PHOENIX – More favorable cardiovascular health at 28 weeks’ gestation was associated with lower risks for several adverse maternal and newborn pregnancy outcomes, according to results from a multinational cohort study.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Over the past 10 years, cardiovascular health [CVH] has been characterized across most of the life course and is associated with a variety of health outcomes, but CVH as a whole has not been well studied during pregnancy,” Amanda M. Perak, MD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

In an effort to examine the associations of maternal gestational CVH with adverse maternal and newborn outcomes, Dr. Perak of the departments of pediatrics and preventive medicine at Northwestern University and Lurie Children’s Hospital, both in Chicago, and colleagues drew from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study, which examined pregnant women at a target of 28 weeks’ gestation and assessed the associations of glycemia with pregnancy outcomes. The researchers analyzed data from an ancillary study of 2,230 mother-child dyads to characterize clinical gestational CVH with use of five metrics: body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, and smoking. The study excluded women with prepregnancy diabetes, preterm births, and cases of fetal death/major malformations.

Each maternal CVH metric was classified as ideal, intermediate, or poor according to modified definitions based on pregnancy guidelines. “For lipids, it’s known that levels change substantially during pregnancy, but there are no pregnancy guidelines,” Dr. Perak said. “We and others have also shown that higher triglycerides in pregnancy are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. We selected thresholds of less than 250 mg/dL for ideal and at least 500 mg/dL for poor, based on triglyceride distribution and clinical relevance.”

Total CVH was scored by assigning 2 points for ideal, 1 for intermediate, and 0 for each poor metric, for a total possible 10 points, with 10 being most favorable. They also created four CVH categories, ranging from all ideal to two or more poor metrics. Maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes included preeclampsia and unplanned primary cesarean section. Newborn adverse pregnancy outcomes included birth weight above the 90th percentile and a cord blood insulin sensitivity index lower than the 10th percentile.

The researchers used logistic and multinomial logistic regression of pregnancy outcomes on maternal gestational CVH in two adjusted models. Secondarily, they examined associations of individual CVH metrics with outcomes, with adjustment for the other metrics.

The cohort comprised mother-child dyads from nine field centers in six countries: the United States (25%), Barbados (23%), United Kingdom (21%), China (18%), Thailand (7%), and Canada (7%). The mothers’ mean age was 30 years, and the mean gestational age was 28 weeks. The mean gestational CVH score was 8.8 out of 10. Nearly half of mothers (42%) had ideal metrics, while 4% had two or more poor metrics. Delivery occurred at a mean of 39.8 weeks, and adverse pregnancy outcomes occurred in 4.7%-17.9% of pregnancies.

In the fully adjusted model, which accounted for maternal age, height, alcohol use, gestational age at pregnancy exam, maternal parity, and newborn sex and race/ethnicity, odds ratios per 1-point higher (better) CVH score were 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.70) for preeclampsia, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.76-0.95) for unplanned primary cesarean section (among primiparous mothers), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91) for large for gestational age infant, and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87) for infant insulin sensitivity index below the 10th percentile. CVH categories were also associated with outcomes. For example, odds ratios for preeclampsia were 4.61 (95% CI, 2.13-11.14) for mothers with one or more intermediate metrics, 7.62 (95% CI, 3.60-18.13) for mothers with one poor metric, and 12.02 (95% CI, 4.70-32.50) for mothers with two or more poor metrics, compared with mothers with all metrics ideal.

“Except for smoking, each CVH metric was independently associated with adverse outcomes,” Dr. Perak said. “However, total CVH was associated with a wider range of outcomes than any single metric. This suggests that CVH provides health insights beyond single risk factors.”

Strengths of the study, she continued, included geographic and racial diversity of participants and high-quality research measurements of CVH. Limitations were that the cohort excluded prepregnancy diabetes and preterm births. “Diet and exercise data were not available, and CVH was measured once at 28 weeks,” she said. “Further study is needed across pregnancy and in other settings, but this study provides the first data on the relevance of gestational CVH for pregnancy outcomes.”

In an interview, Stephen S. Rich, PhD, who directs the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia, said that the data “provide strong epidemiologic support to focus on the full range of cardiovascular health. In my view, the primary limitation of the study is that there may be significant differences in how one achieves ideal CHV across a single country, not to mention across the world, particularly in absence of a highly controlled, research environment. It is not clear that the approach used in this study at nine selected sites in six relatively highly developed countries could be translated into primary care – particularly in the U.S. with different regulatory and reimbursement plans and payers. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests a way to reduce adverse outcomes in pregnancy and the area deserves greater research.”

According to Dr. Perak, gestational diabetes is associated with a twofold higher maternal risk for cardiovascular disease (Diabetologia. 2019;62:905-14), while diabetes is also associated with higher offspring risk for CVD (BMJ. 2019;367:16398). However, a paucity of data exists on gestational CVH. In one report, better gestational CVH was associated with less subclinical CVD for the mother 10 years later (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Jul 23. doi:10.1161/JAHA.118.011394). In a separate analysis, Dr. Perak and her colleagues found that better gestational CVH was associated with better offspring CVH in childhood. “Unfortunately, we also reported that, among pregnant women in the United States, fewer than 1 in 10 had high CVH,” she said (J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 17. doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.015123). “However, the relevance of gestational CVH for pregnancy outcomes is unknown, but a it’s key question when considering CVH monitoring in prenatal care.”

Dr. Perak reported having received grant support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, and Northwestern University. The HAPO Study was supported by NHLBI and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Perak A et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 33.

PHOENIX – More favorable cardiovascular health at 28 weeks’ gestation was associated with lower risks for several adverse maternal and newborn pregnancy outcomes, according to results from a multinational cohort study.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Over the past 10 years, cardiovascular health [CVH] has been characterized across most of the life course and is associated with a variety of health outcomes, but CVH as a whole has not been well studied during pregnancy,” Amanda M. Perak, MD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

In an effort to examine the associations of maternal gestational CVH with adverse maternal and newborn outcomes, Dr. Perak of the departments of pediatrics and preventive medicine at Northwestern University and Lurie Children’s Hospital, both in Chicago, and colleagues drew from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study, which examined pregnant women at a target of 28 weeks’ gestation and assessed the associations of glycemia with pregnancy outcomes. The researchers analyzed data from an ancillary study of 2,230 mother-child dyads to characterize clinical gestational CVH with use of five metrics: body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, and smoking. The study excluded women with prepregnancy diabetes, preterm births, and cases of fetal death/major malformations.

Each maternal CVH metric was classified as ideal, intermediate, or poor according to modified definitions based on pregnancy guidelines. “For lipids, it’s known that levels change substantially during pregnancy, but there are no pregnancy guidelines,” Dr. Perak said. “We and others have also shown that higher triglycerides in pregnancy are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. We selected thresholds of less than 250 mg/dL for ideal and at least 500 mg/dL for poor, based on triglyceride distribution and clinical relevance.”

Total CVH was scored by assigning 2 points for ideal, 1 for intermediate, and 0 for each poor metric, for a total possible 10 points, with 10 being most favorable. They also created four CVH categories, ranging from all ideal to two or more poor metrics. Maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes included preeclampsia and unplanned primary cesarean section. Newborn adverse pregnancy outcomes included birth weight above the 90th percentile and a cord blood insulin sensitivity index lower than the 10th percentile.

The researchers used logistic and multinomial logistic regression of pregnancy outcomes on maternal gestational CVH in two adjusted models. Secondarily, they examined associations of individual CVH metrics with outcomes, with adjustment for the other metrics.

The cohort comprised mother-child dyads from nine field centers in six countries: the United States (25%), Barbados (23%), United Kingdom (21%), China (18%), Thailand (7%), and Canada (7%). The mothers’ mean age was 30 years, and the mean gestational age was 28 weeks. The mean gestational CVH score was 8.8 out of 10. Nearly half of mothers (42%) had ideal metrics, while 4% had two or more poor metrics. Delivery occurred at a mean of 39.8 weeks, and adverse pregnancy outcomes occurred in 4.7%-17.9% of pregnancies.

In the fully adjusted model, which accounted for maternal age, height, alcohol use, gestational age at pregnancy exam, maternal parity, and newborn sex and race/ethnicity, odds ratios per 1-point higher (better) CVH score were 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.70) for preeclampsia, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.76-0.95) for unplanned primary cesarean section (among primiparous mothers), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91) for large for gestational age infant, and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87) for infant insulin sensitivity index below the 10th percentile. CVH categories were also associated with outcomes. For example, odds ratios for preeclampsia were 4.61 (95% CI, 2.13-11.14) for mothers with one or more intermediate metrics, 7.62 (95% CI, 3.60-18.13) for mothers with one poor metric, and 12.02 (95% CI, 4.70-32.50) for mothers with two or more poor metrics, compared with mothers with all metrics ideal.

“Except for smoking, each CVH metric was independently associated with adverse outcomes,” Dr. Perak said. “However, total CVH was associated with a wider range of outcomes than any single metric. This suggests that CVH provides health insights beyond single risk factors.”

Strengths of the study, she continued, included geographic and racial diversity of participants and high-quality research measurements of CVH. Limitations were that the cohort excluded prepregnancy diabetes and preterm births. “Diet and exercise data were not available, and CVH was measured once at 28 weeks,” she said. “Further study is needed across pregnancy and in other settings, but this study provides the first data on the relevance of gestational CVH for pregnancy outcomes.”

In an interview, Stephen S. Rich, PhD, who directs the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia, said that the data “provide strong epidemiologic support to focus on the full range of cardiovascular health. In my view, the primary limitation of the study is that there may be significant differences in how one achieves ideal CHV across a single country, not to mention across the world, particularly in absence of a highly controlled, research environment. It is not clear that the approach used in this study at nine selected sites in six relatively highly developed countries could be translated into primary care – particularly in the U.S. with different regulatory and reimbursement plans and payers. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests a way to reduce adverse outcomes in pregnancy and the area deserves greater research.”

According to Dr. Perak, gestational diabetes is associated with a twofold higher maternal risk for cardiovascular disease (Diabetologia. 2019;62:905-14), while diabetes is also associated with higher offspring risk for CVD (BMJ. 2019;367:16398). However, a paucity of data exists on gestational CVH. In one report, better gestational CVH was associated with less subclinical CVD for the mother 10 years later (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Jul 23. doi:10.1161/JAHA.118.011394). In a separate analysis, Dr. Perak and her colleagues found that better gestational CVH was associated with better offspring CVH in childhood. “Unfortunately, we also reported that, among pregnant women in the United States, fewer than 1 in 10 had high CVH,” she said (J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 17. doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.015123). “However, the relevance of gestational CVH for pregnancy outcomes is unknown, but a it’s key question when considering CVH monitoring in prenatal care.”

Dr. Perak reported having received grant support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, and Northwestern University. The HAPO Study was supported by NHLBI and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Perak A et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 33.

PHOENIX – More favorable cardiovascular health at 28 weeks’ gestation was associated with lower risks for several adverse maternal and newborn pregnancy outcomes, according to results from a multinational cohort study.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Over the past 10 years, cardiovascular health [CVH] has been characterized across most of the life course and is associated with a variety of health outcomes, but CVH as a whole has not been well studied during pregnancy,” Amanda M. Perak, MD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

In an effort to examine the associations of maternal gestational CVH with adverse maternal and newborn outcomes, Dr. Perak of the departments of pediatrics and preventive medicine at Northwestern University and Lurie Children’s Hospital, both in Chicago, and colleagues drew from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study, which examined pregnant women at a target of 28 weeks’ gestation and assessed the associations of glycemia with pregnancy outcomes. The researchers analyzed data from an ancillary study of 2,230 mother-child dyads to characterize clinical gestational CVH with use of five metrics: body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, and smoking. The study excluded women with prepregnancy diabetes, preterm births, and cases of fetal death/major malformations.

Each maternal CVH metric was classified as ideal, intermediate, or poor according to modified definitions based on pregnancy guidelines. “For lipids, it’s known that levels change substantially during pregnancy, but there are no pregnancy guidelines,” Dr. Perak said. “We and others have also shown that higher triglycerides in pregnancy are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. We selected thresholds of less than 250 mg/dL for ideal and at least 500 mg/dL for poor, based on triglyceride distribution and clinical relevance.”

Total CVH was scored by assigning 2 points for ideal, 1 for intermediate, and 0 for each poor metric, for a total possible 10 points, with 10 being most favorable. They also created four CVH categories, ranging from all ideal to two or more poor metrics. Maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes included preeclampsia and unplanned primary cesarean section. Newborn adverse pregnancy outcomes included birth weight above the 90th percentile and a cord blood insulin sensitivity index lower than the 10th percentile.

The researchers used logistic and multinomial logistic regression of pregnancy outcomes on maternal gestational CVH in two adjusted models. Secondarily, they examined associations of individual CVH metrics with outcomes, with adjustment for the other metrics.

The cohort comprised mother-child dyads from nine field centers in six countries: the United States (25%), Barbados (23%), United Kingdom (21%), China (18%), Thailand (7%), and Canada (7%). The mothers’ mean age was 30 years, and the mean gestational age was 28 weeks. The mean gestational CVH score was 8.8 out of 10. Nearly half of mothers (42%) had ideal metrics, while 4% had two or more poor metrics. Delivery occurred at a mean of 39.8 weeks, and adverse pregnancy outcomes occurred in 4.7%-17.9% of pregnancies.

In the fully adjusted model, which accounted for maternal age, height, alcohol use, gestational age at pregnancy exam, maternal parity, and newborn sex and race/ethnicity, odds ratios per 1-point higher (better) CVH score were 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.70) for preeclampsia, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.76-0.95) for unplanned primary cesarean section (among primiparous mothers), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91) for large for gestational age infant, and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87) for infant insulin sensitivity index below the 10th percentile. CVH categories were also associated with outcomes. For example, odds ratios for preeclampsia were 4.61 (95% CI, 2.13-11.14) for mothers with one or more intermediate metrics, 7.62 (95% CI, 3.60-18.13) for mothers with one poor metric, and 12.02 (95% CI, 4.70-32.50) for mothers with two or more poor metrics, compared with mothers with all metrics ideal.

“Except for smoking, each CVH metric was independently associated with adverse outcomes,” Dr. Perak said. “However, total CVH was associated with a wider range of outcomes than any single metric. This suggests that CVH provides health insights beyond single risk factors.”

Strengths of the study, she continued, included geographic and racial diversity of participants and high-quality research measurements of CVH. Limitations were that the cohort excluded prepregnancy diabetes and preterm births. “Diet and exercise data were not available, and CVH was measured once at 28 weeks,” she said. “Further study is needed across pregnancy and in other settings, but this study provides the first data on the relevance of gestational CVH for pregnancy outcomes.”

In an interview, Stephen S. Rich, PhD, who directs the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia, said that the data “provide strong epidemiologic support to focus on the full range of cardiovascular health. In my view, the primary limitation of the study is that there may be significant differences in how one achieves ideal CHV across a single country, not to mention across the world, particularly in absence of a highly controlled, research environment. It is not clear that the approach used in this study at nine selected sites in six relatively highly developed countries could be translated into primary care – particularly in the U.S. with different regulatory and reimbursement plans and payers. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests a way to reduce adverse outcomes in pregnancy and the area deserves greater research.”

According to Dr. Perak, gestational diabetes is associated with a twofold higher maternal risk for cardiovascular disease (Diabetologia. 2019;62:905-14), while diabetes is also associated with higher offspring risk for CVD (BMJ. 2019;367:16398). However, a paucity of data exists on gestational CVH. In one report, better gestational CVH was associated with less subclinical CVD for the mother 10 years later (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Jul 23. doi:10.1161/JAHA.118.011394). In a separate analysis, Dr. Perak and her colleagues found that better gestational CVH was associated with better offspring CVH in childhood. “Unfortunately, we also reported that, among pregnant women in the United States, fewer than 1 in 10 had high CVH,” she said (J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 17. doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.015123). “However, the relevance of gestational CVH for pregnancy outcomes is unknown, but a it’s key question when considering CVH monitoring in prenatal care.”

Dr. Perak reported having received grant support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, and Northwestern University. The HAPO Study was supported by NHLBI and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Perak A et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 33.

The first randomized trial to see if a short course of a direct-acting antiviral works as well for acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection as the standard 12-week course was stopped early after it became clear that it did not, according to a report at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

In the end, 6 weeks of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (Epclusa) “was inferior” to 12 weeks, said investigators led by Gail Matthews, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Viral Hepatitis Clinical Research Program at the Kirby Institute, in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Guidelines recommend 12 weeks of direct-acting antiviral treatment, but a few observational studies have suggested that 6 weeks might be enough. Since that would make it easier for physicians and patients, and would save money, Dr. Matthews and her team set out to resolve the uncertainty with a randomized trial.

Enrollment was halted short of the 250 target because of an “unacceptably high” relapse rate of 9.7% among 93 people randomized to 6 weeks of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir versus 2% among 99 subjects randomized to the standard 12-week regimen. All the relapse patients except for one in the 12-week arm were more than 95% adherent to treatment, she at the meeting, which was scheduled to be in Boston, but was held online this year because of concerns about spreading the COVID-19 virus.

There were 17 treatment failures (18.3%) in the short arm: two deaths, three reinfections, three lost to follow-up, and the nine relapses 12 weeks out from the end of treatment. There were eight failures (8%) in the long arm, including two reinfections, two lost to follow-up, and the two relapses, but no deaths. Excluding patients with no virologic reason for failure, Dr. Matthews said, “we see the difference in the two arms even more clearly,” with viral RNA undetectable in 98% of the 12-week patients – which is in keeping with label data – versus 89% in the short arm.

The groups were well balanced. Almost all the subjects were men and the majority were white; the median age was 43 years. Almost two-thirds had a primary infection at baseline and HCV genotype 1 a/b was the most common in both groups. Patients had been infected for a year or less, with a median of 25 weeks.

The majority of subjects picked up the virus through homosexual sex, but about 20% by injection drug use. Over two-thirds had well-controlled HIV. There were no treatment related discontinuations, and all the relapsed patients were successfully treated with subsequent therapy, Dr. Matthews said.

The study was conducted in the United States, Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, and funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Matthews reported research grants to her institution form Abbvie and Gilead, maker of Epclusa.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Matthews G. CROI 2020 abstract 121.

The first randomized trial to see if a short course of a direct-acting antiviral works as well for acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection as the standard 12-week course was stopped early after it became clear that it did not, according to a report at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

In the end, 6 weeks of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (Epclusa) “was inferior” to 12 weeks, said investigators led by Gail Matthews, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Viral Hepatitis Clinical Research Program at the Kirby Institute, in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Guidelines recommend 12 weeks of direct-acting antiviral treatment, but a few observational studies have suggested that 6 weeks might be enough. Since that would make it easier for physicians and patients, and would save money, Dr. Matthews and her team set out to resolve the uncertainty with a randomized trial.

Enrollment was halted short of the 250 target because of an “unacceptably high” relapse rate of 9.7% among 93 people randomized to 6 weeks of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir versus 2% among 99 subjects randomized to the standard 12-week regimen. All the relapse patients except for one in the 12-week arm were more than 95% adherent to treatment, she at the meeting, which was scheduled to be in Boston, but was held online this year because of concerns about spreading the COVID-19 virus.

There were 17 treatment failures (18.3%) in the short arm: two deaths, three reinfections, three lost to follow-up, and the nine relapses 12 weeks out from the end of treatment. There were eight failures (8%) in the long arm, including two reinfections, two lost to follow-up, and the two relapses, but no deaths. Excluding patients with no virologic reason for failure, Dr. Matthews said, “we see the difference in the two arms even more clearly,” with viral RNA undetectable in 98% of the 12-week patients – which is in keeping with label data – versus 89% in the short arm.

The groups were well balanced. Almost all the subjects were men and the majority were white; the median age was 43 years. Almost two-thirds had a primary infection at baseline and HCV genotype 1 a/b was the most common in both groups. Patients had been infected for a year or less, with a median of 25 weeks.

The majority of subjects picked up the virus through homosexual sex, but about 20% by injection drug use. Over two-thirds had well-controlled HIV. There were no treatment related discontinuations, and all the relapsed patients were successfully treated with subsequent therapy, Dr. Matthews said.

The study was conducted in the United States, Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, and funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Matthews reported research grants to her institution form Abbvie and Gilead, maker of Epclusa.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Matthews G. CROI 2020 abstract 121.

The first randomized trial to see if a short course of a direct-acting antiviral works as well for acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection as the standard 12-week course was stopped early after it became clear that it did not, according to a report at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

In the end, 6 weeks of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (Epclusa) “was inferior” to 12 weeks, said investigators led by Gail Matthews, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Viral Hepatitis Clinical Research Program at the Kirby Institute, in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Guidelines recommend 12 weeks of direct-acting antiviral treatment, but a few observational studies have suggested that 6 weeks might be enough. Since that would make it easier for physicians and patients, and would save money, Dr. Matthews and her team set out to resolve the uncertainty with a randomized trial.

Enrollment was halted short of the 250 target because of an “unacceptably high” relapse rate of 9.7% among 93 people randomized to 6 weeks of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir versus 2% among 99 subjects randomized to the standard 12-week regimen. All the relapse patients except for one in the 12-week arm were more than 95% adherent to treatment, she at the meeting, which was scheduled to be in Boston, but was held online this year because of concerns about spreading the COVID-19 virus.

There were 17 treatment failures (18.3%) in the short arm: two deaths, three reinfections, three lost to follow-up, and the nine relapses 12 weeks out from the end of treatment. There were eight failures (8%) in the long arm, including two reinfections, two lost to follow-up, and the two relapses, but no deaths. Excluding patients with no virologic reason for failure, Dr. Matthews said, “we see the difference in the two arms even more clearly,” with viral RNA undetectable in 98% of the 12-week patients – which is in keeping with label data – versus 89% in the short arm.

The groups were well balanced. Almost all the subjects were men and the majority were white; the median age was 43 years. Almost two-thirds had a primary infection at baseline and HCV genotype 1 a/b was the most common in both groups. Patients had been infected for a year or less, with a median of 25 weeks.

The majority of subjects picked up the virus through homosexual sex, but about 20% by injection drug use. Over two-thirds had well-controlled HIV. There were no treatment related discontinuations, and all the relapsed patients were successfully treated with subsequent therapy, Dr. Matthews said.

The study was conducted in the United States, Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, and funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Matthews reported research grants to her institution form Abbvie and Gilead, maker of Epclusa.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Matthews G. CROI 2020 abstract 121.

What can psychiatric clinicians do to keep their patients healthy in this coronavirus time?

In the 3 days between starting this column and finishing it, the world has gone into a tailspin. Perhaps what I write is no longer relevant. But hopefully it is.

Below are some of the issues we have been grappling with in my psychiatry department. I have no right or wrong answers here but thoughts about factors to consider.

• On inpatient psychiatry wards, the emphasis is on communal living. On our ward, bedrooms and bathrooms are shared. Patients eat together. There are numerous group therapies.
• We have decided to restrict visitors out of the concern that one may infect a ward of patients and staff. We are hoping to do video visitation, but that may take a while to implement.
• An open question is how we are going to provide our involuntary patients with access to the public defense attorneys. Public defenders still have the ability to come onto the inpatient ward, but we will start screening them first.

• In terms of sanitation, wall sanitizers are forbidden, since sanitizers may be drank or made into a firebomb. So we are incessantly wiping down the shared phones and game board pieces.
• Looking at the outpatient arena, we have moved our chairs around, so that there are 3 feet between chairs. We have opened up another waiting room to provide more distance.
• We are trying to decide whether to cancel groups. We did cancel our senior group, and I think I will cancel the rest of them shortly.
• We are seriously looking at telepsychiatry.
• Schools are closed. Many of my clinicians have young children, so they may be out. We are expecting many patients to cancel and will see how that plays out. Others of us have elderly parents. My mother’s assisted-living facility is on lockdown. So, having been locked out after a visit, she is with me tonight.

• Psychiatrists are expected to keep up their relative value unit count. Can they meet their targets? Probably not. Will it matter?
• And what about all our homeless patients, who cannot disinfect their tents or shelters?
• Conferences no longer seem so important. I am less worried about coverage for the American Psychiatric Association meeting, since the 2020 conference has been canceled.

On the rosy side, maybe this will be a wake-up call about climate change. So we live in interesting times.

Take care of your patients and each other.

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures.

What can psychiatric clinicians do to keep their patients healthy in this coronavirus time?

In the 3 days between starting this column and finishing it, the world has gone into a tailspin. Perhaps what I write is no longer relevant. But hopefully it is.

Below are some of the issues we have been grappling with in my psychiatry department. I have no right or wrong answers here but thoughts about factors to consider.

• On inpatient psychiatry wards, the emphasis is on communal living. On our ward, bedrooms and bathrooms are shared. Patients eat together. There are numerous group therapies.
• We have decided to restrict visitors out of the concern that one may infect a ward of patients and staff. We are hoping to do video visitation, but that may take a while to implement.
• An open question is how we are going to provide our involuntary patients with access to the public defense attorneys. Public defenders still have the ability to come onto the inpatient ward, but we will start screening them first.

• In terms of sanitation, wall sanitizers are forbidden, since sanitizers may be drank or made into a firebomb. So we are incessantly wiping down the shared phones and game board pieces.
• Looking at the outpatient arena, we have moved our chairs around, so that there are 3 feet between chairs. We have opened up another waiting room to provide more distance.
• We are trying to decide whether to cancel groups. We did cancel our senior group, and I think I will cancel the rest of them shortly.
• We are seriously looking at telepsychiatry.
• Schools are closed. Many of my clinicians have young children, so they may be out. We are expecting many patients to cancel and will see how that plays out. Others of us have elderly parents. My mother’s assisted-living facility is on lockdown. So, having been locked out after a visit, she is with me tonight.

• Psychiatrists are expected to keep up their relative value unit count. Can they meet their targets? Probably not. Will it matter?
• And what about all our homeless patients, who cannot disinfect their tents or shelters?
• Conferences no longer seem so important. I am less worried about coverage for the American Psychiatric Association meeting, since the 2020 conference has been canceled.

On the rosy side, maybe this will be a wake-up call about climate change. So we live in interesting times.

Take care of your patients and each other.

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures.

What can psychiatric clinicians do to keep their patients healthy in this coronavirus time?

In the 3 days between starting this column and finishing it, the world has gone into a tailspin. Perhaps what I write is no longer relevant. But hopefully it is.

Below are some of the issues we have been grappling with in my psychiatry department. I have no right or wrong answers here but thoughts about factors to consider.

• On inpatient psychiatry wards, the emphasis is on communal living. On our ward, bedrooms and bathrooms are shared. Patients eat together. There are numerous group therapies.
• We have decided to restrict visitors out of the concern that one may infect a ward of patients and staff. We are hoping to do video visitation, but that may take a while to implement.
• An open question is how we are going to provide our involuntary patients with access to the public defense attorneys. Public defenders still have the ability to come onto the inpatient ward, but we will start screening them first.

• In terms of sanitation, wall sanitizers are forbidden, since sanitizers may be drank or made into a firebomb. So we are incessantly wiping down the shared phones and game board pieces.
• Looking at the outpatient arena, we have moved our chairs around, so that there are 3 feet between chairs. We have opened up another waiting room to provide more distance.
• We are trying to decide whether to cancel groups. We did cancel our senior group, and I think I will cancel the rest of them shortly.
• We are seriously looking at telepsychiatry.
• Schools are closed. Many of my clinicians have young children, so they may be out. We are expecting many patients to cancel and will see how that plays out. Others of us have elderly parents. My mother’s assisted-living facility is on lockdown. So, having been locked out after a visit, she is with me tonight.

• Psychiatrists are expected to keep up their relative value unit count. Can they meet their targets? Probably not. Will it matter?
• And what about all our homeless patients, who cannot disinfect their tents or shelters?
• Conferences no longer seem so important. I am less worried about coverage for the American Psychiatric Association meeting, since the 2020 conference has been canceled.

On the rosy side, maybe this will be a wake-up call about climate change. So we live in interesting times.

Take care of your patients and each other.

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures.

The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) has released interim guidelines for the care of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy patients in the light of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The guidelines, summarized briefly below, focus on diagnostic and treatment considerations, evaluation of patients prior to initializing HCT and cellular therapy, and cell donor evaluation. Much of the guideline relies upon recommendations developed by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ESBMT). These guidelines were updated on March 16.

The ASTCT document focuses on patient-treatment specifics and does not cover specific infection-prevention policies and procedures, instead suggesting that local and institutional guidelines, such as those from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should be followed. They did recommend that, in the local presence of COVID-19, “clinic visits that are not critical should be either deferred or substituted with telemedicine visits if deemed appropriate and feasible.”
 

Diagnostic considerations

In any patient with upper or lower respiratory symptoms, obtain polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2, where possible, in addition to other respiratory virus PCR testing from any respiratory sample obtained, following CDC recommendations for sample collection and processing, which are continuously being updated on the CDC website.

These recommendations include nasal sampling, rather than oral sampling, and the discouraging of nasal washes where avoidable. If nasal washing is performed, it should be done with appropriate personal protective equipment as described by the CDC. The CDC has also provided additional infection prevention and control information for known and suspected COVID-19 patients in health care settings.

In patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 in an upper respiratory tract sample, chest imaging should be considered.

Preliminary reports suggest that there may be a discrepancy between upper- and lower-tract specimen positivity. Therefore, even when SARS-CoV-2 is not detected in an upper respiratory sample, the ASTCT recommends that chest imaging should be considered for lower respiratory tract infection when clinical symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection are present, including shortness of breath, hypoxia, and tachypnea.

With regard to routine bronchoalveolar lavage, the ASTCT recommends against it if a patient tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 given the risk of transmission among health care workers. The exception is in the case of suspected coinfection based on abnormal chest imaging and in patients for whom it is clinically indicated (for example, those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation). In addition to testing bronchoalveolar lavage samples for SARS-CoV-2, “copathogens should be evaluated and treated.”

Treatment considerations

“At this point no recommendations can be made on specific therapies due to limited data and unknown risk versus benefit; additional recommendations will be forthcoming. Even less data is available for pediatric patients. Treatment for viral, bacterial, and fungal copathogens should be optimized,” according to the ASTCT.

However, the society lists several therapies currently under consideration, which may be available through compassionate-use programs and are being investigated in current clinical trials in several countries, “including lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, hydroxychloroquine, darunavir/cobicistat, and interferons-alpha and -beta.” Remdesivir, in particular, is being evaluated in a National Institutes of Health–sponsored, placebo-controlled clinical trial (NCT04280705).

In case of known or suspected COVID-19 with normal imaging and no or mild symptoms, no therapy is recommended. However, if symptoms progress or imaging is abnormal, an infectious disease specialist or department should be consulted, according to the ASTCT.

Evaluation prior to HCT or cellular therapy

“There is sufficient concern that COVID-19 could have a significant impact on posttransplant or posttherapy outcomes,” according to the guidelines, and the ASTCT provided the following recommendations to be considered in known or suspected COVID-19 patients. In particular, practitioners need to weigh the risk of delaying or altering therapy plans with the risk of progression of underlying disease.

If SARS-CoV-2 is detected in a respiratory specimen, HCT or cellular therapy procedures should be deferred. Therapy should also be deferred in HCT and cellular therapy candidates with close contact with a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 and in those patients who have traveled to a high-risk area or had close contact with a person traveling from an area at high risk for COVID-19.

In the case of a patient in a community with widespread disease, “all HCT and cellular therapy candidates should undergo screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR in respiratory specimens at the time of initial evaluation and 2 days prior to conditioning/lymphodepletion, regardless of the presence of symptoms, if testing is available.”

Procedures to be deferred include peripheral blood stem cell mobilization, bone marrow harvest, T-cell collections, and conditioning/lymphodepletion. These should not be performed for at least 14 days (preferably 21 days) from the day of last contact, according to the ASTCT. Two consecutive negative PCR tests each approximately 1 week apart (deferral for 14 days minimum), should be obtained, if available.

In areas with high community spread, the guidelines also state that “interim treatment and/or longer deferral of definite therapy should be considered when feasible (for example, multiple myeloma, germ cell tumors, consolidative transplants).”

Similar considerations should be afforded to potential cellular donors. Donors with SARS-CoV-2 detected in a respiratory sample are considered ineligible. Those meeting exposure criteria for patients, as listed above, should be excluded from donation for at least 28 days. “In individual circumstances, a donor may be considered eligible if respiratory samples are negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR and donor is asymptomatic. Donor should be closely monitored for COVID-19.”

In the case of unrelated donors, the ASTCT recommends referral to the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) guidelines for updated guidance, but points out that, according to the NMDP, the Food and Drug Administration reports that there have been no reported or suspected cases of transfusion-transmitted COVID-19 to date and that “no cases of transfusion-transmission were ever reported for the other two coronaviruses that emerged during the past 2 decades [SARS, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and MERS-CoV, which causes Mideast respiratory syndrome].”

This article was updated 3/26/20.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: ASTCT Response to COVID-19. 2020. www.astct.org/connect/astct-response-to-covid-19.

The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) has released interim guidelines for the care of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy patients in the light of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The guidelines, summarized briefly below, focus on diagnostic and treatment considerations, evaluation of patients prior to initializing HCT and cellular therapy, and cell donor evaluation. Much of the guideline relies upon recommendations developed by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ESBMT). These guidelines were updated on March 16.

The ASTCT document focuses on patient-treatment specifics and does not cover specific infection-prevention policies and procedures, instead suggesting that local and institutional guidelines, such as those from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should be followed. They did recommend that, in the local presence of COVID-19, “clinic visits that are not critical should be either deferred or substituted with telemedicine visits if deemed appropriate and feasible.”
 

Diagnostic considerations

In any patient with upper or lower respiratory symptoms, obtain polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2, where possible, in addition to other respiratory virus PCR testing from any respiratory sample obtained, following CDC recommendations for sample collection and processing, which are continuously being updated on the CDC website.

These recommendations include nasal sampling, rather than oral sampling, and the discouraging of nasal washes where avoidable. If nasal washing is performed, it should be done with appropriate personal protective equipment as described by the CDC. The CDC has also provided additional infection prevention and control information for known and suspected COVID-19 patients in health care settings.

In patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 in an upper respiratory tract sample, chest imaging should be considered.

Preliminary reports suggest that there may be a discrepancy between upper- and lower-tract specimen positivity. Therefore, even when SARS-CoV-2 is not detected in an upper respiratory sample, the ASTCT recommends that chest imaging should be considered for lower respiratory tract infection when clinical symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection are present, including shortness of breath, hypoxia, and tachypnea.

With regard to routine bronchoalveolar lavage, the ASTCT recommends against it if a patient tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 given the risk of transmission among health care workers. The exception is in the case of suspected coinfection based on abnormal chest imaging and in patients for whom it is clinically indicated (for example, those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation). In addition to testing bronchoalveolar lavage samples for SARS-CoV-2, “copathogens should be evaluated and treated.”

Treatment considerations

“At this point no recommendations can be made on specific therapies due to limited data and unknown risk versus benefit; additional recommendations will be forthcoming. Even less data is available for pediatric patients. Treatment for viral, bacterial, and fungal copathogens should be optimized,” according to the ASTCT.

However, the society lists several therapies currently under consideration, which may be available through compassionate-use programs and are being investigated in current clinical trials in several countries, “including lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, hydroxychloroquine, darunavir/cobicistat, and interferons-alpha and -beta.” Remdesivir, in particular, is being evaluated in a National Institutes of Health–sponsored, placebo-controlled clinical trial (NCT04280705).

In case of known or suspected COVID-19 with normal imaging and no or mild symptoms, no therapy is recommended. However, if symptoms progress or imaging is abnormal, an infectious disease specialist or department should be consulted, according to the ASTCT.

Evaluation prior to HCT or cellular therapy

“There is sufficient concern that COVID-19 could have a significant impact on posttransplant or posttherapy outcomes,” according to the guidelines, and the ASTCT provided the following recommendations to be considered in known or suspected COVID-19 patients. In particular, practitioners need to weigh the risk of delaying or altering therapy plans with the risk of progression of underlying disease.

If SARS-CoV-2 is detected in a respiratory specimen, HCT or cellular therapy procedures should be deferred. Therapy should also be deferred in HCT and cellular therapy candidates with close contact with a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 and in those patients who have traveled to a high-risk area or had close contact with a person traveling from an area at high risk for COVID-19.

In the case of a patient in a community with widespread disease, “all HCT and cellular therapy candidates should undergo screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR in respiratory specimens at the time of initial evaluation and 2 days prior to conditioning/lymphodepletion, regardless of the presence of symptoms, if testing is available.”

Procedures to be deferred include peripheral blood stem cell mobilization, bone marrow harvest, T-cell collections, and conditioning/lymphodepletion. These should not be performed for at least 14 days (preferably 21 days) from the day of last contact, according to the ASTCT. Two consecutive negative PCR tests each approximately 1 week apart (deferral for 14 days minimum), should be obtained, if available.

In areas with high community spread, the guidelines also state that “interim treatment and/or longer deferral of definite therapy should be considered when feasible (for example, multiple myeloma, germ cell tumors, consolidative transplants).”

Similar considerations should be afforded to potential cellular donors. Donors with SARS-CoV-2 detected in a respiratory sample are considered ineligible. Those meeting exposure criteria for patients, as listed above, should be excluded from donation for at least 28 days. “In individual circumstances, a donor may be considered eligible if respiratory samples are negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR and donor is asymptomatic. Donor should be closely monitored for COVID-19.”

In the case of unrelated donors, the ASTCT recommends referral to the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) guidelines for updated guidance, but points out that, according to the NMDP, the Food and Drug Administration reports that there have been no reported or suspected cases of transfusion-transmitted COVID-19 to date and that “no cases of transfusion-transmission were ever reported for the other two coronaviruses that emerged during the past 2 decades [SARS, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and MERS-CoV, which causes Mideast respiratory syndrome].”

This article was updated 3/26/20.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: ASTCT Response to COVID-19. 2020. www.astct.org/connect/astct-response-to-covid-19.

The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) has released interim guidelines for the care of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy patients in the light of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The guidelines, summarized briefly below, focus on diagnostic and treatment considerations, evaluation of patients prior to initializing HCT and cellular therapy, and cell donor evaluation. Much of the guideline relies upon recommendations developed by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ESBMT). These guidelines were updated on March 16.

The ASTCT document focuses on patient-treatment specifics and does not cover specific infection-prevention policies and procedures, instead suggesting that local and institutional guidelines, such as those from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should be followed. They did recommend that, in the local presence of COVID-19, “clinic visits that are not critical should be either deferred or substituted with telemedicine visits if deemed appropriate and feasible.”
 

Diagnostic considerations

In any patient with upper or lower respiratory symptoms, obtain polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2, where possible, in addition to other respiratory virus PCR testing from any respiratory sample obtained, following CDC recommendations for sample collection and processing, which are continuously being updated on the CDC website.

These recommendations include nasal sampling, rather than oral sampling, and the discouraging of nasal washes where avoidable. If nasal washing is performed, it should be done with appropriate personal protective equipment as described by the CDC. The CDC has also provided additional infection prevention and control information for known and suspected COVID-19 patients in health care settings.

In patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 in an upper respiratory tract sample, chest imaging should be considered.

Preliminary reports suggest that there may be a discrepancy between upper- and lower-tract specimen positivity. Therefore, even when SARS-CoV-2 is not detected in an upper respiratory sample, the ASTCT recommends that chest imaging should be considered for lower respiratory tract infection when clinical symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection are present, including shortness of breath, hypoxia, and tachypnea.

With regard to routine bronchoalveolar lavage, the ASTCT recommends against it if a patient tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 given the risk of transmission among health care workers. The exception is in the case of suspected coinfection based on abnormal chest imaging and in patients for whom it is clinically indicated (for example, those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation). In addition to testing bronchoalveolar lavage samples for SARS-CoV-2, “copathogens should be evaluated and treated.”

Treatment considerations

“At this point no recommendations can be made on specific therapies due to limited data and unknown risk versus benefit; additional recommendations will be forthcoming. Even less data is available for pediatric patients. Treatment for viral, bacterial, and fungal copathogens should be optimized,” according to the ASTCT.

However, the society lists several therapies currently under consideration, which may be available through compassionate-use programs and are being investigated in current clinical trials in several countries, “including lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, hydroxychloroquine, darunavir/cobicistat, and interferons-alpha and -beta.” Remdesivir, in particular, is being evaluated in a National Institutes of Health–sponsored, placebo-controlled clinical trial (NCT04280705).

In case of known or suspected COVID-19 with normal imaging and no or mild symptoms, no therapy is recommended. However, if symptoms progress or imaging is abnormal, an infectious disease specialist or department should be consulted, according to the ASTCT.

Evaluation prior to HCT or cellular therapy

“There is sufficient concern that COVID-19 could have a significant impact on posttransplant or posttherapy outcomes,” according to the guidelines, and the ASTCT provided the following recommendations to be considered in known or suspected COVID-19 patients. In particular, practitioners need to weigh the risk of delaying or altering therapy plans with the risk of progression of underlying disease.

If SARS-CoV-2 is detected in a respiratory specimen, HCT or cellular therapy procedures should be deferred. Therapy should also be deferred in HCT and cellular therapy candidates with close contact with a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 and in those patients who have traveled to a high-risk area or had close contact with a person traveling from an area at high risk for COVID-19.

In the case of a patient in a community with widespread disease, “all HCT and cellular therapy candidates should undergo screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR in respiratory specimens at the time of initial evaluation and 2 days prior to conditioning/lymphodepletion, regardless of the presence of symptoms, if testing is available.”

Procedures to be deferred include peripheral blood stem cell mobilization, bone marrow harvest, T-cell collections, and conditioning/lymphodepletion. These should not be performed for at least 14 days (preferably 21 days) from the day of last contact, according to the ASTCT. Two consecutive negative PCR tests each approximately 1 week apart (deferral for 14 days minimum), should be obtained, if available.

In areas with high community spread, the guidelines also state that “interim treatment and/or longer deferral of definite therapy should be considered when feasible (for example, multiple myeloma, germ cell tumors, consolidative transplants).”

Similar considerations should be afforded to potential cellular donors. Donors with SARS-CoV-2 detected in a respiratory sample are considered ineligible. Those meeting exposure criteria for patients, as listed above, should be excluded from donation for at least 28 days. “In individual circumstances, a donor may be considered eligible if respiratory samples are negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR and donor is asymptomatic. Donor should be closely monitored for COVID-19.”

In the case of unrelated donors, the ASTCT recommends referral to the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) guidelines for updated guidance, but points out that, according to the NMDP, the Food and Drug Administration reports that there have been no reported or suspected cases of transfusion-transmitted COVID-19 to date and that “no cases of transfusion-transmission were ever reported for the other two coronaviruses that emerged during the past 2 decades [SARS, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and MERS-CoV, which causes Mideast respiratory syndrome].”

This article was updated 3/26/20.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: ASTCT Response to COVID-19. 2020. www.astct.org/connect/astct-response-to-covid-19.

As COVID-19 spreads across the United States, it is important to understand the extent of the nation’s ICU resources, according to the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The SCCM has updated its statistics on the resources available to care for what could become “an overwhelming number of critically ill patients, many of whom may require mechanical ventilation,” the society said in a blog post on March 13.

That overwhelming number was considered at an American Hospital Association webinar in February: Investigators projected that 4.8 million patients could be hospitalized with COVID-19, of whom 1.9 million would be admitted to ICUs and 960,000 would require ventilator support, Neil A. Halpern, MD, director of the critical care center at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and Kay See Tan, PhD, of the hospital’s department of epidemiology and biostatistics, reported in that post.

As far as critical care beds are concerned, the United States is in better shape than are other countries dealing with the coronavirus. The United States’ 34.7 critical care beds per 100,000 population put it a good bit ahead of Germany, which has 29.2 beds per 100,000, while other countries in both Europe and Asia are well behind, Dr. Halpern and Dr. Tan noted.

More recent data from the AHA show that just over half of its registered community hospitals deliver ICU services and have at least 10 acute care beds and one ICU bed, they reported.

Those 2,704 hospitals have nearly 535,000 acute care beds, of which almost 97,000 are ICU beds. Almost 71% of those ICU beds are for adults, with the rest located in neonatal and pediatric units, data from an AHA 2018 survey show.

Since patients with COVID-19 are most often admitted to ICUs with severe hypoxic respiratory failure, the nation’s supply of ventilators also may be tested. U.S. acute care hospitals own about 62,000 full-featured mechanical ventilators and almost 99,000 older ventilators that “may not be capable of adequately supporting patients with severe acute respiratory failure,” Dr. Halpern and Dr. Tan said.

As U.S. hospitals reach the crisis levels anticipated in the COVID-19 pandemic, staffing shortages can be expected as well. Almost half (48%) of acute care hospitals have no intensivists, so “other physicians (e.g., pulmonologists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, etc) may be pressed into service as outpatient clinics and elective surgery are suspended,” they wrote.

The blog post includes a tiered staffing strategy that the SCCM “encourages hospitals to adopt in pandemic situations such as COVID-19.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

As COVID-19 spreads across the United States, it is important to understand the extent of the nation’s ICU resources, according to the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The SCCM has updated its statistics on the resources available to care for what could become “an overwhelming number of critically ill patients, many of whom may require mechanical ventilation,” the society said in a blog post on March 13.

That overwhelming number was considered at an American Hospital Association webinar in February: Investigators projected that 4.8 million patients could be hospitalized with COVID-19, of whom 1.9 million would be admitted to ICUs and 960,000 would require ventilator support, Neil A. Halpern, MD, director of the critical care center at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and Kay See Tan, PhD, of the hospital’s department of epidemiology and biostatistics, reported in that post.

As far as critical care beds are concerned, the United States is in better shape than are other countries dealing with the coronavirus. The United States’ 34.7 critical care beds per 100,000 population put it a good bit ahead of Germany, which has 29.2 beds per 100,000, while other countries in both Europe and Asia are well behind, Dr. Halpern and Dr. Tan noted.

More recent data from the AHA show that just over half of its registered community hospitals deliver ICU services and have at least 10 acute care beds and one ICU bed, they reported.

Those 2,704 hospitals have nearly 535,000 acute care beds, of which almost 97,000 are ICU beds. Almost 71% of those ICU beds are for adults, with the rest located in neonatal and pediatric units, data from an AHA 2018 survey show.

Since patients with COVID-19 are most often admitted to ICUs with severe hypoxic respiratory failure, the nation’s supply of ventilators also may be tested. U.S. acute care hospitals own about 62,000 full-featured mechanical ventilators and almost 99,000 older ventilators that “may not be capable of adequately supporting patients with severe acute respiratory failure,” Dr. Halpern and Dr. Tan said.

As U.S. hospitals reach the crisis levels anticipated in the COVID-19 pandemic, staffing shortages can be expected as well. Almost half (48%) of acute care hospitals have no intensivists, so “other physicians (e.g., pulmonologists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, etc) may be pressed into service as outpatient clinics and elective surgery are suspended,” they wrote.

The blog post includes a tiered staffing strategy that the SCCM “encourages hospitals to adopt in pandemic situations such as COVID-19.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

As COVID-19 spreads across the United States, it is important to understand the extent of the nation’s ICU resources, according to the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The SCCM has updated its statistics on the resources available to care for what could become “an overwhelming number of critically ill patients, many of whom may require mechanical ventilation,” the society said in a blog post on March 13.

That overwhelming number was considered at an American Hospital Association webinar in February: Investigators projected that 4.8 million patients could be hospitalized with COVID-19, of whom 1.9 million would be admitted to ICUs and 960,000 would require ventilator support, Neil A. Halpern, MD, director of the critical care center at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and Kay See Tan, PhD, of the hospital’s department of epidemiology and biostatistics, reported in that post.

As far as critical care beds are concerned, the United States is in better shape than are other countries dealing with the coronavirus. The United States’ 34.7 critical care beds per 100,000 population put it a good bit ahead of Germany, which has 29.2 beds per 100,000, while other countries in both Europe and Asia are well behind, Dr. Halpern and Dr. Tan noted.

More recent data from the AHA show that just over half of its registered community hospitals deliver ICU services and have at least 10 acute care beds and one ICU bed, they reported.

Those 2,704 hospitals have nearly 535,000 acute care beds, of which almost 97,000 are ICU beds. Almost 71% of those ICU beds are for adults, with the rest located in neonatal and pediatric units, data from an AHA 2018 survey show.

Since patients with COVID-19 are most often admitted to ICUs with severe hypoxic respiratory failure, the nation’s supply of ventilators also may be tested. U.S. acute care hospitals own about 62,000 full-featured mechanical ventilators and almost 99,000 older ventilators that “may not be capable of adequately supporting patients with severe acute respiratory failure,” Dr. Halpern and Dr. Tan said.

As U.S. hospitals reach the crisis levels anticipated in the COVID-19 pandemic, staffing shortages can be expected as well. Almost half (48%) of acute care hospitals have no intensivists, so “other physicians (e.g., pulmonologists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, etc) may be pressed into service as outpatient clinics and elective surgery are suspended,” they wrote.

The blog post includes a tiered staffing strategy that the SCCM “encourages hospitals to adopt in pandemic situations such as COVID-19.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria may prevent genetic testing in “a substantial proportion” of women who carry germline pathogenic variants in breast cancer predisposition genes, according to investigators.

They found that, by expanding NCCN criteria to include germline genetic testing for all women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 65 or younger, the sensitivity of testing for nine well-established breast cancer predisposition genes would improve from 70% to more than 90%. The sensitivity for detection of BRCA1 and BRCA2 only would improve from 87% to greater than 98%.

Siddhartha Yadav, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“In a large unselected series of women with breast cancer, we demonstrate that expanding the NCCN testing criteria to include all women diagnosed with breast cancer at or before the age of 65 years has the potential to improve the sensitivity of germline genetic testing without the need for evaluation of all women with breast cancer,” Dr. Yadav and colleagues wrote.

Robert Pilarski, who was vice-chair of the panel that drew up the NCCN guidelines, said in an interview that the guideline authors tried to achieve a balance.

“We’ve known that NCCN misses cases and indications, but it comes down to whether the goal is to test all women with mutations or to have criteria that are a cost-effective and reasonable compromise to capture as many patients as possible,” said Mr. Pilarski, a licensed genetic counselor at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus.

Current NCCN criteria for genetic/familial high-risk assessment for breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer recommend testing for individuals with blood relatives who have known or likely pathogenic variants, as well as patients with breast cancer diagnosed at age 45 or younger, patients aged 46-50 years with unknown or limited family history, patients with a second breast cancer diagnosed at any age, patients with triple-negative breast cancer diagnosed at age 60 or younger, and patients with breast cancer diagnosed at any age if they are of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

But as Dr. Yadav and colleagues note, two recent studies (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 20;37[6]:453-60; Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct;25[10]:2925-31) suggested that up to 50% of germline pathogenic variants could be missed if testing were based solely on NCCN criteria.

Based on these findings, the American Society of Breast Surgeons issued a consensus guideline on genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer (Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Oct;26[10]:3025-31), which states that, “genetic testing should be made available to all patients with a personal history of breast cancer.”

“Without question, if your goal is to identify everyone with a mutation, you’d have to test every cancer patient,” Mr. Pilarski said. “At this point, the ASBrS [American Society of Breast Surgeons] are the only group that have proposed that, and a lot of us feel that’s going too far at this point in time, and so the issue becomes what’s reasonable before that, and I think this paper is a great step forward.”
 

Cutting through the confusion

To see whether tweaking the existing guidelines could help clarify the issues surrounding genetic testing for breast cancer, Dr. Yadav and colleagues looked at a cohort of patients from the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Study. This prospective registry was open to all women evaluated at the Mayo Clinic Rochester for a first diagnosis of invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ from May 2000 through May 2016.

The women were evaluated for germline pathogenic variants in nine breast cancer predisposition genes: ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53.

The researchers found that, of the 3,907 women in the sample, 1,872 (47.9%) would have been recommended for testing under the NCCN criteria, but the remaining 2,035 would not.

Women who met NCCN criteria were significantly more likely to carry a pathogenic variant (9% vs. 3.5%, P less than .001). However, 29.9% of women with pathogenic variants in the nine-gene panel and 13.1% of those with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 did not qualify for testing by NCCN criteria.

The sensitivity of NCCN criteria was 70% for the nine-gene panel and 87% for BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, with a 53% specificity.

But if the criteria were expanded to include all women age 65 years and younger with a breast cancer diagnosis, the sensitivity for the nine-gene panel would increase to 92.1%, and the sensitivity for BRCA1 and BRCA2 only would climb to greater than 98.1%, with a specificity of approximately 22% for each test combination.

The authors acknowledged that they did not assess the cost-effectiveness of the testing criteria.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Authors disclosed relationships with Grail, bioTheranostics, Myriad Genetics, and other companies. Mr. Pilarski reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yadav S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02190

Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria may prevent genetic testing in “a substantial proportion” of women who carry germline pathogenic variants in breast cancer predisposition genes, according to investigators.

They found that, by expanding NCCN criteria to include germline genetic testing for all women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 65 or younger, the sensitivity of testing for nine well-established breast cancer predisposition genes would improve from 70% to more than 90%. The sensitivity for detection of BRCA1 and BRCA2 only would improve from 87% to greater than 98%.

Siddhartha Yadav, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“In a large unselected series of women with breast cancer, we demonstrate that expanding the NCCN testing criteria to include all women diagnosed with breast cancer at or before the age of 65 years has the potential to improve the sensitivity of germline genetic testing without the need for evaluation of all women with breast cancer,” Dr. Yadav and colleagues wrote.

Robert Pilarski, who was vice-chair of the panel that drew up the NCCN guidelines, said in an interview that the guideline authors tried to achieve a balance.

“We’ve known that NCCN misses cases and indications, but it comes down to whether the goal is to test all women with mutations or to have criteria that are a cost-effective and reasonable compromise to capture as many patients as possible,” said Mr. Pilarski, a licensed genetic counselor at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus.

Current NCCN criteria for genetic/familial high-risk assessment for breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer recommend testing for individuals with blood relatives who have known or likely pathogenic variants, as well as patients with breast cancer diagnosed at age 45 or younger, patients aged 46-50 years with unknown or limited family history, patients with a second breast cancer diagnosed at any age, patients with triple-negative breast cancer diagnosed at age 60 or younger, and patients with breast cancer diagnosed at any age if they are of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

But as Dr. Yadav and colleagues note, two recent studies (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 20;37[6]:453-60; Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct;25[10]:2925-31) suggested that up to 50% of germline pathogenic variants could be missed if testing were based solely on NCCN criteria.

Based on these findings, the American Society of Breast Surgeons issued a consensus guideline on genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer (Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Oct;26[10]:3025-31), which states that, “genetic testing should be made available to all patients with a personal history of breast cancer.”

“Without question, if your goal is to identify everyone with a mutation, you’d have to test every cancer patient,” Mr. Pilarski said. “At this point, the ASBrS [American Society of Breast Surgeons] are the only group that have proposed that, and a lot of us feel that’s going too far at this point in time, and so the issue becomes what’s reasonable before that, and I think this paper is a great step forward.”
 

Cutting through the confusion

To see whether tweaking the existing guidelines could help clarify the issues surrounding genetic testing for breast cancer, Dr. Yadav and colleagues looked at a cohort of patients from the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Study. This prospective registry was open to all women evaluated at the Mayo Clinic Rochester for a first diagnosis of invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ from May 2000 through May 2016.

The women were evaluated for germline pathogenic variants in nine breast cancer predisposition genes: ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53.

The researchers found that, of the 3,907 women in the sample, 1,872 (47.9%) would have been recommended for testing under the NCCN criteria, but the remaining 2,035 would not.

Women who met NCCN criteria were significantly more likely to carry a pathogenic variant (9% vs. 3.5%, P less than .001). However, 29.9% of women with pathogenic variants in the nine-gene panel and 13.1% of those with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 did not qualify for testing by NCCN criteria.

The sensitivity of NCCN criteria was 70% for the nine-gene panel and 87% for BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, with a 53% specificity.

But if the criteria were expanded to include all women age 65 years and younger with a breast cancer diagnosis, the sensitivity for the nine-gene panel would increase to 92.1%, and the sensitivity for BRCA1 and BRCA2 only would climb to greater than 98.1%, with a specificity of approximately 22% for each test combination.

The authors acknowledged that they did not assess the cost-effectiveness of the testing criteria.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Authors disclosed relationships with Grail, bioTheranostics, Myriad Genetics, and other companies. Mr. Pilarski reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yadav S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02190

Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria may prevent genetic testing in “a substantial proportion” of women who carry germline pathogenic variants in breast cancer predisposition genes, according to investigators.

They found that, by expanding NCCN criteria to include germline genetic testing for all women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 65 or younger, the sensitivity of testing for nine well-established breast cancer predisposition genes would improve from 70% to more than 90%. The sensitivity for detection of BRCA1 and BRCA2 only would improve from 87% to greater than 98%.

Siddhartha Yadav, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“In a large unselected series of women with breast cancer, we demonstrate that expanding the NCCN testing criteria to include all women diagnosed with breast cancer at or before the age of 65 years has the potential to improve the sensitivity of germline genetic testing without the need for evaluation of all women with breast cancer,” Dr. Yadav and colleagues wrote.

Robert Pilarski, who was vice-chair of the panel that drew up the NCCN guidelines, said in an interview that the guideline authors tried to achieve a balance.

“We’ve known that NCCN misses cases and indications, but it comes down to whether the goal is to test all women with mutations or to have criteria that are a cost-effective and reasonable compromise to capture as many patients as possible,” said Mr. Pilarski, a licensed genetic counselor at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus.

Current NCCN criteria for genetic/familial high-risk assessment for breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer recommend testing for individuals with blood relatives who have known or likely pathogenic variants, as well as patients with breast cancer diagnosed at age 45 or younger, patients aged 46-50 years with unknown or limited family history, patients with a second breast cancer diagnosed at any age, patients with triple-negative breast cancer diagnosed at age 60 or younger, and patients with breast cancer diagnosed at any age if they are of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

But as Dr. Yadav and colleagues note, two recent studies (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 20;37[6]:453-60; Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct;25[10]:2925-31) suggested that up to 50% of germline pathogenic variants could be missed if testing were based solely on NCCN criteria.

Based on these findings, the American Society of Breast Surgeons issued a consensus guideline on genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer (Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Oct;26[10]:3025-31), which states that, “genetic testing should be made available to all patients with a personal history of breast cancer.”

“Without question, if your goal is to identify everyone with a mutation, you’d have to test every cancer patient,” Mr. Pilarski said. “At this point, the ASBrS [American Society of Breast Surgeons] are the only group that have proposed that, and a lot of us feel that’s going too far at this point in time, and so the issue becomes what’s reasonable before that, and I think this paper is a great step forward.”
 

Cutting through the confusion

To see whether tweaking the existing guidelines could help clarify the issues surrounding genetic testing for breast cancer, Dr. Yadav and colleagues looked at a cohort of patients from the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Study. This prospective registry was open to all women evaluated at the Mayo Clinic Rochester for a first diagnosis of invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ from May 2000 through May 2016.

The women were evaluated for germline pathogenic variants in nine breast cancer predisposition genes: ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53.

The researchers found that, of the 3,907 women in the sample, 1,872 (47.9%) would have been recommended for testing under the NCCN criteria, but the remaining 2,035 would not.

Women who met NCCN criteria were significantly more likely to carry a pathogenic variant (9% vs. 3.5%, P less than .001). However, 29.9% of women with pathogenic variants in the nine-gene panel and 13.1% of those with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 did not qualify for testing by NCCN criteria.

The sensitivity of NCCN criteria was 70% for the nine-gene panel and 87% for BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, with a 53% specificity.

But if the criteria were expanded to include all women age 65 years and younger with a breast cancer diagnosis, the sensitivity for the nine-gene panel would increase to 92.1%, and the sensitivity for BRCA1 and BRCA2 only would climb to greater than 98.1%, with a specificity of approximately 22% for each test combination.

The authors acknowledged that they did not assess the cost-effectiveness of the testing criteria.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Authors disclosed relationships with Grail, bioTheranostics, Myriad Genetics, and other companies. Mr. Pilarski reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yadav S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02190

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis have a significantly lower likelihood of achieving improvement in disease activity or remission when their dose of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy is reduced, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of six trials that included 747 adults.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) “have shown significant sustained clinical improvement in axSpA and are introduced in patients with axial disease or as the next line of treatment after inadequate response to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” but this improvement comes with a degree of immunosuppression that can increase infection risk, wrote Daeria O. Lawson of Toronto Western Hospital and colleagues. However, the impact of reducing or discontinuing TNFi therapy, compared with standard dosing, has not been well examined, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified six randomized, controlled trials with a total of 747 adults. Overall, patients on a reduced dose had a lower likelihood of achieving 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society response criteria (ASAS40) or ASAS partial remission, compared with those on a standard TNFi dose (risk ratios, 0.62 and 0.17, respectively).

In addition, the mean increase in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score was 0.35 for patients on reduced TNFi therapy, and no differences were seen in C-reactive protein levels, infection rates, or injection/infusion reactions in patients on a reduced dose, compared with those on the standard dose.

Patients on the reduced TNFi dose also had more disease flares and/or relapses, compared with the standard group (risk ratio, 1.73).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to compare subgroups based on dosing regimens, potential blinding and selection bias, and inadequate data to assess certain patient outcomes, including maintenance of disease remission and quality of life, the researchers noted. The results confirm findings from previous studies and support the benefit of standard dosing for maintaining stable disease, they said.

However, more research is needed to identify patients who may be more responsive to TNFi reduction, they wrote. “Although treatment recommendations for the best dose reduction strategies cannot be made at this time given the heterogeneity in tapering strategies reported in the literature, this decision should be an individualized one between the patient and their physician,” the researchers emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Lawson is supported in part by the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network Student Training Program.

SOURCE: Lawson DO et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1002/ACR.24184.

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis have a significantly lower likelihood of achieving improvement in disease activity or remission when their dose of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy is reduced, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of six trials that included 747 adults.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) “have shown significant sustained clinical improvement in axSpA and are introduced in patients with axial disease or as the next line of treatment after inadequate response to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” but this improvement comes with a degree of immunosuppression that can increase infection risk, wrote Daeria O. Lawson of Toronto Western Hospital and colleagues. However, the impact of reducing or discontinuing TNFi therapy, compared with standard dosing, has not been well examined, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified six randomized, controlled trials with a total of 747 adults. Overall, patients on a reduced dose had a lower likelihood of achieving 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society response criteria (ASAS40) or ASAS partial remission, compared with those on a standard TNFi dose (risk ratios, 0.62 and 0.17, respectively).

In addition, the mean increase in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score was 0.35 for patients on reduced TNFi therapy, and no differences were seen in C-reactive protein levels, infection rates, or injection/infusion reactions in patients on a reduced dose, compared with those on the standard dose.

Patients on the reduced TNFi dose also had more disease flares and/or relapses, compared with the standard group (risk ratio, 1.73).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to compare subgroups based on dosing regimens, potential blinding and selection bias, and inadequate data to assess certain patient outcomes, including maintenance of disease remission and quality of life, the researchers noted. The results confirm findings from previous studies and support the benefit of standard dosing for maintaining stable disease, they said.

However, more research is needed to identify patients who may be more responsive to TNFi reduction, they wrote. “Although treatment recommendations for the best dose reduction strategies cannot be made at this time given the heterogeneity in tapering strategies reported in the literature, this decision should be an individualized one between the patient and their physician,” the researchers emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Lawson is supported in part by the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network Student Training Program.

SOURCE: Lawson DO et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1002/ACR.24184.

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis have a significantly lower likelihood of achieving improvement in disease activity or remission when their dose of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy is reduced, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of six trials that included 747 adults.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) “have shown significant sustained clinical improvement in axSpA and are introduced in patients with axial disease or as the next line of treatment after inadequate response to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” but this improvement comes with a degree of immunosuppression that can increase infection risk, wrote Daeria O. Lawson of Toronto Western Hospital and colleagues. However, the impact of reducing or discontinuing TNFi therapy, compared with standard dosing, has not been well examined, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified six randomized, controlled trials with a total of 747 adults. Overall, patients on a reduced dose had a lower likelihood of achieving 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society response criteria (ASAS40) or ASAS partial remission, compared with those on a standard TNFi dose (risk ratios, 0.62 and 0.17, respectively).

In addition, the mean increase in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score was 0.35 for patients on reduced TNFi therapy, and no differences were seen in C-reactive protein levels, infection rates, or injection/infusion reactions in patients on a reduced dose, compared with those on the standard dose.

Patients on the reduced TNFi dose also had more disease flares and/or relapses, compared with the standard group (risk ratio, 1.73).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to compare subgroups based on dosing regimens, potential blinding and selection bias, and inadequate data to assess certain patient outcomes, including maintenance of disease remission and quality of life, the researchers noted. The results confirm findings from previous studies and support the benefit of standard dosing for maintaining stable disease, they said.

However, more research is needed to identify patients who may be more responsive to TNFi reduction, they wrote. “Although treatment recommendations for the best dose reduction strategies cannot be made at this time given the heterogeneity in tapering strategies reported in the literature, this decision should be an individualized one between the patient and their physician,” the researchers emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Lawson is supported in part by the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network Student Training Program.

SOURCE: Lawson DO et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1002/ACR.24184.

A novel coronavirus, the causative agent of the current pandemic of viral respiratory illness and pneumonia, was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China. The disease has been given the name, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The virus at last report has spread to more than 100 countries. Much of what we suspect about this virus comes from work on other severe coronavirus respiratory disease outbreaks – Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). MERS-CoV was a viral respiratory disease, first reported in Saudi Arabia, that was identified in more than 27 additional countries. The disease was characterized by severe acute respiratory illness, including fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Among 2,499 cases, only two patients tested positive for MERS-CoV in the United States. SARS-CoV also caused a severe viral respiratory illness. SARS was first recognized in Asia in 2003 and was subsequently reported in approximately 25 countries. The last case reported was in 2004.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

As of March 13, there are 137,066 cases worldwide of COVID-19 and 1,701 in the United States, according to the John Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 resource center.
 

What about children?

The remarkable observation is how few seriously ill children have been identified in the face of global spread. Unlike the H1N1 influenza epidemic of 2009, where older adults were relatively spared and children were a major target population, COVID-19 appears to be relatively infrequent in children or too mild to come to diagnosis, to date. Specifically, among China’s first approximately 44,000 cases, less than 2% were identified in children less than 20 years of age, and severe disease was uncommon with no deaths in children less than 10 years of age reported. One child, 13 months of age, with acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock was reported in China. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webcast , children present with fever in about 50% of cases, cough, fatigue, and subsequently some (3%-30%) progress to shortness of breath. Some children and adults have presented with gastrointestinal disease initially. Viral RNA has been detected in respiratory secretions, blood, and stool of affected children; however, the samples were not cultured for virus so whether stool is a potential source for transmission is unclear. In adults, the disease appears to be most severe – with development of pneumonia – in the second week of illness. In both children and adults, the chest x-ray findings are an interstitial pneumonitis, ground glass appearance, and/or patchy infiltrates.

Are some children at greater risk? Are children the source of community transmission? Will children become a greater part of the disease pattern as further cases are identified and further testing is available? We cannot answer many of these questions about COVID-19 in children as yet, but as you are aware, data are accumulating daily, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health are providing regular updates.

A report from China gave us some idea about community transmission and infection risk for children. The Shenzhen CDC identified 391 COVID-19 cases and 1,286 close contacts. Household contacts and those persons traveling with a case of the virus were at highest risk of acquisition. The secondary attack rates within households was 15%; children were as likely to become infected as adults (medRxiv preprint. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.03.20028423).
 

What about pregnant women?

The data on pregnant women are even more limited. The concern about COVID-19 during pregnancy comes from our knowledge of adverse outcomes from other respiratory viral infections. For example, respiratory viral infections such as influenza have been associated with increased maternal risk of severe disease, and adverse neonatal outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm birth. The experience with SARS also is concerning for excess adverse maternal and neonatal complications such as spontaneous miscarriage, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, admission to the ICU, renal failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy all were reported as complications of SARS infection during pregnancy.

Two studies on COVID-19 in pregnancy have been reported to date. In nine pregnant women reported by Chen et al., COVID-19 pneumonia was identified in the third trimester. The women presented with fever, cough, myalgia, sore throat, and/or malaise. Fetal distress was reported in two; all nine infants were born alive. Apgar scores were 8-10 at 1 minute. Five were found to have lymphopenia; three had increases in hepatic enzymes. None of the infants developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Amniotic fluid, cord blood, neonatal throat swab, and breast milk samples from six of the nine patients were tested for the novel coronavirus 2019, and all results were negative (Lancet. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]30360-3)https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30360-3/fulltext.

In a study by Zhu et al., nine pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 infection were identified during Jan. 20-Feb. 5, 2020. The onset of clinical symptoms in these women occurred before delivery in four cases, on the day of delivery in two cases, and after delivery in three cases. Of the 10 neonates (one set of twins) many had clinical symptoms, but none were proven to be COVID-19 positive in their pharyngeal swabs. Shortness of breath was observed in six, fever in two, tachycardia in one. GI symptoms such as feeding intolerance, bloating, GI bleed, and vomiting also were observed. Chest radiography showed abnormalities in seven neonates at admission. Thrombocytopenia and/or disseminated intravascular coagulopathy also was reported. Five neonates recovered and were discharged, one died, and four neonates remained in hospital in a stable condition. It is unclear if the illness in these infants was related to COVID-19 (Transl Pediatrics. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.21037/tp.2020.02.06)http://tp.amegroups.com/article/view/35919/28274.

In the limited experience to date, no evidence of virus has been found in the breast milk of women with COVID-19, which is consistent with the SARS experience. Current recommendations are to separate the infant from known COVID-19 infected mothers either in a different room or in the mother’s room using a six foot rule, a barrier curtain of some type, and mask and hand washing prior to any contact between mother and infant. If the mother desires to breastfeed her child, the same precautions – mask and hand washing – should be in place.
 

What about treatment?

There are no proven effective therapies and supportive care has been the mainstay to date. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been initiated both by Gilead (compassionate use, open label) and by the National Institutes of Health (randomized remdesivirhttps://www.drugs.com/history/remdesivir.html vs. placebo) in adults based on in vitro data suggesting activity again COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir (combination protease inhibitors) also have been administered off label, but no results are available as yet.

Keeping up

I suggest several valuable resources to keep yourself abreast of the rapidly changing COVID-19 story. First the CDC website or your local Department of Health. These are being updated frequently and include advisories on personal protective equipment, clusters of cases in your local community, and current recommendations for mitigation of the epidemic. I have listened to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Robert R. Redfield, MD, the director of the CDC almost daily. I trust their viewpoints and transparency about what is and what is not known, as well as the why and wherefore of their guidance, remembering that each day brings new information and new guidance.

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A novel coronavirus, the causative agent of the current pandemic of viral respiratory illness and pneumonia, was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China. The disease has been given the name, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The virus at last report has spread to more than 100 countries. Much of what we suspect about this virus comes from work on other severe coronavirus respiratory disease outbreaks – Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). MERS-CoV was a viral respiratory disease, first reported in Saudi Arabia, that was identified in more than 27 additional countries. The disease was characterized by severe acute respiratory illness, including fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Among 2,499 cases, only two patients tested positive for MERS-CoV in the United States. SARS-CoV also caused a severe viral respiratory illness. SARS was first recognized in Asia in 2003 and was subsequently reported in approximately 25 countries. The last case reported was in 2004.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

As of March 13, there are 137,066 cases worldwide of COVID-19 and 1,701 in the United States, according to the John Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 resource center.
 

What about children?

The remarkable observation is how few seriously ill children have been identified in the face of global spread. Unlike the H1N1 influenza epidemic of 2009, where older adults were relatively spared and children were a major target population, COVID-19 appears to be relatively infrequent in children or too mild to come to diagnosis, to date. Specifically, among China’s first approximately 44,000 cases, less than 2% were identified in children less than 20 years of age, and severe disease was uncommon with no deaths in children less than 10 years of age reported. One child, 13 months of age, with acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock was reported in China. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webcast , children present with fever in about 50% of cases, cough, fatigue, and subsequently some (3%-30%) progress to shortness of breath. Some children and adults have presented with gastrointestinal disease initially. Viral RNA has been detected in respiratory secretions, blood, and stool of affected children; however, the samples were not cultured for virus so whether stool is a potential source for transmission is unclear. In adults, the disease appears to be most severe – with development of pneumonia – in the second week of illness. In both children and adults, the chest x-ray findings are an interstitial pneumonitis, ground glass appearance, and/or patchy infiltrates.

Are some children at greater risk? Are children the source of community transmission? Will children become a greater part of the disease pattern as further cases are identified and further testing is available? We cannot answer many of these questions about COVID-19 in children as yet, but as you are aware, data are accumulating daily, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health are providing regular updates.

A report from China gave us some idea about community transmission and infection risk for children. The Shenzhen CDC identified 391 COVID-19 cases and 1,286 close contacts. Household contacts and those persons traveling with a case of the virus were at highest risk of acquisition. The secondary attack rates within households was 15%; children were as likely to become infected as adults (medRxiv preprint. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.03.20028423).
 

What about pregnant women?

The data on pregnant women are even more limited. The concern about COVID-19 during pregnancy comes from our knowledge of adverse outcomes from other respiratory viral infections. For example, respiratory viral infections such as influenza have been associated with increased maternal risk of severe disease, and adverse neonatal outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm birth. The experience with SARS also is concerning for excess adverse maternal and neonatal complications such as spontaneous miscarriage, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, admission to the ICU, renal failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy all were reported as complications of SARS infection during pregnancy.

Two studies on COVID-19 in pregnancy have been reported to date. In nine pregnant women reported by Chen et al., COVID-19 pneumonia was identified in the third trimester. The women presented with fever, cough, myalgia, sore throat, and/or malaise. Fetal distress was reported in two; all nine infants were born alive. Apgar scores were 8-10 at 1 minute. Five were found to have lymphopenia; three had increases in hepatic enzymes. None of the infants developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Amniotic fluid, cord blood, neonatal throat swab, and breast milk samples from six of the nine patients were tested for the novel coronavirus 2019, and all results were negative (Lancet. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]30360-3)https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30360-3/fulltext.

In a study by Zhu et al., nine pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 infection were identified during Jan. 20-Feb. 5, 2020. The onset of clinical symptoms in these women occurred before delivery in four cases, on the day of delivery in two cases, and after delivery in three cases. Of the 10 neonates (one set of twins) many had clinical symptoms, but none were proven to be COVID-19 positive in their pharyngeal swabs. Shortness of breath was observed in six, fever in two, tachycardia in one. GI symptoms such as feeding intolerance, bloating, GI bleed, and vomiting also were observed. Chest radiography showed abnormalities in seven neonates at admission. Thrombocytopenia and/or disseminated intravascular coagulopathy also was reported. Five neonates recovered and were discharged, one died, and four neonates remained in hospital in a stable condition. It is unclear if the illness in these infants was related to COVID-19 (Transl Pediatrics. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.21037/tp.2020.02.06)http://tp.amegroups.com/article/view/35919/28274.

In the limited experience to date, no evidence of virus has been found in the breast milk of women with COVID-19, which is consistent with the SARS experience. Current recommendations are to separate the infant from known COVID-19 infected mothers either in a different room or in the mother’s room using a six foot rule, a barrier curtain of some type, and mask and hand washing prior to any contact between mother and infant. If the mother desires to breastfeed her child, the same precautions – mask and hand washing – should be in place.
 

What about treatment?

There are no proven effective therapies and supportive care has been the mainstay to date. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been initiated both by Gilead (compassionate use, open label) and by the National Institutes of Health (randomized remdesivirhttps://www.drugs.com/history/remdesivir.html vs. placebo) in adults based on in vitro data suggesting activity again COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir (combination protease inhibitors) also have been administered off label, but no results are available as yet.

Keeping up

I suggest several valuable resources to keep yourself abreast of the rapidly changing COVID-19 story. First the CDC website or your local Department of Health. These are being updated frequently and include advisories on personal protective equipment, clusters of cases in your local community, and current recommendations for mitigation of the epidemic. I have listened to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Robert R. Redfield, MD, the director of the CDC almost daily. I trust their viewpoints and transparency about what is and what is not known, as well as the why and wherefore of their guidance, remembering that each day brings new information and new guidance.

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A novel coronavirus, the causative agent of the current pandemic of viral respiratory illness and pneumonia, was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China. The disease has been given the name, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The virus at last report has spread to more than 100 countries. Much of what we suspect about this virus comes from work on other severe coronavirus respiratory disease outbreaks – Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). MERS-CoV was a viral respiratory disease, first reported in Saudi Arabia, that was identified in more than 27 additional countries. The disease was characterized by severe acute respiratory illness, including fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Among 2,499 cases, only two patients tested positive for MERS-CoV in the United States. SARS-CoV also caused a severe viral respiratory illness. SARS was first recognized in Asia in 2003 and was subsequently reported in approximately 25 countries. The last case reported was in 2004.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

As of March 13, there are 137,066 cases worldwide of COVID-19 and 1,701 in the United States, according to the John Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 resource center.
 

What about children?

The remarkable observation is how few seriously ill children have been identified in the face of global spread. Unlike the H1N1 influenza epidemic of 2009, where older adults were relatively spared and children were a major target population, COVID-19 appears to be relatively infrequent in children or too mild to come to diagnosis, to date. Specifically, among China’s first approximately 44,000 cases, less than 2% were identified in children less than 20 years of age, and severe disease was uncommon with no deaths in children less than 10 years of age reported. One child, 13 months of age, with acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock was reported in China. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webcast , children present with fever in about 50% of cases, cough, fatigue, and subsequently some (3%-30%) progress to shortness of breath. Some children and adults have presented with gastrointestinal disease initially. Viral RNA has been detected in respiratory secretions, blood, and stool of affected children; however, the samples were not cultured for virus so whether stool is a potential source for transmission is unclear. In adults, the disease appears to be most severe – with development of pneumonia – in the second week of illness. In both children and adults, the chest x-ray findings are an interstitial pneumonitis, ground glass appearance, and/or patchy infiltrates.

Are some children at greater risk? Are children the source of community transmission? Will children become a greater part of the disease pattern as further cases are identified and further testing is available? We cannot answer many of these questions about COVID-19 in children as yet, but as you are aware, data are accumulating daily, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health are providing regular updates.

A report from China gave us some idea about community transmission and infection risk for children. The Shenzhen CDC identified 391 COVID-19 cases and 1,286 close contacts. Household contacts and those persons traveling with a case of the virus were at highest risk of acquisition. The secondary attack rates within households was 15%; children were as likely to become infected as adults (medRxiv preprint. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.03.20028423).
 

What about pregnant women?

The data on pregnant women are even more limited. The concern about COVID-19 during pregnancy comes from our knowledge of adverse outcomes from other respiratory viral infections. For example, respiratory viral infections such as influenza have been associated with increased maternal risk of severe disease, and adverse neonatal outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm birth. The experience with SARS also is concerning for excess adverse maternal and neonatal complications such as spontaneous miscarriage, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, admission to the ICU, renal failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy all were reported as complications of SARS infection during pregnancy.

Two studies on COVID-19 in pregnancy have been reported to date. In nine pregnant women reported by Chen et al., COVID-19 pneumonia was identified in the third trimester. The women presented with fever, cough, myalgia, sore throat, and/or malaise. Fetal distress was reported in two; all nine infants were born alive. Apgar scores were 8-10 at 1 minute. Five were found to have lymphopenia; three had increases in hepatic enzymes. None of the infants developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Amniotic fluid, cord blood, neonatal throat swab, and breast milk samples from six of the nine patients were tested for the novel coronavirus 2019, and all results were negative (Lancet. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]30360-3)https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30360-3/fulltext.

In a study by Zhu et al., nine pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 infection were identified during Jan. 20-Feb. 5, 2020. The onset of clinical symptoms in these women occurred before delivery in four cases, on the day of delivery in two cases, and after delivery in three cases. Of the 10 neonates (one set of twins) many had clinical symptoms, but none were proven to be COVID-19 positive in their pharyngeal swabs. Shortness of breath was observed in six, fever in two, tachycardia in one. GI symptoms such as feeding intolerance, bloating, GI bleed, and vomiting also were observed. Chest radiography showed abnormalities in seven neonates at admission. Thrombocytopenia and/or disseminated intravascular coagulopathy also was reported. Five neonates recovered and were discharged, one died, and four neonates remained in hospital in a stable condition. It is unclear if the illness in these infants was related to COVID-19 (Transl Pediatrics. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.21037/tp.2020.02.06)http://tp.amegroups.com/article/view/35919/28274.

In the limited experience to date, no evidence of virus has been found in the breast milk of women with COVID-19, which is consistent with the SARS experience. Current recommendations are to separate the infant from known COVID-19 infected mothers either in a different room or in the mother’s room using a six foot rule, a barrier curtain of some type, and mask and hand washing prior to any contact between mother and infant. If the mother desires to breastfeed her child, the same precautions – mask and hand washing – should be in place.
 

What about treatment?

There are no proven effective therapies and supportive care has been the mainstay to date. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been initiated both by Gilead (compassionate use, open label) and by the National Institutes of Health (randomized remdesivirhttps://www.drugs.com/history/remdesivir.html vs. placebo) in adults based on in vitro data suggesting activity again COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir (combination protease inhibitors) also have been administered off label, but no results are available as yet.

Keeping up

I suggest several valuable resources to keep yourself abreast of the rapidly changing COVID-19 story. First the CDC website or your local Department of Health. These are being updated frequently and include advisories on personal protective equipment, clusters of cases in your local community, and current recommendations for mitigation of the epidemic. I have listened to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Robert R. Redfield, MD, the director of the CDC almost daily. I trust their viewpoints and transparency about what is and what is not known, as well as the why and wherefore of their guidance, remembering that each day brings new information and new guidance.

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Clinical question: What were the clinical characteristics of children in Wuhan, China hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2?

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was recently described by researchers in Wuhan, China.¹ However, there has been limited discussion on how the disease has affected children. Based on the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention report, Wu et al. found that 1% of the affected population was less than 10 years, and another 1% of the affected population was 10-19 years.² However, little information regarding hospitalizations of children with viral infections was previously reported.

Study design: A retrospective analysis of hospitalized children.

Setting: Three sites of a multisite urban teaching hospital in central Wuhan, China.

Synopsis: Over an 8-day period, hospitalized pediatric patients were retrospectively enrolled into this study. The authors defined pediatric patients as those aged 16 years or younger. The patients had one throat swab specimen collected on admission. Throat swab specimens were tested for viral etiologies. In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, the throat samples were retrospectively tested for SARS-CoV-2. If two independent experiments and a clinically verified diagnostic test confirmed the SARS-CoV-2, the cases were confirmed as COVID-19 cases. During the 8-day period, 366 hospitalized pediatric patients were included in the study. Of the 366 patients, 6 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, while 23 tested positive for influenza A and 20 tested positive for influenza B. The median age of the six patients was 3 years (range, 1-7 years), and all were previously healthy. All six pediatric patients with COVID-19 had high fevers (greater than 39°C), cough, and lymphopenia. Four of the six affected patients had vomiting and leukopenia, while three of the six patients had neutropenia. Four of the six affected patients had pneumonia, as diagnosed on CT scans. Of the six patients, one patient was admitted to the ICU and received intravenous immunoglobulin. The patient admitted to ICU underwent a CT scan which showed “patchy ground-glass opacities in both lungs,” while three of the five children requiring non-ICU hospitalization had chest radiographs showing “patchy shadows in both lungs.” The median length of stay in the hospital was 7.5 days (range, 5-13 days).

Bottom line: COVID-19 causes moderate to severe respiratory illness in pediatric patients with SARS-CoV-2, possibly leading to critical illness. During this time period of the Wuhan COVID-19 outbreak, pediatric patients were more likely to be hospitalized with influenza A or B, than they were with SARS-CoV-2.

Citation: Liu W et al. Detection of Covid-19 in Children in Early January 2020 in Wuhan, China. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2003717.

Dr. Kumar is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of the Hospitalist.

References

1. Zhu N et al. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:727-33.

2. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: Summary of a report of 72,314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020 Feb 24 (Epub ahead of print).


From the Hospitalist editors: The pediatrics “In the Literature” series generally focuses on original articles. However, given the urgency to learn more about SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic and the limited literature about hospitalized pediatric patients with the disease, the editors of the Hospitalist thought it was appropriate to share an article reviewing this letter that was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Clinical question: What were the clinical characteristics of children in Wuhan, China hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2?

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was recently described by researchers in Wuhan, China.¹ However, there has been limited discussion on how the disease has affected children. Based on the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention report, Wu et al. found that 1% of the affected population was less than 10 years, and another 1% of the affected population was 10-19 years.² However, little information regarding hospitalizations of children with viral infections was previously reported.

Study design: A retrospective analysis of hospitalized children.

Setting: Three sites of a multisite urban teaching hospital in central Wuhan, China.

Synopsis: Over an 8-day period, hospitalized pediatric patients were retrospectively enrolled into this study. The authors defined pediatric patients as those aged 16 years or younger. The patients had one throat swab specimen collected on admission. Throat swab specimens were tested for viral etiologies. In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, the throat samples were retrospectively tested for SARS-CoV-2. If two independent experiments and a clinically verified diagnostic test confirmed the SARS-CoV-2, the cases were confirmed as COVID-19 cases. During the 8-day period, 366 hospitalized pediatric patients were included in the study. Of the 366 patients, 6 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, while 23 tested positive for influenza A and 20 tested positive for influenza B. The median age of the six patients was 3 years (range, 1-7 years), and all were previously healthy. All six pediatric patients with COVID-19 had high fevers (greater than 39°C), cough, and lymphopenia. Four of the six affected patients had vomiting and leukopenia, while three of the six patients had neutropenia. Four of the six affected patients had pneumonia, as diagnosed on CT scans. Of the six patients, one patient was admitted to the ICU and received intravenous immunoglobulin. The patient admitted to ICU underwent a CT scan which showed “patchy ground-glass opacities in both lungs,” while three of the five children requiring non-ICU hospitalization had chest radiographs showing “patchy shadows in both lungs.” The median length of stay in the hospital was 7.5 days (range, 5-13 days).

Bottom line: COVID-19 causes moderate to severe respiratory illness in pediatric patients with SARS-CoV-2, possibly leading to critical illness. During this time period of the Wuhan COVID-19 outbreak, pediatric patients were more likely to be hospitalized with influenza A or B, than they were with SARS-CoV-2.

Citation: Liu W et al. Detection of Covid-19 in Children in Early January 2020 in Wuhan, China. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2003717.

Dr. Kumar is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of the Hospitalist.

References

1. Zhu N et al. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:727-33.

2. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: Summary of a report of 72,314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020 Feb 24 (Epub ahead of print).


From the Hospitalist editors: The pediatrics “In the Literature” series generally focuses on original articles. However, given the urgency to learn more about SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic and the limited literature about hospitalized pediatric patients with the disease, the editors of the Hospitalist thought it was appropriate to share an article reviewing this letter that was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Clinical question: What were the clinical characteristics of children in Wuhan, China hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2?

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was recently described by researchers in Wuhan, China.¹ However, there has been limited discussion on how the disease has affected children. Based on the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention report, Wu et al. found that 1% of the affected population was less than 10 years, and another 1% of the affected population was 10-19 years.² However, little information regarding hospitalizations of children with viral infections was previously reported.

Study design: A retrospective analysis of hospitalized children.

Setting: Three sites of a multisite urban teaching hospital in central Wuhan, China.

Synopsis: Over an 8-day period, hospitalized pediatric patients were retrospectively enrolled into this study. The authors defined pediatric patients as those aged 16 years or younger. The patients had one throat swab specimen collected on admission. Throat swab specimens were tested for viral etiologies. In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, the throat samples were retrospectively tested for SARS-CoV-2. If two independent experiments and a clinically verified diagnostic test confirmed the SARS-CoV-2, the cases were confirmed as COVID-19 cases. During the 8-day period, 366 hospitalized pediatric patients were included in the study. Of the 366 patients, 6 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, while 23 tested positive for influenza A and 20 tested positive for influenza B. The median age of the six patients was 3 years (range, 1-7 years), and all were previously healthy. All six pediatric patients with COVID-19 had high fevers (greater than 39°C), cough, and lymphopenia. Four of the six affected patients had vomiting and leukopenia, while three of the six patients had neutropenia. Four of the six affected patients had pneumonia, as diagnosed on CT scans. Of the six patients, one patient was admitted to the ICU and received intravenous immunoglobulin. The patient admitted to ICU underwent a CT scan which showed “patchy ground-glass opacities in both lungs,” while three of the five children requiring non-ICU hospitalization had chest radiographs showing “patchy shadows in both lungs.” The median length of stay in the hospital was 7.5 days (range, 5-13 days).

Bottom line: COVID-19 causes moderate to severe respiratory illness in pediatric patients with SARS-CoV-2, possibly leading to critical illness. During this time period of the Wuhan COVID-19 outbreak, pediatric patients were more likely to be hospitalized with influenza A or B, than they were with SARS-CoV-2.

Citation: Liu W et al. Detection of Covid-19 in Children in Early January 2020 in Wuhan, China. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2003717.

Dr. Kumar is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of the Hospitalist.

References

1. Zhu N et al. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:727-33.

2. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: Summary of a report of 72,314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020 Feb 24 (Epub ahead of print).


From the Hospitalist editors: The pediatrics “In the Literature” series generally focuses on original articles. However, given the urgency to learn more about SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic and the limited literature about hospitalized pediatric patients with the disease, the editors of the Hospitalist thought it was appropriate to share an article reviewing this letter that was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine.