 other genes involved in the HRR pathway were randomly assigned in cohort B (n = 142); those with co-mutations were assigned to cohort A.

The major efficacy outcome of the trial was radiological progression-free survival (rPFS) (cohort A).

In cohort A, patients receiving olaparib had a median rPFS of 7.4 months vs 3.6 months among patients receiving investigator’s choice (hazard ratio [HR], 0.34; P < .0001). Median overall survival was 19.1 months vs 14.7 months (HR, 0.69; P = .0175) and the overall response rate was 33% vs 2% (P < .0001).

In cohort A+B, patients receiving olaparib had a median rPFS of 5.8 months vs 3.5 months among patients receiving investigator’s choice (HR, 0.49; P < .0001).

The study results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. At that time, study investigator Maha Hussain, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said the rPFS result and other outcomes were a “remarkable achievement” in such heavily pretreated patients with prostate cancer.

Patients with prostate cancer should now undergo genetic testing of tumor tissue to identify the roughly 30% of patients who can benefit – as is already routinely being done for breast, ovarian, and lung cancer, said experts at ESMO.

The most common adverse reactions with olaparib (≥10% of patients) were anemia, nausea, fatigue (including asthenia), decreased appetite, diarrhea, vomiting, thrombocytopenia, cough, and dyspnea. Venous thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism, occurred in 7% of patients randomly assigned to olaparib, compared with 3.1% of those receiving investigator’s choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone.

Olaparib carries the warning that myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML) occurred in <1.5% of patients exposed to it as a monotherapy, and that the majority of events had a fatal outcome.

The recommended olaparib dose is 300 mg taken orally twice daily, with or without food.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration approved olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca) for deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or somatic homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

The drug is limited to use in men who have progressed following prior treatment with enzalutamide or abiraterone.

Olaparib becomes the second PARP inhibitor approved by the FDA for use in prostate cancer this week. Earlier, rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) was approved for use in patients with mCRPC that harbor deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic).

Olaparib is also indicated for use in ovarian, breast, and pancreatic cancers.

The FDA also approved two companion diagnostic devices for treatment with olaparib: the FoundationOne CDx test (Foundation Medicine) for the selection of patients carrying HRR gene alterations and the BRACAnalysis CDx test (Myriad Genetic Laboratories) for the selection of patients carrying germline BRCA1/2 alterations.

The approval was based on results from the open-label, multicenter PROfound trial, which randomly assigned 387 patients to olaparib 300 mg twice daily and to investigator’s choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate. All patients received a GnRH analogue or had prior bilateral orchiectomy.

The study involved two cohorts. Patients with mutations in either BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM were randomly assigned in cohort A (n = 245); patients with mutations among 12 other genes involved in the HRR pathway were randomly assigned in cohort B (n = 142); those with co-mutations were assigned to cohort A.

The major efficacy outcome of the trial was radiological progression-free survival (rPFS) (cohort A).

In cohort A, patients receiving olaparib had a median rPFS of 7.4 months vs 3.6 months among patients receiving investigator’s choice (hazard ratio [HR], 0.34; P < .0001). Median overall survival was 19.1 months vs 14.7 months (HR, 0.69; P = .0175) and the overall response rate was 33% vs 2% (P < .0001).

In cohort A+B, patients receiving olaparib had a median rPFS of 5.8 months vs 3.5 months among patients receiving investigator’s choice (HR, 0.49; P < .0001).

The study results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. At that time, study investigator Maha Hussain, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said the rPFS result and other outcomes were a “remarkable achievement” in such heavily pretreated patients with prostate cancer.

Patients with prostate cancer should now undergo genetic testing of tumor tissue to identify the roughly 30% of patients who can benefit – as is already routinely being done for breast, ovarian, and lung cancer, said experts at ESMO.

The most common adverse reactions with olaparib (≥10% of patients) were anemia, nausea, fatigue (including asthenia), decreased appetite, diarrhea, vomiting, thrombocytopenia, cough, and dyspnea. Venous thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism, occurred in 7% of patients randomly assigned to olaparib, compared with 3.1% of those receiving investigator’s choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone.

Olaparib carries the warning that myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML) occurred in <1.5% of patients exposed to it as a monotherapy, and that the majority of events had a fatal outcome.

The recommended olaparib dose is 300 mg taken orally twice daily, with or without food.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration approved olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca) for deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or somatic homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

The drug is limited to use in men who have progressed following prior treatment with enzalutamide or abiraterone.

Olaparib becomes the second PARP inhibitor approved by the FDA for use in prostate cancer this week. Earlier, rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) was approved for use in patients with mCRPC that harbor deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic).

Olaparib is also indicated for use in ovarian, breast, and pancreatic cancers.

The FDA also approved two companion diagnostic devices for treatment with olaparib: the FoundationOne CDx test (Foundation Medicine) for the selection of patients carrying HRR gene alterations and the BRACAnalysis CDx test (Myriad Genetic Laboratories) for the selection of patients carrying germline BRCA1/2 alterations.

The approval was based on results from the open-label, multicenter PROfound trial, which randomly assigned 387 patients to olaparib 300 mg twice daily and to investigator’s choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate. All patients received a GnRH analogue or had prior bilateral orchiectomy.

The study involved two cohorts. Patients with mutations in either BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM were randomly assigned in cohort A (n = 245); patients with mutations among 12 other genes involved in the HRR pathway were randomly assigned in cohort B (n = 142); those with co-mutations were assigned to cohort A.

The major efficacy outcome of the trial was radiological progression-free survival (rPFS) (cohort A).

In cohort A, patients receiving olaparib had a median rPFS of 7.4 months vs 3.6 months among patients receiving investigator’s choice (hazard ratio [HR], 0.34; P < .0001). Median overall survival was 19.1 months vs 14.7 months (HR, 0.69; P = .0175) and the overall response rate was 33% vs 2% (P < .0001).

In cohort A+B, patients receiving olaparib had a median rPFS of 5.8 months vs 3.5 months among patients receiving investigator’s choice (HR, 0.49; P < .0001).

The study results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. At that time, study investigator Maha Hussain, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said the rPFS result and other outcomes were a “remarkable achievement” in such heavily pretreated patients with prostate cancer.

Patients with prostate cancer should now undergo genetic testing of tumor tissue to identify the roughly 30% of patients who can benefit – as is already routinely being done for breast, ovarian, and lung cancer, said experts at ESMO.

The most common adverse reactions with olaparib (≥10% of patients) were anemia, nausea, fatigue (including asthenia), decreased appetite, diarrhea, vomiting, thrombocytopenia, cough, and dyspnea. Venous thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism, occurred in 7% of patients randomly assigned to olaparib, compared with 3.1% of those receiving investigator’s choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone.

Olaparib carries the warning that myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML) occurred in <1.5% of patients exposed to it as a monotherapy, and that the majority of events had a fatal outcome.

The recommended olaparib dose is 300 mg taken orally twice daily, with or without food.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID-19 may cause delirium in the acute stage of illness, followed by the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) over the longer term, new research suggests.

Results from “the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychiatric consequences of coronavirus infection” showed that previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with a significant psychiatric burden in both the acute and post-illness stages.

“Most people with COVID-19 will not develop any mental health problems, even among those with severe cases requiring hospitalization, but given the huge numbers of people getting sick, the global impact on mental health could be considerable,” co–lead investigator Jonathan Rogers, MRCPsych, Department of Psychiatry, University College London, United Kingdom, said in a news release.

The study was published online May 18 in Lancet Psychiatry.

Need for Monitoring, Support

The researchers analyzed 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprint articles with data on acute and post-illness psychiatric and neuropsychiatric features of patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19, as well as two other diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), in 2002–2004, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in 2012.

“Our main findings are that signs suggestive of delirium are common in the acute stage of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19; there is evidence of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and post-traumatic stress disorder in the post-illness stage of previous coronavirus epidemics, but there are few data yet on COVID-19,” the investigators write.

The data show that among patients acutely ill with SARS and MERS, 28% experienced confusion, 33% had depressed mood, 36% had anxiety, 34% suffered from impaired memory, and 42% had insomnia.

After recovery from SARS and MERS, sleep disorder, frequent recall of traumatic memories, emotional lability, impaired concentration, fatigue, and impaired memory were reported in more than 15% of patients during a follow-up period that ranged from 6 weeks to 39 months.

In a meta-analysis, the point prevalence in the post-illness stage was 32% for PTSD and about 15% for depression and anxiety.

In patients acutely ill with severe COVID-19, available data suggest that 65% experience delirium, 69% have agitation after withdrawal of sedation, and 21% have altered consciousness.

In one study, 33% of patients had a dysexecutive syndrome at discharge, characterized by symptoms such as inattention, disorientation, or poorly organized movements in response to command. Currently, data are very limited regarding patients who have recovered from COVID-19, the investigators caution.

“To avoid a large-scale mental health crisis, we hope that people who have been hospitalized with COVID-19 will be offered support, and monitored after they recover to ensure they do not develop mental illnesses, and are able to access treatment if needed,” senior author Anthony David, FMedSci, from UCL Institute of Mental Health, said in a news release.

“While most people with COVID-19 will recover without experiencing mental illness, we need to research which factors may contribute to enduring mental health problems, and develop interventions to prevent and treat them,” he added.

Be Prepared

The coauthors of a linked commentary say it makes sense, from a biological perspective, to merge data on these three coronavirus diseases, given the degree to which they resemble each other.

They caution, however, that treatment of COVID-19 seems to be different from treatment of SARS and MERS. In addition, the social and economic situation of COVID-19 survivors’ return is completely different from that of SARS and MERS survivors.

Findings from previous coronavirus outbreaks are “useful, but might not be exact predictors of prevalences of psychiatric complications for patients with COVID-19,” write Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, from University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, and P. Roberto Bakker, MD, PhD, from Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

“The warning from [this study] that we should prepare to treat large numbers of patients with COVID-19 who go on to develop delirium, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression is an important message for the psychiatric community,” they add.

Sommer and Bakker also say the reported estimates of prevalence in this study should be interpreted with caution, “as true numbers of both acute and long-term psychiatric disorders for patients with COVID-19 might be considerably higher.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Wellcome Trust, the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the UK Medical Research Council, the NIHR Biomedical Research Center at the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the University College London. The authors of the study and the commentary have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID-19 may cause delirium in the acute stage of illness, followed by the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) over the longer term, new research suggests.

Results from “the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychiatric consequences of coronavirus infection” showed that previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with a significant psychiatric burden in both the acute and post-illness stages.

“Most people with COVID-19 will not develop any mental health problems, even among those with severe cases requiring hospitalization, but given the huge numbers of people getting sick, the global impact on mental health could be considerable,” co–lead investigator Jonathan Rogers, MRCPsych, Department of Psychiatry, University College London, United Kingdom, said in a news release.

The study was published online May 18 in Lancet Psychiatry.

Need for Monitoring, Support

The researchers analyzed 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprint articles with data on acute and post-illness psychiatric and neuropsychiatric features of patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19, as well as two other diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), in 2002–2004, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in 2012.

“Our main findings are that signs suggestive of delirium are common in the acute stage of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19; there is evidence of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and post-traumatic stress disorder in the post-illness stage of previous coronavirus epidemics, but there are few data yet on COVID-19,” the investigators write.

The data show that among patients acutely ill with SARS and MERS, 28% experienced confusion, 33% had depressed mood, 36% had anxiety, 34% suffered from impaired memory, and 42% had insomnia.

After recovery from SARS and MERS, sleep disorder, frequent recall of traumatic memories, emotional lability, impaired concentration, fatigue, and impaired memory were reported in more than 15% of patients during a follow-up period that ranged from 6 weeks to 39 months.

In a meta-analysis, the point prevalence in the post-illness stage was 32% for PTSD and about 15% for depression and anxiety.

In patients acutely ill with severe COVID-19, available data suggest that 65% experience delirium, 69% have agitation after withdrawal of sedation, and 21% have altered consciousness.

In one study, 33% of patients had a dysexecutive syndrome at discharge, characterized by symptoms such as inattention, disorientation, or poorly organized movements in response to command. Currently, data are very limited regarding patients who have recovered from COVID-19, the investigators caution.

“To avoid a large-scale mental health crisis, we hope that people who have been hospitalized with COVID-19 will be offered support, and monitored after they recover to ensure they do not develop mental illnesses, and are able to access treatment if needed,” senior author Anthony David, FMedSci, from UCL Institute of Mental Health, said in a news release.

“While most people with COVID-19 will recover without experiencing mental illness, we need to research which factors may contribute to enduring mental health problems, and develop interventions to prevent and treat them,” he added.

Be Prepared

The coauthors of a linked commentary say it makes sense, from a biological perspective, to merge data on these three coronavirus diseases, given the degree to which they resemble each other.

They caution, however, that treatment of COVID-19 seems to be different from treatment of SARS and MERS. In addition, the social and economic situation of COVID-19 survivors’ return is completely different from that of SARS and MERS survivors.

Findings from previous coronavirus outbreaks are “useful, but might not be exact predictors of prevalences of psychiatric complications for patients with COVID-19,” write Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, from University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, and P. Roberto Bakker, MD, PhD, from Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

“The warning from [this study] that we should prepare to treat large numbers of patients with COVID-19 who go on to develop delirium, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression is an important message for the psychiatric community,” they add.

Sommer and Bakker also say the reported estimates of prevalence in this study should be interpreted with caution, “as true numbers of both acute and long-term psychiatric disorders for patients with COVID-19 might be considerably higher.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Wellcome Trust, the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the UK Medical Research Council, the NIHR Biomedical Research Center at the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the University College London. The authors of the study and the commentary have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID-19 may cause delirium in the acute stage of illness, followed by the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) over the longer term, new research suggests.

Results from “the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychiatric consequences of coronavirus infection” showed that previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with a significant psychiatric burden in both the acute and post-illness stages.

“Most people with COVID-19 will not develop any mental health problems, even among those with severe cases requiring hospitalization, but given the huge numbers of people getting sick, the global impact on mental health could be considerable,” co–lead investigator Jonathan Rogers, MRCPsych, Department of Psychiatry, University College London, United Kingdom, said in a news release.

The study was published online May 18 in Lancet Psychiatry.

Need for Monitoring, Support

The researchers analyzed 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprint articles with data on acute and post-illness psychiatric and neuropsychiatric features of patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19, as well as two other diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), in 2002–2004, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in 2012.

“Our main findings are that signs suggestive of delirium are common in the acute stage of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19; there is evidence of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and post-traumatic stress disorder in the post-illness stage of previous coronavirus epidemics, but there are few data yet on COVID-19,” the investigators write.

The data show that among patients acutely ill with SARS and MERS, 28% experienced confusion, 33% had depressed mood, 36% had anxiety, 34% suffered from impaired memory, and 42% had insomnia.

After recovery from SARS and MERS, sleep disorder, frequent recall of traumatic memories, emotional lability, impaired concentration, fatigue, and impaired memory were reported in more than 15% of patients during a follow-up period that ranged from 6 weeks to 39 months.

In a meta-analysis, the point prevalence in the post-illness stage was 32% for PTSD and about 15% for depression and anxiety.

In patients acutely ill with severe COVID-19, available data suggest that 65% experience delirium, 69% have agitation after withdrawal of sedation, and 21% have altered consciousness.

In one study, 33% of patients had a dysexecutive syndrome at discharge, characterized by symptoms such as inattention, disorientation, or poorly organized movements in response to command. Currently, data are very limited regarding patients who have recovered from COVID-19, the investigators caution.

“To avoid a large-scale mental health crisis, we hope that people who have been hospitalized with COVID-19 will be offered support, and monitored after they recover to ensure they do not develop mental illnesses, and are able to access treatment if needed,” senior author Anthony David, FMedSci, from UCL Institute of Mental Health, said in a news release.

“While most people with COVID-19 will recover without experiencing mental illness, we need to research which factors may contribute to enduring mental health problems, and develop interventions to prevent and treat them,” he added.

Be Prepared

The coauthors of a linked commentary say it makes sense, from a biological perspective, to merge data on these three coronavirus diseases, given the degree to which they resemble each other.

They caution, however, that treatment of COVID-19 seems to be different from treatment of SARS and MERS. In addition, the social and economic situation of COVID-19 survivors’ return is completely different from that of SARS and MERS survivors.

Findings from previous coronavirus outbreaks are “useful, but might not be exact predictors of prevalences of psychiatric complications for patients with COVID-19,” write Iris Sommer, MD, PhD, from University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, and P. Roberto Bakker, MD, PhD, from Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

“The warning from [this study] that we should prepare to treat large numbers of patients with COVID-19 who go on to develop delirium, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression is an important message for the psychiatric community,” they add.

Sommer and Bakker also say the reported estimates of prevalence in this study should be interpreted with caution, “as true numbers of both acute and long-term psychiatric disorders for patients with COVID-19 might be considerably higher.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Wellcome Trust, the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the UK Medical Research Council, the NIHR Biomedical Research Center at the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the University College London. The authors of the study and the commentary have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncologists continue to rank above the middle range for all specialties in annual compensation for physicians, according to findings from the newly released Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020.

The average earnings for oncologists who participated in the survey was $377,000, which was a 5% increase from the $359,000 reported for 2018.

Just over two-thirds (67%) of oncologists reported that they felt that they were fairly compensated, which is quite a jump from 53% last year.

In addition, oncologists appear to be very satisfied with their profession. Similar to last year’s findings, 84% said they would choose medicine again, and 96% said they would choose the specialty of oncology again.
 

Earning in top third of all specialties

The average annual earnings reported by oncologists put this specialty in eleventh place among 29 specialties. Orthopedic specialists remain at the head of the list, with estimated earnings of $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to Medscape’s compensation report, which included responses from 17,461 physicians in over 30 specialties.

At the bottom of the estimated earnings list were public health and preventive medicine doctors and pediatricians. For both specialties, the reported annual earnings was $232,000. Family medicine specialists were only marginally higher at $234,000.

Radiologists ($427,000), gastroenterologists ($419,000), and urologists ($417,000) all reported higher earnings than oncologists, whereas neurologists, at $280,000, rheumatologists, at $262,000, and internal medicine physicians, at $251,000, earned less.

The report also found that gender disparities in income persist, with male oncologists earning 17% more than their female colleagues. The gender gap in oncology is somewhat less than that seen for all specialties combined, in which men earned 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%.

Male oncologists reported spending 38.8 hours per week seeing patients, compared with 34.9 hours reported by female oncologists. This could be a factor contributing to the gender pay disparity. Overall, the average amount of time seeing patients was 37.9 hours per week.
 

Frustrations with paperwork and denied claims

Surveyed oncologists cited some of the frustrations they are facing, such as spending nearly 17 hours a week on paperwork and administrative tasks. They reported that 16% of claims are denied or have to be resubmitted. As for the most challenging part of the job, oncologists (22%), similar to physicians overall (26%), found that having so many rules and regulations takes first place, followed by working with electronic health record systems (20%), difficulties getting fair reimbursement (19%), having to work long hours (12%), and dealing with difficult patients (8%). Few oncologists were concerned about lawsuits (4%), and 4% reported that there were no challenges.

Oncologists reported that the most rewarding part of their job was gratitude/relationships with patients (31%), followed by knowing that they are making the world a better place (27%). After that, oncologists agreed with statements about being very good at what they do/finding answers/diagnoses (22%), having pride in being a doctor (9%), and making good money at a job they like (8%).
 

Other key findings

Other key findings from the Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020 included the following:

• Regarding payment models, 80% take insurance, 41% are in fee-for-service arrangements, and 18% are in accountable care organizations (21%). Only 3% are in direct primary care, and 1% are cash-only practices or have a concierge practice.
• 65% of oncologists state that they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients. None said that they would not take on new Medicare/Medicaid patients, and 35% remain undecided. These numbers differed from physicians overall; 73% of all physicians surveyed said they would continue taking new/current Medicare/Medicaid patients, 6% said that will not take on new Medicare patients, and 4% said they will not take new Medicaid patients. In addition, 3% and 2% said that they would stop treating some or all of their Medicare and Medicaid patients, respectively.
• About half (51%) of oncologists use nurse practitioners, about a third (34%) use physician assistants, and 37% use neither. This was about the same as physicians overall.
• A larger percentage of oncologists (38%) expect to participate in MIPS (merit-based incentive payment system), and only 8% expect to participate in APMs (alternative payment models). This was similar to the findings for physicians overall, with more than one-third (37%) expecting to participate in MIPS and 9% planning to take part in APMs.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The Medscape compensation reports also gives a glimpse of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on physician compensation.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% drop in patient volume. Physician practices and hospitals have laid off or furloughed personnel and have cut pay, and 9% of practices have closed their doors, at least for the time being.

A total of 43,000 health care workers were laid off in March, the report notes.

The findings tie in with those reported elsewhere. For example, a survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association, which was reported by Medscape Medical News, found that 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

Specialties were hard hit, especially those that rely on elective procedures, such as dermatology and cardiology. Oncology care has also been disrupted. For example, a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network found that half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncologists continue to rank above the middle range for all specialties in annual compensation for physicians, according to findings from the newly released Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020.

The average earnings for oncologists who participated in the survey was $377,000, which was a 5% increase from the $359,000 reported for 2018.

Just over two-thirds (67%) of oncologists reported that they felt that they were fairly compensated, which is quite a jump from 53% last year.

In addition, oncologists appear to be very satisfied with their profession. Similar to last year’s findings, 84% said they would choose medicine again, and 96% said they would choose the specialty of oncology again.
 

Earning in top third of all specialties

The average annual earnings reported by oncologists put this specialty in eleventh place among 29 specialties. Orthopedic specialists remain at the head of the list, with estimated earnings of $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to Medscape’s compensation report, which included responses from 17,461 physicians in over 30 specialties.

At the bottom of the estimated earnings list were public health and preventive medicine doctors and pediatricians. For both specialties, the reported annual earnings was $232,000. Family medicine specialists were only marginally higher at $234,000.

Radiologists ($427,000), gastroenterologists ($419,000), and urologists ($417,000) all reported higher earnings than oncologists, whereas neurologists, at $280,000, rheumatologists, at $262,000, and internal medicine physicians, at $251,000, earned less.

The report also found that gender disparities in income persist, with male oncologists earning 17% more than their female colleagues. The gender gap in oncology is somewhat less than that seen for all specialties combined, in which men earned 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%.

Male oncologists reported spending 38.8 hours per week seeing patients, compared with 34.9 hours reported by female oncologists. This could be a factor contributing to the gender pay disparity. Overall, the average amount of time seeing patients was 37.9 hours per week.
 

Frustrations with paperwork and denied claims

Surveyed oncologists cited some of the frustrations they are facing, such as spending nearly 17 hours a week on paperwork and administrative tasks. They reported that 16% of claims are denied or have to be resubmitted. As for the most challenging part of the job, oncologists (22%), similar to physicians overall (26%), found that having so many rules and regulations takes first place, followed by working with electronic health record systems (20%), difficulties getting fair reimbursement (19%), having to work long hours (12%), and dealing with difficult patients (8%). Few oncologists were concerned about lawsuits (4%), and 4% reported that there were no challenges.

Oncologists reported that the most rewarding part of their job was gratitude/relationships with patients (31%), followed by knowing that they are making the world a better place (27%). After that, oncologists agreed with statements about being very good at what they do/finding answers/diagnoses (22%), having pride in being a doctor (9%), and making good money at a job they like (8%).
 

Other key findings

Other key findings from the Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020 included the following:

• Regarding payment models, 80% take insurance, 41% are in fee-for-service arrangements, and 18% are in accountable care organizations (21%). Only 3% are in direct primary care, and 1% are cash-only practices or have a concierge practice.
• 65% of oncologists state that they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients. None said that they would not take on new Medicare/Medicaid patients, and 35% remain undecided. These numbers differed from physicians overall; 73% of all physicians surveyed said they would continue taking new/current Medicare/Medicaid patients, 6% said that will not take on new Medicare patients, and 4% said they will not take new Medicaid patients. In addition, 3% and 2% said that they would stop treating some or all of their Medicare and Medicaid patients, respectively.
• About half (51%) of oncologists use nurse practitioners, about a third (34%) use physician assistants, and 37% use neither. This was about the same as physicians overall.
• A larger percentage of oncologists (38%) expect to participate in MIPS (merit-based incentive payment system), and only 8% expect to participate in APMs (alternative payment models). This was similar to the findings for physicians overall, with more than one-third (37%) expecting to participate in MIPS and 9% planning to take part in APMs.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The Medscape compensation reports also gives a glimpse of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on physician compensation.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% drop in patient volume. Physician practices and hospitals have laid off or furloughed personnel and have cut pay, and 9% of practices have closed their doors, at least for the time being.

A total of 43,000 health care workers were laid off in March, the report notes.

The findings tie in with those reported elsewhere. For example, a survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association, which was reported by Medscape Medical News, found that 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

Specialties were hard hit, especially those that rely on elective procedures, such as dermatology and cardiology. Oncology care has also been disrupted. For example, a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network found that half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncologists continue to rank above the middle range for all specialties in annual compensation for physicians, according to findings from the newly released Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020.

The average earnings for oncologists who participated in the survey was $377,000, which was a 5% increase from the $359,000 reported for 2018.

Just over two-thirds (67%) of oncologists reported that they felt that they were fairly compensated, which is quite a jump from 53% last year.

In addition, oncologists appear to be very satisfied with their profession. Similar to last year’s findings, 84% said they would choose medicine again, and 96% said they would choose the specialty of oncology again.
 

Earning in top third of all specialties

The average annual earnings reported by oncologists put this specialty in eleventh place among 29 specialties. Orthopedic specialists remain at the head of the list, with estimated earnings of $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to Medscape’s compensation report, which included responses from 17,461 physicians in over 30 specialties.

At the bottom of the estimated earnings list were public health and preventive medicine doctors and pediatricians. For both specialties, the reported annual earnings was $232,000. Family medicine specialists were only marginally higher at $234,000.

Radiologists ($427,000), gastroenterologists ($419,000), and urologists ($417,000) all reported higher earnings than oncologists, whereas neurologists, at $280,000, rheumatologists, at $262,000, and internal medicine physicians, at $251,000, earned less.

The report also found that gender disparities in income persist, with male oncologists earning 17% more than their female colleagues. The gender gap in oncology is somewhat less than that seen for all specialties combined, in which men earned 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%.

Male oncologists reported spending 38.8 hours per week seeing patients, compared with 34.9 hours reported by female oncologists. This could be a factor contributing to the gender pay disparity. Overall, the average amount of time seeing patients was 37.9 hours per week.
 

Frustrations with paperwork and denied claims

Surveyed oncologists cited some of the frustrations they are facing, such as spending nearly 17 hours a week on paperwork and administrative tasks. They reported that 16% of claims are denied or have to be resubmitted. As for the most challenging part of the job, oncologists (22%), similar to physicians overall (26%), found that having so many rules and regulations takes first place, followed by working with electronic health record systems (20%), difficulties getting fair reimbursement (19%), having to work long hours (12%), and dealing with difficult patients (8%). Few oncologists were concerned about lawsuits (4%), and 4% reported that there were no challenges.

Oncologists reported that the most rewarding part of their job was gratitude/relationships with patients (31%), followed by knowing that they are making the world a better place (27%). After that, oncologists agreed with statements about being very good at what they do/finding answers/diagnoses (22%), having pride in being a doctor (9%), and making good money at a job they like (8%).
 

Other key findings

Other key findings from the Medscape Oncologist Compensation Report 2020 included the following:

• Regarding payment models, 80% take insurance, 41% are in fee-for-service arrangements, and 18% are in accountable care organizations (21%). Only 3% are in direct primary care, and 1% are cash-only practices or have a concierge practice.
• 65% of oncologists state that they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients. None said that they would not take on new Medicare/Medicaid patients, and 35% remain undecided. These numbers differed from physicians overall; 73% of all physicians surveyed said they would continue taking new/current Medicare/Medicaid patients, 6% said that will not take on new Medicare patients, and 4% said they will not take new Medicaid patients. In addition, 3% and 2% said that they would stop treating some or all of their Medicare and Medicaid patients, respectively.
• About half (51%) of oncologists use nurse practitioners, about a third (34%) use physician assistants, and 37% use neither. This was about the same as physicians overall.
• A larger percentage of oncologists (38%) expect to participate in MIPS (merit-based incentive payment system), and only 8% expect to participate in APMs (alternative payment models). This was similar to the findings for physicians overall, with more than one-third (37%) expecting to participate in MIPS and 9% planning to take part in APMs.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The Medscape compensation reports also gives a glimpse of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on physician compensation.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% drop in patient volume. Physician practices and hospitals have laid off or furloughed personnel and have cut pay, and 9% of practices have closed their doors, at least for the time being.

A total of 43,000 health care workers were laid off in March, the report notes.

The findings tie in with those reported elsewhere. For example, a survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association, which was reported by Medscape Medical News, found that 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

Specialties were hard hit, especially those that rely on elective procedures, such as dermatology and cardiology. Oncology care has also been disrupted. For example, a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network found that half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From the University of Florida College of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, Gainesville, FL.

Abstract

• Objective: To review current reports on atypical manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: Evidence regarding atypical features of COVID-19 is accumulating. SARS-CoV-2 can infect human cells that express the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, which would allow for a broad spectrum of illnesses affecting the renal, cardiac, and gastrointestinal organ systems. Neurologic, cutaneous, and musculoskeletal manifestations have also been reported. The potential for SARS-CoV-2 to induce a hypercoagulable state provides another avenue for the virus to indirectly damage various organ systems, as evidenced by reports of cerebrovascular disease, myocardial injury, and a chilblain-like rash in patients with COVID-19.
• Conclusion: Because the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 may occur with varying frequency across populations, it is important to keep differentials broad when assessing patients with a clinical illness that may indeed be COVID-19.

Keywords: coronavirus; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2; SARS-CoV-2; pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the syndrome caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first reported in Wuhan, China, in early December 2019.¹ Since then, the virus has spread quickly around the world, with the World Health Organization (WHO) declaring the coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. As of May 21, 2020, more than 5,000,000 cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed, and more than 328,000 deaths related to COVID-19 have been reported globally.² These numbers are expected to increase, due to the reproduction number (R0) of SARS-CoV-2. R0 represents the number of new infections generated by an infectious person in a totally naïve population.³ The WHO estimates that the R0 of SARS-CoV-2 is 1.95, with other estimates ranging from 1.4 to 6.49.³ To control the pathogen, the R0 needs to be brought under a value of 1.

A fundamental tool in lowering the R0 is prompt testing and isolation of those who display signs and symptoms of infection. SARS-CoV-2 is still a novel pathogen about which we know relatively little. The common symptoms of COVID-19 are now well known—including fever, fatigue, anorexia, cough, and shortness of breath—but atypical manifestations of this viral continue to be reported and described. To help clinicians across specialties and settings identify patients with possible infection, we have summarized findings from current reports on COVID-19 manifestations involving the renal, cardiac, gastrointestinal (GI), and other organ systems.

Renal

During the 2003 SARS-CoV-1 outbreak, acute kidney injury (AKI) was an uncommon complication of the infection, but early reports suggest that AKI may occur more commonly with COVID-19.⁴ In a study of 193 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 treated in 3 Chinese hospitals, 59% presented with proteinuria, 44% with hematuria, 14% with increased blood urea nitrogen, and 10% with increased levels of serum creatinine.⁴ These markers, indicative of AKI, may be associated with increased mortality. Among this cohort, those with AKI had a mortality risk 5.3 times higher than those who did not have AKI.⁴ The pathophysiology of renal disease in COVID-19 may be related to dehydration or inflammatory mediators, causing decreased renal perfusion and cytokine storm, but evidence also suggests that SARS-CoV-2 is able to directly infect kidney cells.⁵ The virus infects cells by using angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) on the cell membrane as a cell entry receptor; ACE2 is expressed on the kidney, heart, and GI cells, and this may allow SARS-CoV-2 to directly infect and damage these organs. Other potential mechanisms of renal injury include overproduction of proinflammatory cytokines and administration of nephrotoxic drugs. No matter the mechanism, however, increased serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen correlate with an increased likelihood of requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission.⁶ Therefore, clinicians should carefully monitor renal function in patients with COVID-19.

Cardiac

In a report of 138 Chinese patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 36 required ICU admission: 44.4% of these had arrhythmias and 22.2% had developed acute cardiac injury.⁶ In addition, the cardiac cell injury biomarker troponin I was more likely to be elevated in ICU patients.⁶ A study of 21 patients admitted to the ICU in Washington State found elevated levels of brain natriuretic peptide.⁷ These biomarkers reflect the presence of myocardial stress, but do not necessarily indicate direct myocardial infection. Case reports of fulminant myocarditis in those with COVID-19 have begun to surface, however.^8,9 An examination of 68 deaths in persons with COVID-19 concluded that 7% were caused by myocarditis with circulatory failure.¹⁰

The pathophysiology of myocardial injury in COVID-19 is likely multifactorial. This includes increased inflammatory mediators, hypoxemia, and metabolic changes that can directly damage myocardial tissue. These factors can also exacerbate comorbid conditions, such as coronary artery disease, leading to ischemia and dysfunction of preexisting electrical conduction abnormalities. However, pathologic evidence of myocarditis and the presence of the ACE2 receptor, which may be a mediator of cardiac function, on cardiac muscle cells suggest that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of directly infecting and damaging myocardial cells. Other proposed mechanisms include infection-mediated downregulation of ACE2, causing cardiac dysfunction, or thrombus formation.¹¹ Although respiratory failure is the most common source of advanced illness in COVID-19 patients, myocarditis and arrhythmias can be life-threatening manifestations of the disease.

Gastrointestinal

As noted, ACE2 is expressed in the GI tract. In 73 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 53.4% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in stool, and 23.4% continued to have RNA-positive stool samples even after their respiratory samples tested negative.¹² These findings suggest the potential for SARS-CoV-2 to spread through fecal-oral transmission in those who are asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, or symptomatic. This mode of transmission has yet to be determined conclusively, and more research is needed. However, GI symptoms have been reported in persons with COVID-19. Among 138 hospitalized patients, 10.1% had complaints of diarrhea and nausea and 3.6% reported vomiting.⁶ Those who reported nausea and diarrhea noted that they developed these symptoms 1 to 2 days before they developed fever.⁶ Also, among a cohort of 1099 Chinese patients with COVID-19, 3.8% complained of diarrhea.¹³ Although diarrhea does not occur in a majority of patients, GI complaints, such as nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, should raise clinical suspicion for COVID-19, and in known areas of active transmission, testing of patients with GI symptoms is likely warranted.

Ocular

Ocular manifestations of COVID-19 are now being described, and should be taken into consideration when examining a patient. In a study of 38 patients with COVID-19 from Hubei province, China, 31.6% had ocular findings consistent with conjunctivitis, including conjunctival hyperemia, chemosis, epiphora, and increased ocular secretions.¹⁴ SARS-CoV-2 was detected in conjunctival and nasopharyngeal samples in 2 patients from this cohort. Conjunctival congestion was reported in a cohort of 1099 patients with COVID-19 treated at multiple centers throughout China, but at a much lower incidence, approximately 0.8%.¹³ Because SARS-CoV-2 can cause conjunctival disease and has been detected in samples from the external surface of the eye, it appears the virus is transmissible from tears or contact with the eye itself.

Neurologic

Common reported neurologic symptoms include dizziness, headache, impaired consciousness, ataxia, and cerebrovascular events. In a cohort of 214 patients from Wuhan, China, 36.4% had some form of neurological insult.¹⁵ These symptoms were more common in those with severe illness (P = 0.02).¹⁵ Two interesting neurologic symptoms that have been described are anosmia (loss of smell) and ageusia (loss of taste), which are being found primarily in tandem. It is still unclear how many people with COVID-19 are experiencing these symptoms, but a report from Italy estimates 19.4% of 320 patients examined had chemosensory dysfunction.¹⁶ The aforementioned report from Wuhan, China, found that 5.1% had anosmia and 5.6% had ageusia.¹⁵ The presence of anosmia/ageusia in some patients suggests that SARS-CoV-2 may enter the central nervous system (CNS) through a retrograde neuronal route.¹⁵ In addition, a case report from Japan described a 24-year-old man who presented with meningitis/encephalitis and had SARS-CoV-2 RNA present in his cerebrospinal fluid, showing that SARS-CoV-2 can penetrate into the CNS.¹⁷

SARS-CoV-2 may also have an association with Guillain–Barré syndrome, as this condition was reported in 5 patients from 3 hospitals in Northern Italy.¹⁸ The symptoms of Guillain–Barré syndrome presented 5 to 10 days after the typical COVID-19 symptoms, and evolved over 36 hours to 4 days afterwards. Four of the 5 patients experienced flaccid tetraparesis or tetraplegia, and 3 required mechanical ventilation.¹⁸

Another possible cause of neurologic injury in COVID-19 is damage to endothelial cells in cerebral blood vessels, causing thrombus formation and possibly increasing the risk of acute ischemic stroke.^15,19 Supporting this mechanism of injury, significantly lower platelet counts were noted in patients with CNS symptoms (P = 0.005).¹⁵ Other hematological impacts of COVID-19 have been reported, particularly hypercoagulability, as evidenced by elevated D-dimer levels.^13,20 This hypercoagulable state is linked to overproduction of proinflammatory cytokines (cytokine storm), leading to dysregulation of coagulation pathways and reduced concentrations of anticoagulants, such as protein C, antithrombin III, and tissue factor pathway inhibitor.²¹

Cutaneous

Cutaneous findings emerging in persons with COVID-19 demonstrate features of small-vessel and capillary occlusion, including erythematous skin eruptions and petechial rash. One report from Italy noted that 20.4% of patients with COVID-19 (n = 88) had a cutaneous finding, with a cutaneous manifestation developing in 8 at the onset of illness and in 10 following hospital admission.²² Fourteen patients had an erythematous rash, primarily on the trunk, with 3 patients having a diffuse urticarial appearing rash, and 1 patient developing vesicles.²² The severity of illness did not appear to correlate with the cutaneous manifestation, and the lesions healed within a few days.

One case report described a patient from Bangkok who was thought to be suffering from dengue fever, but was found to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. He initially presented with skin rash and petechiae, and later developed respiratory disease.²³

Other dermatologic findings of COVID-19 resemble chilblains disease, colloquially referred to as “COVID toes.” Two women, 27 and 35 years old, presented to a dermatology clinic in Qatar with a chief complaint of skin rash, described as red-purple papules on the dorsal aspects of the fingers bilaterally.²² Both patients had an unremarkable medical and drug history, but recent travel to the United Kingdom dictated SARS-CoV-2 screening, which was positive.²⁴ An Italian case report describes a 23-year-old man who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and had violaceous plaques on an erythematous background on his feet, without any lesions on his hands.²⁵ Since chilblains is less common in the warmer months and these events correspond with the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 infection is the suspected etiology. The pathophysiology of these lesions is unclear, and more research is needed. As more data become available, we may see cutaneous manifestations in patients with COVID-19 similar to those commonly reported with other viral infectious processes.

Musculoskeletal

Of 138 patients hospitalized in Wuhan, China, for COVID-19, 34.8% presented with myalgia; the presence of myalgia does not appear to be correlated with an increased likelihood of ICU admission.⁶ Myalgia or arthralgia was also reported in 14.9% among the cohort of 1099 COVID-19 patients in China.¹³ These musculoskeletal symptoms are described among large muscle groups found in the extremities, trunk, and back, and should raise suspicion in patients who present with other signs and symptoms concerning for COVID-19.

Evidence regarding atypical features of COVID-19 is accumulating. SARS-CoV-2 can infect a human cells that express the ACE2 receptor, which would allow for a broad spectrum of illnesses. The potential for SARS-CoV-2 to induce a hypercoagulable state allows it to indirectly damage various organ systems,²⁰ leading to cerebrovascular disease, myocardial injury, and a chilblain-like rash. Clinicians must be aware of these unique features, as early recognition of persons who present with COVID-19 will allow for prompt testing, institution of infection control and isolation practices, and treatment, as needed, among those infected. Also, this is a pandemic involving a novel virus affecting different populations throughout the world, and these signs and symptoms may occur with varying frequency across populations. Therefore, it is important to keep differentials broad when assessing patients with a clinical illness that may indeed be COVID-19.

Corresponding author: Norman L. Beatty, MD, norman.beatty@medicine.ufl.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

From the University of Florida College of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, Gainesville, FL.

Abstract

• Objective: To review current reports on atypical manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: Evidence regarding atypical features of COVID-19 is accumulating. SARS-CoV-2 can infect human cells that express the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, which would allow for a broad spectrum of illnesses affecting the renal, cardiac, and gastrointestinal organ systems. Neurologic, cutaneous, and musculoskeletal manifestations have also been reported. The potential for SARS-CoV-2 to induce a hypercoagulable state provides another avenue for the virus to indirectly damage various organ systems, as evidenced by reports of cerebrovascular disease, myocardial injury, and a chilblain-like rash in patients with COVID-19.
• Conclusion: Because the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 may occur with varying frequency across populations, it is important to keep differentials broad when assessing patients with a clinical illness that may indeed be COVID-19.

Keywords: coronavirus; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2; SARS-CoV-2; pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the syndrome caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first reported in Wuhan, China, in early December 2019.¹ Since then, the virus has spread quickly around the world, with the World Health Organization (WHO) declaring the coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. As of May 21, 2020, more than 5,000,000 cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed, and more than 328,000 deaths related to COVID-19 have been reported globally.² These numbers are expected to increase, due to the reproduction number (R0) of SARS-CoV-2. R0 represents the number of new infections generated by an infectious person in a totally naïve population.³ The WHO estimates that the R0 of SARS-CoV-2 is 1.95, with other estimates ranging from 1.4 to 6.49.³ To control the pathogen, the R0 needs to be brought under a value of 1.

A fundamental tool in lowering the R0 is prompt testing and isolation of those who display signs and symptoms of infection. SARS-CoV-2 is still a novel pathogen about which we know relatively little. The common symptoms of COVID-19 are now well known—including fever, fatigue, anorexia, cough, and shortness of breath—but atypical manifestations of this viral continue to be reported and described. To help clinicians across specialties and settings identify patients with possible infection, we have summarized findings from current reports on COVID-19 manifestations involving the renal, cardiac, gastrointestinal (GI), and other organ systems.

Renal

During the 2003 SARS-CoV-1 outbreak, acute kidney injury (AKI) was an uncommon complication of the infection, but early reports suggest that AKI may occur more commonly with COVID-19.⁴ In a study of 193 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 treated in 3 Chinese hospitals, 59% presented with proteinuria, 44% with hematuria, 14% with increased blood urea nitrogen, and 10% with increased levels of serum creatinine.⁴ These markers, indicative of AKI, may be associated with increased mortality. Among this cohort, those with AKI had a mortality risk 5.3 times higher than those who did not have AKI.⁴ The pathophysiology of renal disease in COVID-19 may be related to dehydration or inflammatory mediators, causing decreased renal perfusion and cytokine storm, but evidence also suggests that SARS-CoV-2 is able to directly infect kidney cells.⁵ The virus infects cells by using angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) on the cell membrane as a cell entry receptor; ACE2 is expressed on the kidney, heart, and GI cells, and this may allow SARS-CoV-2 to directly infect and damage these organs. Other potential mechanisms of renal injury include overproduction of proinflammatory cytokines and administration of nephrotoxic drugs. No matter the mechanism, however, increased serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen correlate with an increased likelihood of requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission.⁶ Therefore, clinicians should carefully monitor renal function in patients with COVID-19.

Cardiac

In a report of 138 Chinese patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 36 required ICU admission: 44.4% of these had arrhythmias and 22.2% had developed acute cardiac injury.⁶ In addition, the cardiac cell injury biomarker troponin I was more likely to be elevated in ICU patients.⁶ A study of 21 patients admitted to the ICU in Washington State found elevated levels of brain natriuretic peptide.⁷ These biomarkers reflect the presence of myocardial stress, but do not necessarily indicate direct myocardial infection. Case reports of fulminant myocarditis in those with COVID-19 have begun to surface, however.^8,9 An examination of 68 deaths in persons with COVID-19 concluded that 7% were caused by myocarditis with circulatory failure.¹⁰

The pathophysiology of myocardial injury in COVID-19 is likely multifactorial. This includes increased inflammatory mediators, hypoxemia, and metabolic changes that can directly damage myocardial tissue. These factors can also exacerbate comorbid conditions, such as coronary artery disease, leading to ischemia and dysfunction of preexisting electrical conduction abnormalities. However, pathologic evidence of myocarditis and the presence of the ACE2 receptor, which may be a mediator of cardiac function, on cardiac muscle cells suggest that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of directly infecting and damaging myocardial cells. Other proposed mechanisms include infection-mediated downregulation of ACE2, causing cardiac dysfunction, or thrombus formation.¹¹ Although respiratory failure is the most common source of advanced illness in COVID-19 patients, myocarditis and arrhythmias can be life-threatening manifestations of the disease.

Gastrointestinal

As noted, ACE2 is expressed in the GI tract. In 73 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 53.4% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in stool, and 23.4% continued to have RNA-positive stool samples even after their respiratory samples tested negative.¹² These findings suggest the potential for SARS-CoV-2 to spread through fecal-oral transmission in those who are asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, or symptomatic. This mode of transmission has yet to be determined conclusively, and more research is needed. However, GI symptoms have been reported in persons with COVID-19. Among 138 hospitalized patients, 10.1% had complaints of diarrhea and nausea and 3.6% reported vomiting.⁶ Those who reported nausea and diarrhea noted that they developed these symptoms 1 to 2 days before they developed fever.⁶ Also, among a cohort of 1099 Chinese patients with COVID-19, 3.8% complained of diarrhea.¹³ Although diarrhea does not occur in a majority of patients, GI complaints, such as nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, should raise clinical suspicion for COVID-19, and in known areas of active transmission, testing of patients with GI symptoms is likely warranted.

Ocular

Ocular manifestations of COVID-19 are now being described, and should be taken into consideration when examining a patient. In a study of 38 patients with COVID-19 from Hubei province, China, 31.6% had ocular findings consistent with conjunctivitis, including conjunctival hyperemia, chemosis, epiphora, and increased ocular secretions.¹⁴ SARS-CoV-2 was detected in conjunctival and nasopharyngeal samples in 2 patients from this cohort. Conjunctival congestion was reported in a cohort of 1099 patients with COVID-19 treated at multiple centers throughout China, but at a much lower incidence, approximately 0.8%.¹³ Because SARS-CoV-2 can cause conjunctival disease and has been detected in samples from the external surface of the eye, it appears the virus is transmissible from tears or contact with the eye itself.

Neurologic

Common reported neurologic symptoms include dizziness, headache, impaired consciousness, ataxia, and cerebrovascular events. In a cohort of 214 patients from Wuhan, China, 36.4% had some form of neurological insult.¹⁵ These symptoms were more common in those with severe illness (P = 0.02).¹⁵ Two interesting neurologic symptoms that have been described are anosmia (loss of smell) and ageusia (loss of taste), which are being found primarily in tandem. It is still unclear how many people with COVID-19 are experiencing these symptoms, but a report from Italy estimates 19.4% of 320 patients examined had chemosensory dysfunction.¹⁶ The aforementioned report from Wuhan, China, found that 5.1% had anosmia and 5.6% had ageusia.¹⁵ The presence of anosmia/ageusia in some patients suggests that SARS-CoV-2 may enter the central nervous system (CNS) through a retrograde neuronal route.¹⁵ In addition, a case report from Japan described a 24-year-old man who presented with meningitis/encephalitis and had SARS-CoV-2 RNA present in his cerebrospinal fluid, showing that SARS-CoV-2 can penetrate into the CNS.¹⁷

SARS-CoV-2 may also have an association with Guillain–Barré syndrome, as this condition was reported in 5 patients from 3 hospitals in Northern Italy.¹⁸ The symptoms of Guillain–Barré syndrome presented 5 to 10 days after the typical COVID-19 symptoms, and evolved over 36 hours to 4 days afterwards. Four of the 5 patients experienced flaccid tetraparesis or tetraplegia, and 3 required mechanical ventilation.¹⁸

Another possible cause of neurologic injury in COVID-19 is damage to endothelial cells in cerebral blood vessels, causing thrombus formation and possibly increasing the risk of acute ischemic stroke.^15,19 Supporting this mechanism of injury, significantly lower platelet counts were noted in patients with CNS symptoms (P = 0.005).¹⁵ Other hematological impacts of COVID-19 have been reported, particularly hypercoagulability, as evidenced by elevated D-dimer levels.^13,20 This hypercoagulable state is linked to overproduction of proinflammatory cytokines (cytokine storm), leading to dysregulation of coagulation pathways and reduced concentrations of anticoagulants, such as protein C, antithrombin III, and tissue factor pathway inhibitor.²¹

Cutaneous

Cutaneous findings emerging in persons with COVID-19 demonstrate features of small-vessel and capillary occlusion, including erythematous skin eruptions and petechial rash. One report from Italy noted that 20.4% of patients with COVID-19 (n = 88) had a cutaneous finding, with a cutaneous manifestation developing in 8 at the onset of illness and in 10 following hospital admission.²² Fourteen patients had an erythematous rash, primarily on the trunk, with 3 patients having a diffuse urticarial appearing rash, and 1 patient developing vesicles.²² The severity of illness did not appear to correlate with the cutaneous manifestation, and the lesions healed within a few days.

One case report described a patient from Bangkok who was thought to be suffering from dengue fever, but was found to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. He initially presented with skin rash and petechiae, and later developed respiratory disease.²³

Other dermatologic findings of COVID-19 resemble chilblains disease, colloquially referred to as “COVID toes.” Two women, 27 and 35 years old, presented to a dermatology clinic in Qatar with a chief complaint of skin rash, described as red-purple papules on the dorsal aspects of the fingers bilaterally.²² Both patients had an unremarkable medical and drug history, but recent travel to the United Kingdom dictated SARS-CoV-2 screening, which was positive.²⁴ An Italian case report describes a 23-year-old man who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and had violaceous plaques on an erythematous background on his feet, without any lesions on his hands.²⁵ Since chilblains is less common in the warmer months and these events correspond with the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 infection is the suspected etiology. The pathophysiology of these lesions is unclear, and more research is needed. As more data become available, we may see cutaneous manifestations in patients with COVID-19 similar to those commonly reported with other viral infectious processes.

Musculoskeletal

Of 138 patients hospitalized in Wuhan, China, for COVID-19, 34.8% presented with myalgia; the presence of myalgia does not appear to be correlated with an increased likelihood of ICU admission.⁶ Myalgia or arthralgia was also reported in 14.9% among the cohort of 1099 COVID-19 patients in China.¹³ These musculoskeletal symptoms are described among large muscle groups found in the extremities, trunk, and back, and should raise suspicion in patients who present with other signs and symptoms concerning for COVID-19.

Evidence regarding atypical features of COVID-19 is accumulating. SARS-CoV-2 can infect a human cells that express the ACE2 receptor, which would allow for a broad spectrum of illnesses. The potential for SARS-CoV-2 to induce a hypercoagulable state allows it to indirectly damage various organ systems,²⁰ leading to cerebrovascular disease, myocardial injury, and a chilblain-like rash. Clinicians must be aware of these unique features, as early recognition of persons who present with COVID-19 will allow for prompt testing, institution of infection control and isolation practices, and treatment, as needed, among those infected. Also, this is a pandemic involving a novel virus affecting different populations throughout the world, and these signs and symptoms may occur with varying frequency across populations. Therefore, it is important to keep differentials broad when assessing patients with a clinical illness that may indeed be COVID-19.

Corresponding author: Norman L. Beatty, MD, norman.beatty@medicine.ufl.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

From the University of Florida College of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, Gainesville, FL.

Abstract

• Objective: To review current reports on atypical manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: Evidence regarding atypical features of COVID-19 is accumulating. SARS-CoV-2 can infect human cells that express the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, which would allow for a broad spectrum of illnesses affecting the renal, cardiac, and gastrointestinal organ systems. Neurologic, cutaneous, and musculoskeletal manifestations have also been reported. The potential for SARS-CoV-2 to induce a hypercoagulable state provides another avenue for the virus to indirectly damage various organ systems, as evidenced by reports of cerebrovascular disease, myocardial injury, and a chilblain-like rash in patients with COVID-19.
• Conclusion: Because the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 may occur with varying frequency across populations, it is important to keep differentials broad when assessing patients with a clinical illness that may indeed be COVID-19.

Keywords: coronavirus; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2; SARS-CoV-2; pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the syndrome caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first reported in Wuhan, China, in early December 2019.¹ Since then, the virus has spread quickly around the world, with the World Health Organization (WHO) declaring the coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. As of May 21, 2020, more than 5,000,000 cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed, and more than 328,000 deaths related to COVID-19 have been reported globally.² These numbers are expected to increase, due to the reproduction number (R0) of SARS-CoV-2. R0 represents the number of new infections generated by an infectious person in a totally naïve population.³ The WHO estimates that the R0 of SARS-CoV-2 is 1.95, with other estimates ranging from 1.4 to 6.49.³ To control the pathogen, the R0 needs to be brought under a value of 1.

A fundamental tool in lowering the R0 is prompt testing and isolation of those who display signs and symptoms of infection. SARS-CoV-2 is still a novel pathogen about which we know relatively little. The common symptoms of COVID-19 are now well known—including fever, fatigue, anorexia, cough, and shortness of breath—but atypical manifestations of this viral continue to be reported and described. To help clinicians across specialties and settings identify patients with possible infection, we have summarized findings from current reports on COVID-19 manifestations involving the renal, cardiac, gastrointestinal (GI), and other organ systems.

Renal

During the 2003 SARS-CoV-1 outbreak, acute kidney injury (AKI) was an uncommon complication of the infection, but early reports suggest that AKI may occur more commonly with COVID-19.⁴ In a study of 193 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 treated in 3 Chinese hospitals, 59% presented with proteinuria, 44% with hematuria, 14% with increased blood urea nitrogen, and 10% with increased levels of serum creatinine.⁴ These markers, indicative of AKI, may be associated with increased mortality. Among this cohort, those with AKI had a mortality risk 5.3 times higher than those who did not have AKI.⁴ The pathophysiology of renal disease in COVID-19 may be related to dehydration or inflammatory mediators, causing decreased renal perfusion and cytokine storm, but evidence also suggests that SARS-CoV-2 is able to directly infect kidney cells.⁵ The virus infects cells by using angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) on the cell membrane as a cell entry receptor; ACE2 is expressed on the kidney, heart, and GI cells, and this may allow SARS-CoV-2 to directly infect and damage these organs. Other potential mechanisms of renal injury include overproduction of proinflammatory cytokines and administration of nephrotoxic drugs. No matter the mechanism, however, increased serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen correlate with an increased likelihood of requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission.⁶ Therefore, clinicians should carefully monitor renal function in patients with COVID-19.

Cardiac

In a report of 138 Chinese patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 36 required ICU admission: 44.4% of these had arrhythmias and 22.2% had developed acute cardiac injury.⁶ In addition, the cardiac cell injury biomarker troponin I was more likely to be elevated in ICU patients.⁶ A study of 21 patients admitted to the ICU in Washington State found elevated levels of brain natriuretic peptide.⁷ These biomarkers reflect the presence of myocardial stress, but do not necessarily indicate direct myocardial infection. Case reports of fulminant myocarditis in those with COVID-19 have begun to surface, however.^8,9 An examination of 68 deaths in persons with COVID-19 concluded that 7% were caused by myocarditis with circulatory failure.¹⁰

The pathophysiology of myocardial injury in COVID-19 is likely multifactorial. This includes increased inflammatory mediators, hypoxemia, and metabolic changes that can directly damage myocardial tissue. These factors can also exacerbate comorbid conditions, such as coronary artery disease, leading to ischemia and dysfunction of preexisting electrical conduction abnormalities. However, pathologic evidence of myocarditis and the presence of the ACE2 receptor, which may be a mediator of cardiac function, on cardiac muscle cells suggest that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of directly infecting and damaging myocardial cells. Other proposed mechanisms include infection-mediated downregulation of ACE2, causing cardiac dysfunction, or thrombus formation.¹¹ Although respiratory failure is the most common source of advanced illness in COVID-19 patients, myocarditis and arrhythmias can be life-threatening manifestations of the disease.

Gastrointestinal

As noted, ACE2 is expressed in the GI tract. In 73 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 53.4% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in stool, and 23.4% continued to have RNA-positive stool samples even after their respiratory samples tested negative.¹² These findings suggest the potential for SARS-CoV-2 to spread through fecal-oral transmission in those who are asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, or symptomatic. This mode of transmission has yet to be determined conclusively, and more research is needed. However, GI symptoms have been reported in persons with COVID-19. Among 138 hospitalized patients, 10.1% had complaints of diarrhea and nausea and 3.6% reported vomiting.⁶ Those who reported nausea and diarrhea noted that they developed these symptoms 1 to 2 days before they developed fever.⁶ Also, among a cohort of 1099 Chinese patients with COVID-19, 3.8% complained of diarrhea.¹³ Although diarrhea does not occur in a majority of patients, GI complaints, such as nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, should raise clinical suspicion for COVID-19, and in known areas of active transmission, testing of patients with GI symptoms is likely warranted.

Ocular

Ocular manifestations of COVID-19 are now being described, and should be taken into consideration when examining a patient. In a study of 38 patients with COVID-19 from Hubei province, China, 31.6% had ocular findings consistent with conjunctivitis, including conjunctival hyperemia, chemosis, epiphora, and increased ocular secretions.¹⁴ SARS-CoV-2 was detected in conjunctival and nasopharyngeal samples in 2 patients from this cohort. Conjunctival congestion was reported in a cohort of 1099 patients with COVID-19 treated at multiple centers throughout China, but at a much lower incidence, approximately 0.8%.¹³ Because SARS-CoV-2 can cause conjunctival disease and has been detected in samples from the external surface of the eye, it appears the virus is transmissible from tears or contact with the eye itself.

Neurologic

Common reported neurologic symptoms include dizziness, headache, impaired consciousness, ataxia, and cerebrovascular events. In a cohort of 214 patients from Wuhan, China, 36.4% had some form of neurological insult.¹⁵ These symptoms were more common in those with severe illness (P = 0.02).¹⁵ Two interesting neurologic symptoms that have been described are anosmia (loss of smell) and ageusia (loss of taste), which are being found primarily in tandem. It is still unclear how many people with COVID-19 are experiencing these symptoms, but a report from Italy estimates 19.4% of 320 patients examined had chemosensory dysfunction.¹⁶ The aforementioned report from Wuhan, China, found that 5.1% had anosmia and 5.6% had ageusia.¹⁵ The presence of anosmia/ageusia in some patients suggests that SARS-CoV-2 may enter the central nervous system (CNS) through a retrograde neuronal route.¹⁵ In addition, a case report from Japan described a 24-year-old man who presented with meningitis/encephalitis and had SARS-CoV-2 RNA present in his cerebrospinal fluid, showing that SARS-CoV-2 can penetrate into the CNS.¹⁷

SARS-CoV-2 may also have an association with Guillain–Barré syndrome, as this condition was reported in 5 patients from 3 hospitals in Northern Italy.¹⁸ The symptoms of Guillain–Barré syndrome presented 5 to 10 days after the typical COVID-19 symptoms, and evolved over 36 hours to 4 days afterwards. Four of the 5 patients experienced flaccid tetraparesis or tetraplegia, and 3 required mechanical ventilation.¹⁸

Another possible cause of neurologic injury in COVID-19 is damage to endothelial cells in cerebral blood vessels, causing thrombus formation and possibly increasing the risk of acute ischemic stroke.^15,19 Supporting this mechanism of injury, significantly lower platelet counts were noted in patients with CNS symptoms (P = 0.005).¹⁵ Other hematological impacts of COVID-19 have been reported, particularly hypercoagulability, as evidenced by elevated D-dimer levels.^13,20 This hypercoagulable state is linked to overproduction of proinflammatory cytokines (cytokine storm), leading to dysregulation of coagulation pathways and reduced concentrations of anticoagulants, such as protein C, antithrombin III, and tissue factor pathway inhibitor.²¹

Cutaneous

Cutaneous findings emerging in persons with COVID-19 demonstrate features of small-vessel and capillary occlusion, including erythematous skin eruptions and petechial rash. One report from Italy noted that 20.4% of patients with COVID-19 (n = 88) had a cutaneous finding, with a cutaneous manifestation developing in 8 at the onset of illness and in 10 following hospital admission.²² Fourteen patients had an erythematous rash, primarily on the trunk, with 3 patients having a diffuse urticarial appearing rash, and 1 patient developing vesicles.²² The severity of illness did not appear to correlate with the cutaneous manifestation, and the lesions healed within a few days.

One case report described a patient from Bangkok who was thought to be suffering from dengue fever, but was found to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. He initially presented with skin rash and petechiae, and later developed respiratory disease.²³

Other dermatologic findings of COVID-19 resemble chilblains disease, colloquially referred to as “COVID toes.” Two women, 27 and 35 years old, presented to a dermatology clinic in Qatar with a chief complaint of skin rash, described as red-purple papules on the dorsal aspects of the fingers bilaterally.²² Both patients had an unremarkable medical and drug history, but recent travel to the United Kingdom dictated SARS-CoV-2 screening, which was positive.²⁴ An Italian case report describes a 23-year-old man who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and had violaceous plaques on an erythematous background on his feet, without any lesions on his hands.²⁵ Since chilblains is less common in the warmer months and these events correspond with the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 infection is the suspected etiology. The pathophysiology of these lesions is unclear, and more research is needed. As more data become available, we may see cutaneous manifestations in patients with COVID-19 similar to those commonly reported with other viral infectious processes.

Musculoskeletal

Of 138 patients hospitalized in Wuhan, China, for COVID-19, 34.8% presented with myalgia; the presence of myalgia does not appear to be correlated with an increased likelihood of ICU admission.⁶ Myalgia or arthralgia was also reported in 14.9% among the cohort of 1099 COVID-19 patients in China.¹³ These musculoskeletal symptoms are described among large muscle groups found in the extremities, trunk, and back, and should raise suspicion in patients who present with other signs and symptoms concerning for COVID-19.

Evidence regarding atypical features of COVID-19 is accumulating. SARS-CoV-2 can infect a human cells that express the ACE2 receptor, which would allow for a broad spectrum of illnesses. The potential for SARS-CoV-2 to induce a hypercoagulable state allows it to indirectly damage various organ systems,²⁰ leading to cerebrovascular disease, myocardial injury, and a chilblain-like rash. Clinicians must be aware of these unique features, as early recognition of persons who present with COVID-19 will allow for prompt testing, institution of infection control and isolation practices, and treatment, as needed, among those infected. Also, this is a pandemic involving a novel virus affecting different populations throughout the world, and these signs and symptoms may occur with varying frequency across populations. Therefore, it is important to keep differentials broad when assessing patients with a clinical illness that may indeed be COVID-19.

Corresponding author: Norman L. Beatty, MD, norman.beatty@medicine.ufl.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

In 2019, the number of births in the United States dropped for the fifth consecutive year, as did the fertility rate, and birth rates for women under age 30 fell to record lows, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

To be exact – at least as exact as is possible from these provisional data – there were 3,745,540 births in the United States last year. That’s down about 1% from 2018 and is the lowest number of births since 1985, Brady E. Hamilton, PhD, and associates at the NCHS said in a rapid release report.

As births go, so goes the general fertility rate. A 2% decrease from 2018 to 2019 left the fertility rate at its lowest point ever: 58.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, compared with 59.1 per 1,000 in 2018, the investigators said, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

The total fertility rate – defined as “the number of births that a hypothetical group of 1,000 women would have over their lifetimes, based on the age-specific birth rate in a given year” – also reached a record low of 1,705 births per 1,000 women last year after falling 1% from 2018, they reported.

The falling birth rates did not include women over age 35. The birth rate among women aged 40-44 increased by 2% from 2018, as it reached 12.0 births per 1,000 in 2019. “The rate for this age group has risen almost continuously since 1985 by an average of 3% per year,” Dr. Hamilton and associates wrote.

The birth rate for women aged 30-34 years, 98.3 per 1,000, was down 1% from 2018 but was still the highest for any age category. Among younger women, rates all dropped to record lows: 16.6 (ages 15-19), 66.6 (ages 20-24), and 93.7 (ages 25-29), they said.

Preterm birth rates, on the other hand, rose for the fifth year in a row. The rate for 2019, 10.23% of all births, represents an increase of 2% over 2018 and is “the highest level reported in more than a decade,” the investigators noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

In 2019, the number of births in the United States dropped for the fifth consecutive year, as did the fertility rate, and birth rates for women under age 30 fell to record lows, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

To be exact – at least as exact as is possible from these provisional data – there were 3,745,540 births in the United States last year. That’s down about 1% from 2018 and is the lowest number of births since 1985, Brady E. Hamilton, PhD, and associates at the NCHS said in a rapid release report.

As births go, so goes the general fertility rate. A 2% decrease from 2018 to 2019 left the fertility rate at its lowest point ever: 58.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, compared with 59.1 per 1,000 in 2018, the investigators said, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

The total fertility rate – defined as “the number of births that a hypothetical group of 1,000 women would have over their lifetimes, based on the age-specific birth rate in a given year” – also reached a record low of 1,705 births per 1,000 women last year after falling 1% from 2018, they reported.

The falling birth rates did not include women over age 35. The birth rate among women aged 40-44 increased by 2% from 2018, as it reached 12.0 births per 1,000 in 2019. “The rate for this age group has risen almost continuously since 1985 by an average of 3% per year,” Dr. Hamilton and associates wrote.

The birth rate for women aged 30-34 years, 98.3 per 1,000, was down 1% from 2018 but was still the highest for any age category. Among younger women, rates all dropped to record lows: 16.6 (ages 15-19), 66.6 (ages 20-24), and 93.7 (ages 25-29), they said.

Preterm birth rates, on the other hand, rose for the fifth year in a row. The rate for 2019, 10.23% of all births, represents an increase of 2% over 2018 and is “the highest level reported in more than a decade,” the investigators noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

In 2019, the number of births in the United States dropped for the fifth consecutive year, as did the fertility rate, and birth rates for women under age 30 fell to record lows, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

To be exact – at least as exact as is possible from these provisional data – there were 3,745,540 births in the United States last year. That’s down about 1% from 2018 and is the lowest number of births since 1985, Brady E. Hamilton, PhD, and associates at the NCHS said in a rapid release report.

As births go, so goes the general fertility rate. A 2% decrease from 2018 to 2019 left the fertility rate at its lowest point ever: 58.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, compared with 59.1 per 1,000 in 2018, the investigators said, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

The total fertility rate – defined as “the number of births that a hypothetical group of 1,000 women would have over their lifetimes, based on the age-specific birth rate in a given year” – also reached a record low of 1,705 births per 1,000 women last year after falling 1% from 2018, they reported.

The falling birth rates did not include women over age 35. The birth rate among women aged 40-44 increased by 2% from 2018, as it reached 12.0 births per 1,000 in 2019. “The rate for this age group has risen almost continuously since 1985 by an average of 3% per year,” Dr. Hamilton and associates wrote.

The birth rate for women aged 30-34 years, 98.3 per 1,000, was down 1% from 2018 but was still the highest for any age category. Among younger women, rates all dropped to record lows: 16.6 (ages 15-19), 66.6 (ages 20-24), and 93.7 (ages 25-29), they said.

Preterm birth rates, on the other hand, rose for the fifth year in a row. The rate for 2019, 10.23% of all births, represents an increase of 2% over 2018 and is “the highest level reported in more than a decade,” the investigators noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

No restriction of oral food intake prior to nonemergent cardiac catheterization is as safe as the current traditional NPO [nothing by mouth] strategy, results from a large, single-center, randomized controlled trial showed.

According to lead investigator Abhishek Mishra, MD, NPO after midnight has been a standard practice before major surgery requiring general anesthesia since Mendelson Syndrome was first described in 1946. “The rational for keeping NPO after midnight has been to keep the stomach empty, to reduce gastric contents and acidity – which would reduce emesis – and eventually reduce the risk of aspiration,” Dr. Mishra, a cardiologist at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Vidant Health in Greenville, N.C., said at the at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions virtual annual scientific sessions. “The rationale of NPO in the setting of cardiac catheterization is to reduce the risk of aspiration, and more so, of a patient needing emergent cardiac surgery.” The clinical question was, do we really need to keep our patients NPO prior to elective cardiac catheterization? So far, no large randomized study has been done to answer this question.”

To find out, Dr. Mishra and colleagues carried out CHOW NOW (Can We Safely Have Our Patients Eat With Cardiac Catheterization – Nix or Allow), a single-center, prospective, randomized, single-blinded study that compared the safety of a nonfasting strategy with the current fasting protocol strategies in 599 patients who underwent nonemergent cardiac catheterization at The Guthrie Clinic/Robert Packer Hospital in Sayre, Pa.

Patients in the fasting group were instructed to be NPO after midnight, but could have clear liquids up to 2 hours prior to the procedure, while those in the nonfasting group had no restriction of oral intake, irrespective of time of cardiac catheterization. The primary outcome was a composite of aspiration pneumonia, preprocedural hypertension, preprocedural hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, incidence of nausea/vomiting, and contrast-induced neuropathy. Secondary outcomes included total cost of the index hospitalization, patient satisfaction via a questionnaire containing seven questions, and in-hospital mortality.

Of the 599 patients, 306 were assigned to the standard fasting group and the remaining 293 to the nonfasting group. Their mean age was 67 years, 45% were on a proton pump inhibitor or H2 blockers, and 33% had diabetes. In addition, 40% had acute coronary syndrome, and 23% underwent percutaneous intervention.

The researchers observed no statistically significant difference in the primary or secondary outcomes between the study groups. In the nonfasting group, 11.3% of patients met the primary endpoint, compared with 9.8% of the patients in the standard fasting group (P = .65). In addition, the nonfasting strategy was found to be noninferior to the standard fasting strategy for the primary outcome at a noninferiority margin threshold of 0.059.

Dr. Mishra and colleagues observed no differences between the standard fasting and nonfasting groups with respect to in-hospital mortality (0.3% vs. 0.7%, respectively; P = .616), patient satisfaction score (a mean of 4.4 vs. a mean of 4.5; P = .257), and mean total cost of hospitalization ($8,446 vs. $6,960; P = .654).

“In this randomized, controlled trial, we found that there was no significant difference in the rate of overall adverse events with an approach of unrestricted oral intake prior to cardiac catheterization compared to strict fasting, and it was associated with better patient satisfaction and lower cost of care, especially for hospitalized patients,” concluded Dr. Mishra, who conducted the research during his fellowship at The Guthrie Clinic.

He acknowledged certain limitations of the trial, including the fact that results are applicable only to cardiac catheterization procedures, including coronary angiographies, percutaneous coronary interventions, and left heart catheterizations. “These results are not applicable to certain high-risk coronary procedures that required the use of a large-bore access or any valve procedures,” he said.

One of the session’s invited panelists, Cindy L. Grines, MD,, said that she and other interventional cardiologists have “gone around and around” on the issue of NPO prior to nonemergent cardiac catheterization. “I actually let my patients get fluids up until the time they’re put on the cath lab table,” said Dr. Grines, chief scientific officer of the Northside Cardiovascular Institute in Atlanta. “I haven’t been giving them solid food like this, though.”

Another panelist, Timothy D. Henry, MD, said that in his clinical experience, “patients don’t like being NPO, and I think we’ve all seen cases where patients are actually volume-depleted in the morning.” Dr. Henry, medical director of The Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research and Education at The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, pointed out that most NPO policy “is not dictated by us as interventional cardiologists; it’s dictated by hospital policies or by anesthesiologists. Will [the results of this study] change what we do?”

The Donald Guthrie Research Foundation funded the study. Daniel P. Sporn, MD, FACC, was the study’s principal investigator. Dr. Mishra reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Mishra A et al., SCAI 2020, abstract 11758.

No restriction of oral food intake prior to nonemergent cardiac catheterization is as safe as the current traditional NPO [nothing by mouth] strategy, results from a large, single-center, randomized controlled trial showed.

According to lead investigator Abhishek Mishra, MD, NPO after midnight has been a standard practice before major surgery requiring general anesthesia since Mendelson Syndrome was first described in 1946. “The rational for keeping NPO after midnight has been to keep the stomach empty, to reduce gastric contents and acidity – which would reduce emesis – and eventually reduce the risk of aspiration,” Dr. Mishra, a cardiologist at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Vidant Health in Greenville, N.C., said at the at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions virtual annual scientific sessions. “The rationale of NPO in the setting of cardiac catheterization is to reduce the risk of aspiration, and more so, of a patient needing emergent cardiac surgery.” The clinical question was, do we really need to keep our patients NPO prior to elective cardiac catheterization? So far, no large randomized study has been done to answer this question.”

To find out, Dr. Mishra and colleagues carried out CHOW NOW (Can We Safely Have Our Patients Eat With Cardiac Catheterization – Nix or Allow), a single-center, prospective, randomized, single-blinded study that compared the safety of a nonfasting strategy with the current fasting protocol strategies in 599 patients who underwent nonemergent cardiac catheterization at The Guthrie Clinic/Robert Packer Hospital in Sayre, Pa.

Patients in the fasting group were instructed to be NPO after midnight, but could have clear liquids up to 2 hours prior to the procedure, while those in the nonfasting group had no restriction of oral intake, irrespective of time of cardiac catheterization. The primary outcome was a composite of aspiration pneumonia, preprocedural hypertension, preprocedural hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, incidence of nausea/vomiting, and contrast-induced neuropathy. Secondary outcomes included total cost of the index hospitalization, patient satisfaction via a questionnaire containing seven questions, and in-hospital mortality.

Of the 599 patients, 306 were assigned to the standard fasting group and the remaining 293 to the nonfasting group. Their mean age was 67 years, 45% were on a proton pump inhibitor or H2 blockers, and 33% had diabetes. In addition, 40% had acute coronary syndrome, and 23% underwent percutaneous intervention.

The researchers observed no statistically significant difference in the primary or secondary outcomes between the study groups. In the nonfasting group, 11.3% of patients met the primary endpoint, compared with 9.8% of the patients in the standard fasting group (P = .65). In addition, the nonfasting strategy was found to be noninferior to the standard fasting strategy for the primary outcome at a noninferiority margin threshold of 0.059.

Dr. Mishra and colleagues observed no differences between the standard fasting and nonfasting groups with respect to in-hospital mortality (0.3% vs. 0.7%, respectively; P = .616), patient satisfaction score (a mean of 4.4 vs. a mean of 4.5; P = .257), and mean total cost of hospitalization ($8,446 vs. $6,960; P = .654).

“In this randomized, controlled trial, we found that there was no significant difference in the rate of overall adverse events with an approach of unrestricted oral intake prior to cardiac catheterization compared to strict fasting, and it was associated with better patient satisfaction and lower cost of care, especially for hospitalized patients,” concluded Dr. Mishra, who conducted the research during his fellowship at The Guthrie Clinic.

He acknowledged certain limitations of the trial, including the fact that results are applicable only to cardiac catheterization procedures, including coronary angiographies, percutaneous coronary interventions, and left heart catheterizations. “These results are not applicable to certain high-risk coronary procedures that required the use of a large-bore access or any valve procedures,” he said.

One of the session’s invited panelists, Cindy L. Grines, MD,, said that she and other interventional cardiologists have “gone around and around” on the issue of NPO prior to nonemergent cardiac catheterization. “I actually let my patients get fluids up until the time they’re put on the cath lab table,” said Dr. Grines, chief scientific officer of the Northside Cardiovascular Institute in Atlanta. “I haven’t been giving them solid food like this, though.”

Another panelist, Timothy D. Henry, MD, said that in his clinical experience, “patients don’t like being NPO, and I think we’ve all seen cases where patients are actually volume-depleted in the morning.” Dr. Henry, medical director of The Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research and Education at The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, pointed out that most NPO policy “is not dictated by us as interventional cardiologists; it’s dictated by hospital policies or by anesthesiologists. Will [the results of this study] change what we do?”

The Donald Guthrie Research Foundation funded the study. Daniel P. Sporn, MD, FACC, was the study’s principal investigator. Dr. Mishra reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Mishra A et al., SCAI 2020, abstract 11758.

No restriction of oral food intake prior to nonemergent cardiac catheterization is as safe as the current traditional NPO [nothing by mouth] strategy, results from a large, single-center, randomized controlled trial showed.

According to lead investigator Abhishek Mishra, MD, NPO after midnight has been a standard practice before major surgery requiring general anesthesia since Mendelson Syndrome was first described in 1946. “The rational for keeping NPO after midnight has been to keep the stomach empty, to reduce gastric contents and acidity – which would reduce emesis – and eventually reduce the risk of aspiration,” Dr. Mishra, a cardiologist at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Vidant Health in Greenville, N.C., said at the at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions virtual annual scientific sessions. “The rationale of NPO in the setting of cardiac catheterization is to reduce the risk of aspiration, and more so, of a patient needing emergent cardiac surgery.” The clinical question was, do we really need to keep our patients NPO prior to elective cardiac catheterization? So far, no large randomized study has been done to answer this question.”

To find out, Dr. Mishra and colleagues carried out CHOW NOW (Can We Safely Have Our Patients Eat With Cardiac Catheterization – Nix or Allow), a single-center, prospective, randomized, single-blinded study that compared the safety of a nonfasting strategy with the current fasting protocol strategies in 599 patients who underwent nonemergent cardiac catheterization at The Guthrie Clinic/Robert Packer Hospital in Sayre, Pa.

Patients in the fasting group were instructed to be NPO after midnight, but could have clear liquids up to 2 hours prior to the procedure, while those in the nonfasting group had no restriction of oral intake, irrespective of time of cardiac catheterization. The primary outcome was a composite of aspiration pneumonia, preprocedural hypertension, preprocedural hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, incidence of nausea/vomiting, and contrast-induced neuropathy. Secondary outcomes included total cost of the index hospitalization, patient satisfaction via a questionnaire containing seven questions, and in-hospital mortality.

Of the 599 patients, 306 were assigned to the standard fasting group and the remaining 293 to the nonfasting group. Their mean age was 67 years, 45% were on a proton pump inhibitor or H2 blockers, and 33% had diabetes. In addition, 40% had acute coronary syndrome, and 23% underwent percutaneous intervention.

The researchers observed no statistically significant difference in the primary or secondary outcomes between the study groups. In the nonfasting group, 11.3% of patients met the primary endpoint, compared with 9.8% of the patients in the standard fasting group (P = .65). In addition, the nonfasting strategy was found to be noninferior to the standard fasting strategy for the primary outcome at a noninferiority margin threshold of 0.059.

Dr. Mishra and colleagues observed no differences between the standard fasting and nonfasting groups with respect to in-hospital mortality (0.3% vs. 0.7%, respectively; P = .616), patient satisfaction score (a mean of 4.4 vs. a mean of 4.5; P = .257), and mean total cost of hospitalization ($8,446 vs. $6,960; P = .654).

“In this randomized, controlled trial, we found that there was no significant difference in the rate of overall adverse events with an approach of unrestricted oral intake prior to cardiac catheterization compared to strict fasting, and it was associated with better patient satisfaction and lower cost of care, especially for hospitalized patients,” concluded Dr. Mishra, who conducted the research during his fellowship at The Guthrie Clinic.

He acknowledged certain limitations of the trial, including the fact that results are applicable only to cardiac catheterization procedures, including coronary angiographies, percutaneous coronary interventions, and left heart catheterizations. “These results are not applicable to certain high-risk coronary procedures that required the use of a large-bore access or any valve procedures,” he said.

One of the session’s invited panelists, Cindy L. Grines, MD,, said that she and other interventional cardiologists have “gone around and around” on the issue of NPO prior to nonemergent cardiac catheterization. “I actually let my patients get fluids up until the time they’re put on the cath lab table,” said Dr. Grines, chief scientific officer of the Northside Cardiovascular Institute in Atlanta. “I haven’t been giving them solid food like this, though.”

Another panelist, Timothy D. Henry, MD, said that in his clinical experience, “patients don’t like being NPO, and I think we’ve all seen cases where patients are actually volume-depleted in the morning.” Dr. Henry, medical director of The Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research and Education at The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, pointed out that most NPO policy “is not dictated by us as interventional cardiologists; it’s dictated by hospital policies or by anesthesiologists. Will [the results of this study] change what we do?”

The Donald Guthrie Research Foundation funded the study. Daniel P. Sporn, MD, FACC, was the study’s principal investigator. Dr. Mishra reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Mishra A et al., SCAI 2020, abstract 11758.

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the efficacy, safety, and clinical benefit of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with confirmed pneumonia due to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Design. Randomized, investigator-initiated, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. The trial took place between February 6, 2020 and March 12, 2020, at 10 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Study participants included adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to hospital who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay and had the following clinical characteristics: radiographic evidence of pneumonia; hypoxia with oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ≤ 300 mm Hg; and symptom onset to enrollment ≤ 12 days. Some of the exclusion criteria for participation in the study were pregnancy or breast feeding, liver cirrhosis, abnormal liver enzymes ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal, severe renal impairment or receipt of renal replacement therapy, plan for transfer to a non-study hospital, and enrollment in a trial for COVID-19 within the previous month.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg daily on days 2-10) or the same volume of placebo for 10 days. Clinical and safety data assessed included laboratory testing, electrocardiogram, and medication adverse effects. Testing of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swab samples, anal swab samples, sputum, and stool was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint of this study was time to clinical improvement within 28 days after randomization. Clinical improvement was defined as a 2-point reduction in participants’ admission status on a 6-point ordinal scale (1 = discharged or clinical recovery, 6 = death) or live discharge from hospital, whichever came first. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at day 28 and duration of hospital admission, oxygen support, and invasive mechanical ventilation. Virological measures and safety outcomes ascertained included treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and premature discontinuation of remdesivir.

The sample size estimate for the original study design was a total of 453 patients (302 in the remdesivir group and 151 in the placebo group). This sample size would provide 80% power, assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.4 comparing remdesivir to placebo, and corresponding to a change in time to clinical improvement of 6 days. The analysis of primary outcome was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Time to clinical improvement within 28 days was assessed with Kaplan-Meier plots.

Main results. A total of 255 patients were screened, of whom 237 were enrolled and randomized to remdesivir (158) or placebo (79) group. Of the participants in the remdesivir group, 155 started study treatment and 150 completed treatment per protocol. For the participants in the placebo group, 78 started study treatment and 76 completed treatment per-protocol. Study enrollment was terminated after March 12, 2020, before attaining the prespecified sample size, because no additional patients met study eligibility criteria due to various public health measures implemented in Wuhan. The median age of participants was 65 years (IQR, 56-71), the majority were men (56% in remdesivir group vs 65% in placebo group), and the most common comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease. Median time from symptom onset to study enrollment was 10 days (IQR, 9-12). The time to clinical improvement between treatments (21 days for remdesivir group vs 23 days for placebo group) was not significantly different (HR, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.75). In addition, in participants who received treatment within 10 days of symptom onset, those who were administered remdesivir had a nonsignificant (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.95-2.43) but faster time (18 days) to clinical improvement, compared to those administered placebo (23 days). Moreover, treatment with remdesivir versus placebo did not lead to differences in secondary outcomes (eg, 28-day mortality and duration of hospital stay, oxygen support, and invasive mechanical ventilation), changes in viral load over time, or adverse events between the groups.

Conclusion. This study found that, compared with placebo, intravenous remdesivir did not significantly improve the time to clinical improvement, mortality, or time to clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19. A numeric reduction in time to clinical improvement with early remdesivir treatment (ie, within 10 days of symptom onset) that approached statistical significance was observed in this underpowered study.

Commentary

Within a few short months since its emergence. SARS-CoV-2 infection has caused a global pandemic, posing a dire threat to public health due to its adverse effects on morbidity (eg, respiratory failure, thromboembolic diseases, multiorgan failure) and mortality. To date, no pharmacologic treatment has been shown to effectively improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Multiple ongoing clinical trials are being conducted globally to determine potential therapeutic treatments for severe COVID-19. The first clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir, agents traditionally used for other indications, such as malaria and HIV, did not show a clear benefit in COVID-19.^1,2 Remdesivir, a nucleoside analogue prodrug, is a broad-spectrum antiviral agent that was previously used for treatment of Ebola and has been shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses. The study reported by Wang and colleagues was the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed at evaluating whether remdesivir improves outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. Thus, the worsening COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the absence of a curative treatment, underscore the urgency of this trial.

The study was grounded on observational data from several recent case reports and case series centering on the potential efficacy of remdesivir in treating COVID-19.³ The study itself was designed well (ie, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter) and carefully implemented (ie, high protocol adherence to treatments, no loss to follow-up). The principal limitation of this study was its inability to reach the estimated statistical power of study. Due to successful epidemic control in Wuhan, which led to marked reductions in hospital admission of patients with COVID-19, and implementation of stringent termination criteria per the study protocol, only 237 participants were enrolled, instead of the 453, as specified by the sample estimate. This corresponded to a reduction of statistical power from 80% to 58%. Due to this limitation, the study was underpowered, rendering its findings inconclusive.

Despite this limitation, the study found that those treated with remdesivir within 10 days of symptom onset had a numerically faster time (although not statistically significant) to clinical improvement. This leads to an interesting question: whether remdesivir administration early in COVID-19 course could improve clinical outcomes, a question that warrants further investigation by an adequately powered trial. Also, data from this study provided evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period, although the long-term drug effects, as well as the safety profile in pediatric patients, remain unknown at this time.

While the study reported by Wang and colleagues was underpowered and is thus inconclusive, several other ongoing RCTs are evaluating the potential clinical benefit of remdesivir treatment in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. On the date of online publication of this report in The Lancet, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a news release summarizing preliminary findings from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT), which showed positive effects of remdesivir on clinical recovery from advanced COVID-19.⁴ The ACTT, the first RCT launched in the United States to evaluate experimental treatment for COVID-19, included 1063 hospitalized participants with advanced COVID-19 and lung involvement. Participants who were administered remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery compared to those in the placebo group (median time to recovery, 11 days vs 15 days, respectively; P < 0.001), and had near statistically significant improved survival (mortality rate, 8.0% vs 11.6%, respectively; P = 0.059). In response to these findings, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ While the findings noted from the NIH news release are very encouraging and provide the first evidence of a potentially beneficial antiviral treatment for severe COVID-19 in humans, the scientific community awaits the peer-reviewed publication of the ACTT to better assess the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir therapy and determine the trial’s implications in the management of COVID-19.

The discovery of an effective pharmacologic intervention for COVID-19 is of utmost urgency. While the present study was unable to answer the question of whether remdesivir is effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19, other ongoing or completed (ie, ACTT) studies will likely address this knowledge gap in the coming months. The FDA’s emergency use authorization for remdesivir provides a glimpse into this possibility.

–Katerina Oikonomou, MD, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics & Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY

–Fred Ko, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the efficacy, safety, and clinical benefit of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with confirmed pneumonia due to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Design. Randomized, investigator-initiated, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. The trial took place between February 6, 2020 and March 12, 2020, at 10 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Study participants included adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to hospital who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay and had the following clinical characteristics: radiographic evidence of pneumonia; hypoxia with oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ≤ 300 mm Hg; and symptom onset to enrollment ≤ 12 days. Some of the exclusion criteria for participation in the study were pregnancy or breast feeding, liver cirrhosis, abnormal liver enzymes ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal, severe renal impairment or receipt of renal replacement therapy, plan for transfer to a non-study hospital, and enrollment in a trial for COVID-19 within the previous month.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg daily on days 2-10) or the same volume of placebo for 10 days. Clinical and safety data assessed included laboratory testing, electrocardiogram, and medication adverse effects. Testing of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swab samples, anal swab samples, sputum, and stool was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint of this study was time to clinical improvement within 28 days after randomization. Clinical improvement was defined as a 2-point reduction in participants’ admission status on a 6-point ordinal scale (1 = discharged or clinical recovery, 6 = death) or live discharge from hospital, whichever came first. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at day 28 and duration of hospital admission, oxygen support, and invasive mechanical ventilation. Virological measures and safety outcomes ascertained included treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and premature discontinuation of remdesivir.

The sample size estimate for the original study design was a total of 453 patients (302 in the remdesivir group and 151 in the placebo group). This sample size would provide 80% power, assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.4 comparing remdesivir to placebo, and corresponding to a change in time to clinical improvement of 6 days. The analysis of primary outcome was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Time to clinical improvement within 28 days was assessed with Kaplan-Meier plots.

Main results. A total of 255 patients were screened, of whom 237 were enrolled and randomized to remdesivir (158) or placebo (79) group. Of the participants in the remdesivir group, 155 started study treatment and 150 completed treatment per protocol. For the participants in the placebo group, 78 started study treatment and 76 completed treatment per-protocol. Study enrollment was terminated after March 12, 2020, before attaining the prespecified sample size, because no additional patients met study eligibility criteria due to various public health measures implemented in Wuhan. The median age of participants was 65 years (IQR, 56-71), the majority were men (56% in remdesivir group vs 65% in placebo group), and the most common comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease. Median time from symptom onset to study enrollment was 10 days (IQR, 9-12). The time to clinical improvement between treatments (21 days for remdesivir group vs 23 days for placebo group) was not significantly different (HR, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.75). In addition, in participants who received treatment within 10 days of symptom onset, those who were administered remdesivir had a nonsignificant (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.95-2.43) but faster time (18 days) to clinical improvement, compared to those administered placebo (23 days). Moreover, treatment with remdesivir versus placebo did not lead to differences in secondary outcomes (eg, 28-day mortality and duration of hospital stay, oxygen support, and invasive mechanical ventilation), changes in viral load over time, or adverse events between the groups.

Conclusion. This study found that, compared with placebo, intravenous remdesivir did not significantly improve the time to clinical improvement, mortality, or time to clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19. A numeric reduction in time to clinical improvement with early remdesivir treatment (ie, within 10 days of symptom onset) that approached statistical significance was observed in this underpowered study.

Commentary

Within a few short months since its emergence. SARS-CoV-2 infection has caused a global pandemic, posing a dire threat to public health due to its adverse effects on morbidity (eg, respiratory failure, thromboembolic diseases, multiorgan failure) and mortality. To date, no pharmacologic treatment has been shown to effectively improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Multiple ongoing clinical trials are being conducted globally to determine potential therapeutic treatments for severe COVID-19. The first clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir, agents traditionally used for other indications, such as malaria and HIV, did not show a clear benefit in COVID-19.^1,2 Remdesivir, a nucleoside analogue prodrug, is a broad-spectrum antiviral agent that was previously used for treatment of Ebola and has been shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses. The study reported by Wang and colleagues was the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed at evaluating whether remdesivir improves outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. Thus, the worsening COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the absence of a curative treatment, underscore the urgency of this trial.

The study was grounded on observational data from several recent case reports and case series centering on the potential efficacy of remdesivir in treating COVID-19.³ The study itself was designed well (ie, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter) and carefully implemented (ie, high protocol adherence to treatments, no loss to follow-up). The principal limitation of this study was its inability to reach the estimated statistical power of study. Due to successful epidemic control in Wuhan, which led to marked reductions in hospital admission of patients with COVID-19, and implementation of stringent termination criteria per the study protocol, only 237 participants were enrolled, instead of the 453, as specified by the sample estimate. This corresponded to a reduction of statistical power from 80% to 58%. Due to this limitation, the study was underpowered, rendering its findings inconclusive.

Despite this limitation, the study found that those treated with remdesivir within 10 days of symptom onset had a numerically faster time (although not statistically significant) to clinical improvement. This leads to an interesting question: whether remdesivir administration early in COVID-19 course could improve clinical outcomes, a question that warrants further investigation by an adequately powered trial. Also, data from this study provided evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period, although the long-term drug effects, as well as the safety profile in pediatric patients, remain unknown at this time.

While the study reported by Wang and colleagues was underpowered and is thus inconclusive, several other ongoing RCTs are evaluating the potential clinical benefit of remdesivir treatment in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. On the date of online publication of this report in The Lancet, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a news release summarizing preliminary findings from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT), which showed positive effects of remdesivir on clinical recovery from advanced COVID-19.⁴ The ACTT, the first RCT launched in the United States to evaluate experimental treatment for COVID-19, included 1063 hospitalized participants with advanced COVID-19 and lung involvement. Participants who were administered remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery compared to those in the placebo group (median time to recovery, 11 days vs 15 days, respectively; P < 0.001), and had near statistically significant improved survival (mortality rate, 8.0% vs 11.6%, respectively; P = 0.059). In response to these findings, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ While the findings noted from the NIH news release are very encouraging and provide the first evidence of a potentially beneficial antiviral treatment for severe COVID-19 in humans, the scientific community awaits the peer-reviewed publication of the ACTT to better assess the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir therapy and determine the trial’s implications in the management of COVID-19.

The discovery of an effective pharmacologic intervention for COVID-19 is of utmost urgency. While the present study was unable to answer the question of whether remdesivir is effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19, other ongoing or completed (ie, ACTT) studies will likely address this knowledge gap in the coming months. The FDA’s emergency use authorization for remdesivir provides a glimpse into this possibility.

–Katerina Oikonomou, MD, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics & Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY

–Fred Ko, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the efficacy, safety, and clinical benefit of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with confirmed pneumonia due to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Design. Randomized, investigator-initiated, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. The trial took place between February 6, 2020 and March 12, 2020, at 10 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Study participants included adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to hospital who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay and had the following clinical characteristics: radiographic evidence of pneumonia; hypoxia with oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ≤ 300 mm Hg; and symptom onset to enrollment ≤ 12 days. Some of the exclusion criteria for participation in the study were pregnancy or breast feeding, liver cirrhosis, abnormal liver enzymes ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal, severe renal impairment or receipt of renal replacement therapy, plan for transfer to a non-study hospital, and enrollment in a trial for COVID-19 within the previous month.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg daily on days 2-10) or the same volume of placebo for 10 days. Clinical and safety data assessed included laboratory testing, electrocardiogram, and medication adverse effects. Testing of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swab samples, anal swab samples, sputum, and stool was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint of this study was time to clinical improvement within 28 days after randomization. Clinical improvement was defined as a 2-point reduction in participants’ admission status on a 6-point ordinal scale (1 = discharged or clinical recovery, 6 = death) or live discharge from hospital, whichever came first. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at day 28 and duration of hospital admission, oxygen support, and invasive mechanical ventilation. Virological measures and safety outcomes ascertained included treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and premature discontinuation of remdesivir.

The sample size estimate for the original study design was a total of 453 patients (302 in the remdesivir group and 151 in the placebo group). This sample size would provide 80% power, assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.4 comparing remdesivir to placebo, and corresponding to a change in time to clinical improvement of 6 days. The analysis of primary outcome was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Time to clinical improvement within 28 days was assessed with Kaplan-Meier plots.

Main results. A total of 255 patients were screened, of whom 237 were enrolled and randomized to remdesivir (158) or placebo (79) group. Of the participants in the remdesivir group, 155 started study treatment and 150 completed treatment per protocol. For the participants in the placebo group, 78 started study treatment and 76 completed treatment per-protocol. Study enrollment was terminated after March 12, 2020, before attaining the prespecified sample size, because no additional patients met study eligibility criteria due to various public health measures implemented in Wuhan. The median age of participants was 65 years (IQR, 56-71), the majority were men (56% in remdesivir group vs 65% in placebo group), and the most common comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease. Median time from symptom onset to study enrollment was 10 days (IQR, 9-12). The time to clinical improvement between treatments (21 days for remdesivir group vs 23 days for placebo group) was not significantly different (HR, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.75). In addition, in participants who received treatment within 10 days of symptom onset, those who were administered remdesivir had a nonsignificant (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.95-2.43) but faster time (18 days) to clinical improvement, compared to those administered placebo (23 days). Moreover, treatment with remdesivir versus placebo did not lead to differences in secondary outcomes (eg, 28-day mortality and duration of hospital stay, oxygen support, and invasive mechanical ventilation), changes in viral load over time, or adverse events between the groups.

Conclusion. This study found that, compared with placebo, intravenous remdesivir did not significantly improve the time to clinical improvement, mortality, or time to clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19. A numeric reduction in time to clinical improvement with early remdesivir treatment (ie, within 10 days of symptom onset) that approached statistical significance was observed in this underpowered study.

Commentary

Within a few short months since its emergence. SARS-CoV-2 infection has caused a global pandemic, posing a dire threat to public health due to its adverse effects on morbidity (eg, respiratory failure, thromboembolic diseases, multiorgan failure) and mortality. To date, no pharmacologic treatment has been shown to effectively improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Multiple ongoing clinical trials are being conducted globally to determine potential therapeutic treatments for severe COVID-19. The first clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir, agents traditionally used for other indications, such as malaria and HIV, did not show a clear benefit in COVID-19.^1,2 Remdesivir, a nucleoside analogue prodrug, is a broad-spectrum antiviral agent that was previously used for treatment of Ebola and has been shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses. The study reported by Wang and colleagues was the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed at evaluating whether remdesivir improves outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. Thus, the worsening COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the absence of a curative treatment, underscore the urgency of this trial.

The study was grounded on observational data from several recent case reports and case series centering on the potential efficacy of remdesivir in treating COVID-19.³ The study itself was designed well (ie, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter) and carefully implemented (ie, high protocol adherence to treatments, no loss to follow-up). The principal limitation of this study was its inability to reach the estimated statistical power of study. Due to successful epidemic control in Wuhan, which led to marked reductions in hospital admission of patients with COVID-19, and implementation of stringent termination criteria per the study protocol, only 237 participants were enrolled, instead of the 453, as specified by the sample estimate. This corresponded to a reduction of statistical power from 80% to 58%. Due to this limitation, the study was underpowered, rendering its findings inconclusive.

Despite this limitation, the study found that those treated with remdesivir within 10 days of symptom onset had a numerically faster time (although not statistically significant) to clinical improvement. This leads to an interesting question: whether remdesivir administration early in COVID-19 course could improve clinical outcomes, a question that warrants further investigation by an adequately powered trial. Also, data from this study provided evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period, although the long-term drug effects, as well as the safety profile in pediatric patients, remain unknown at this time.

While the study reported by Wang and colleagues was underpowered and is thus inconclusive, several other ongoing RCTs are evaluating the potential clinical benefit of remdesivir treatment in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. On the date of online publication of this report in The Lancet, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a news release summarizing preliminary findings from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT), which showed positive effects of remdesivir on clinical recovery from advanced COVID-19.⁴ The ACTT, the first RCT launched in the United States to evaluate experimental treatment for COVID-19, included 1063 hospitalized participants with advanced COVID-19 and lung involvement. Participants who were administered remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery compared to those in the placebo group (median time to recovery, 11 days vs 15 days, respectively; P < 0.001), and had near statistically significant improved survival (mortality rate, 8.0% vs 11.6%, respectively; P = 0.059). In response to these findings, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ While the findings noted from the NIH news release are very encouraging and provide the first evidence of a potentially beneficial antiviral treatment for severe COVID-19 in humans, the scientific community awaits the peer-reviewed publication of the ACTT to better assess the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir therapy and determine the trial’s implications in the management of COVID-19.

The discovery of an effective pharmacologic intervention for COVID-19 is of utmost urgency. While the present study was unable to answer the question of whether remdesivir is effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19, other ongoing or completed (ie, ACTT) studies will likely address this knowledge gap in the coming months. The FDA’s emergency use authorization for remdesivir provides a glimpse into this possibility.

–Katerina Oikonomou, MD, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics & Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY

–Fred Ko, MD